At
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/ColdFusionClaimsQuestioned.shtml
Steve Krivit summarizes issue 34 of NET.
1. "24 MeV/4He" Does Not Exist
Contrary to what the public has heard and believed, the
purported best evidence for the theory of low-energy nuclear
reactions as a "cold fusion" reaction, specifically
the highly promoted
<http://www.iccf-14.org/terminology.html>claim of ~24 MeV/4He, does not exist.
Krivit misrepresents the claim made by cold fusion researchers. What
is widely claimed, and is now accepted among all the researchers, to
my knowledge, is that excess heat as measured by calorimetery, and
helium measured (by mass spectrometry) are correlated, and that the
correlation is consistent with the value for d-d fusion, 23.8 MeV.
I've seen this stated as being within a factor of two. Storms
concludes from his review that the value is 25 +/- 5 MeV. These are
experimental values, or based on review of many experiments. "23.8"
or "24" MeV are well-known for hot deuterium fusion,they are
theoretical values in this case, not firmly established by experiment.
"Cold fusion reaction" is not crisply defined, and could be any of
many hypothesized reactions, or one -- or more -- not yet covered by
any theory. However, given the appearance of helium where there was
no helium before, and the existence of deuterium as a fuel, the
hypothesis that, whatever the reaction is, it accomplishes fusion,
which does not refer to a single reaction but a whole class and
family of reactions that start with lower mass nuclei or particles
and end up with higher mass nuclei, is very strong indeed, and any
other theory will have to explain both the presence of helium as the
major product, with the energy produced being that typical of *any
reaction* that takes in deuterium and ends up with helium.
One experiment carefully done came up with a value of about 25.5 MeV
(writing from memory). That experiment could be in error. But the
general "purported best evidence" is not from that experiment, it is
from many experiments. Miles alone, as reported by Storms, did 33.
Other researchers did other experiments; at the press conference it
was claimed that this work has been done by ten different research
groups in three countries.
2. Helium-4 Is Not Expected*
Helium-4 is a rare product of D-D thermonuclear fusion. Its
finding in LENR in significant quantities is inconsistent with
thermonuclear fusion. Its promotion by the subgroup as
evidence of D-D "cold fusion" is misleading.
Absolutely, the first two sentences are correct. The finding of
helium, in the quantities reported, is inconsistent with
thermonuclear fusion. As was immediately noted in 1989, the
circumstances of cold fusion are different from hot fusion
("thermonuclear"). It is a different reaction, in some way, unknown
(though there are theories, such as cluster fusion). However, if it's
synthesizing helium from deuterium at low temperatures, it's "cold
fusion." Period.
What is misleading is to claim that the production of helium is not
evidence of fusion, absent some mechanism for copious production from
radioactive decay. Huizenga, in his hyperskeptical book, recognized
that Miles' work correlating excess heat with helium would be strong
evidence, explaining cold fusion, but he dismissed it as unconfirmed
and contradictory to other experimental evidence. Unfortunately, that
experimental evidence was irrelevant, it was that, with hot fusion,
the helium branch is rare and that hot d+d fusion to He-4 produces
gammas. Huizenga did not seem to be able to comprehend that there
could be other ways to get helium from deuterium besides mashing
deuterons together by brute force in a plasma.
3. Only a Subgroup Is Responsible
A subgroup of the LENR field comprising some of the most
prominent leaders of the field (mostly Americans) is primarily
responsible for causing this misperception.
Horse pucky. First of all, there are two elements here: experimental
data and interpretation. Krivit focuses on the excess heat/helium
values in the experimental data, missing the central fact:
correlation of excess heat and helium, within series of identical
cells. From many such experiments, using different techniques, Storms
comes up with 25 +/- 5 MeV. I doubt that this is a rigid conclusion.
What is clear is the correlation. More heat, more helium. If the heat
value is found, in future work, to be truly close to 23.8 MeV, and
there are no *major* levels of elemental transformations indicating a
different fuel than deuterium (loss of deuterium at the involved
levels is so low by comparison with its abundance in a heavy water
cell that it cannot be measured), or a different product than helium
as well, this would be completely conclusive evidence that the effect
is fusion. At present, this is a strong operating hypothesis in most
research. Around the world.
