At 02:24 PM 3/21/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
<http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/acs-fm030810.php>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/acs-fm030810.php
Now I'm seriously regretting not attending the conference. I'd thought I might, I have kids who live in Marin County....
My take and hopes about the presentations:
Michael McKubre, Ph.D., of SRI International in Menlo Park, Calif., provides an overview of cold fusion research. McKubre will discuss current knowledge in the field and explain why some doubts exist in the broader scientific community. He will also discuss recent experimental work performed at SRI. McKubre will focus on fusion, heat production and nuclear products. [3pm, Monday March 22, Cyril Magnin ]
Mckubre has build up a huge corpus of solid work. Much of it has been with Fleischmann cells and careful calorimetry, which, my guess, is not where major new advances will come, I'm suspecting that the Energetic Technologies approach is a dead end as far as energy production is concerned. But I'd love to be wrong.
George Miley, Ph.D., reports on progress toward a new type of battery that works through a new cold fusion process and has a longer life than conventional batteries. The battery consists of a special type of electrolytic cell that operates at low temperature. The process involves purposely creating defects in the metal electrode of the cell. Miley is a professor at the University of Illinois in Urbana and director of its Fusion Studies Lab. [11am, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I]
Now, can they make these batteries, are they reliable? The comment actually says "progress toward," it doesn't announce the battery. Exciting work, I'm sure, and Miley has done some great stuff. But we need more than promises of future technology. Even a small, impractical battery that demonstrates a clear nuclear effect would be of great importance right now.
Melvin Miles, Ph.D., describes development of the first inexpensive instrument for reliably identifying the hallmark of cold fusion reactions: Production of excess heat from tabletop fusion devices now in use. Current "calorimeters," devices that measure excess heat, tend to be too complicated and inefficient for reliable use. The new calorimeter could boost the quality of research and open the field to scores of new scientists in university, government, and private labs, Miles suggests. He is with Dixie State College in St. George, Utah. [2.30pm, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I]
A low-cost but sufficiently reliable and accurate calorimeter is of personal interest. I've been shying away from considering calorimetry. I'm going to be very interested in this work.
Vladimir Vysotskii, Ph.D., presents surprising experimental evidence that bacteria can undergo a type of cold fusion process and could be used to dispose of nuclear waste. He will describe studies of nuclear transmutation the transformation of one element into another of stable and radioactive isotopes in biological systems. Vysotskii is a scientist with Kiev National Shevchenko University in Kiev, Ukraine. [11.20am, Monday March 22, Cyril Magnin I].
Vyosotskii has done some stunning work, which, if confirmed, would open up a whole new field in a new way: biological transmutation. Some of his work is quite simple, and it should be possible to replicate (or disconfirm). I see no sign that anyone is attempting this, which is unfortunate. You'd think some biology grad students somewhere would realize the possibilities. But if cold fusion gets normal particle physicists into a tizzy, I suspect that biological transmutation does somewhat the same with many cold fusion supporters.
However, if a metal lattice can do it, a protein might be able to do it as well. Maybe even better. Don't know what Vyosotskii is reporting here, but he did prior work with deinococcus radiodurans, one very remarkable bacterium, extraordinarily resistant to radiation. Why would that be an advantage, such that it would be worth all the necessary redundancy in the genetic code? Perhaps because it routinely generates, from trace deuterium, nuclear reactions within the cell? Perhaps. The proof is in the pudding, in the actual experimental work, and in replication.
Tadahiko Mizuno, Ph.D., discusses an unconventional cold fusion device that uses phenanthrene, a substance found in coal and oil, as a reactant. He reports on excess heat production and gamma radiation production from the device. "Overall heat production exceeded any conceivable chemical reaction by two orders of magnitude," Mizuno noted. He is with Hokkaido University in Japan, and wrote the book Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion. [3pm, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I]
Mizuno is a pioneer. I'd have loved to have seen him.
Peter Hagelstein, Ph.D., describes new theoretical models to help explain excess heat production in cold fusion, one of the most controversial aspects of the field. He notes that in a nuclear reaction, one would expect that the energy produced would appear as kinetic energy in the products, but in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment there do not appear energetic particles in amounts consistent with the energy observed. His simple models help explain the observed energy changes, including the type and quantity of energy produced. Hagelstein is with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [10.20am, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I].
I've been less than impressed by Hagelstein's theoretical work, but I'd still have liked to see him explain it personally. Has he broadened his horizons?
Xing Zhong Li, Ph.D., presents research demonstrating that cold fusion can occur without the production of strong nuclear radiation. He is developing a cold fusion reactor that demonstrates this principle. Li is a scientist with Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. [9.10am, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I].
Lots of great work has come out of Tsinghua University. There is no clue in the summary as to the specific nature of this work, and what degree of success they have found. At this point I consider it completely demonstrated that cold fusion, the F-P effect, takes place without strong radiation as to the primary effect. Some secondary effects produce very low levels of strong radiation, not enough to be a practical problem.
I consider it unproven that it is possible to scale up the effect for commercial power production. It's possible that the first practical applications of LENR will be in a very different field, cleanup of nuclear waste through biologically-assisted transmutation, along the lines of Vyosotskii's work.
It is now possible to demonstrate conclusively, through widely-available evidence, that LENR is real (and probably fusion), the work has been done, enough to answer all the original objections. This would indicate that it's time for major funding to start to kick in. I'd still want to see that funding focused on better understanding of the science, for without better theoretical understanding, unless we get really lucky, sound engineering to optimize effects isn't available, it's hit-or-miss.