The experimental data has come from the U.S., from Italy, and Japan,
according to Storms. The fusion hypothesis is simple, and even
Huizenga got it. He didn't believe it was possible, and he could be
right, because he had a limited idea of what the fusion reaction
could be. Perhaps it is D+D fusion and the energy is transferred to
the lattice, perhaps the Helium branch is somehow favored by the
constrained environment. Or perhaps not, perhaps it is cluster
fusion, for which there is some experimental evidence but not enough
to consider this conclusive at all.
The field is an experimental one at this point, and "cold fusion" is
simply the name of the most obvious hypothesis. In this, all those I
know who are involved with the field are careful to make it clear
that we don't know what the actual reaction is, so, sure, it's
possible that it is some reaction other than fusion, but there are
fusion theories that are far from difficult, such as Takahashi's TSC
theory, but testing the theories isn't easy. I'll examine
Widom-Larsen theory separately.
4. Other Potential Energetic Processes Discarded
The subgroup misled the public into believing that excess
heat and non-energetic helium-4 were the only confirmed
evidence for LENR. This distracted the public from more
closely analyzing why the D-D "cold fusion" hypothesis fell
so short in explaining the many other observed phenomena
in LENR.
It is by far the strongest evidence I've seen. Note that any
"energetic helium" produced would lose almost all this energy as
heat, but I think the point is that energetic helium would produce
other signatures that are not seen.
Krivit has missed the number one most important point in this field.
Excess heat was, from the beginning, strong evidence for nuclear
reaction or some other new, and powerful, reaction. But excess heat
was not enough to be convincing as to fusion. As Huizenga so fondly
pointed out, where is the ash? What is the reaction product? Because
tritium and neutrons were not found in anything like the necessary
quantities, they could not be the ash. Helium was a rare product, as
Krivit points out, it was not expected. However, what he misses is
that helium, in the end, was found in roughly the amounts expected.
If it is not the only ash, it is a principle one. This does *not*
elucidate the mechanism, and that mechanism may produce other
phenomena. For example, if Takahashi's TSC forms, it is neutrally
charged and could possibly fuse with palladium, if it survives long
enough to reach a nucleus, causing a transmutation. If the reaction
occasionally produces hot products, they could cause secondary reactions.
The D-D "cold fusion" hypothesis was utterly unsuccessful and is not
what is generally understood in the field. But this doesn't mean that
"fusion" is rejected. There are other kinds of fusion, and if it's
deuterium in, helium out, it's fusion, no matter what happens in the
middle. And none of us are going to fall over if it turns out that,
say, Widom and Larsen are right, though so far it seems utterly
far-fetched to me. If Krivit spent his time informing us about
exactly how W-L theory would account for these observed phenomena,
better than the other theories, I'd certainly be reading it. Krivit
isn't doing that, so I'm left to my own devices.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Widom-Larsen.php is basically hand-waving. He
proposes a theory of ultra-low-momentum neutrons, much slower than
ordinary slow neutrons, so that they have a very long wavelength.
It's a lot of words to tell us that these neutrons, if they form,
would have a very high absorption cross-section. Okay, never mind
that these neutrons have apparently never been observed, perhaps the
conditions that form them are very rare, as he claims. But what then?
Larsen tells us many wonderful things, but not the most important
ones. Suffice it to say that he's postulating an environment so thick
in these neutrons that it can absorb pesky gamma rays and X-rays.
Which is why we don't see the expected radiation that would normally
result from neutron absorption. Here is what he proposes as one "cycle":
Li-6 + n -> Li-7 + n -> Li-8 -> Be-8 + e + n {neutron absorption,
then betadecay}(4)
Be-8 -> He-4 + He-4{perfectly symmetric, 'green' fission of a
beryllium-8 nucleus}(5)
Cool. Notice the lack of involvement of deuterium. Yes, it is
possible to generate helium from higher atomic weight elements. I
personally consider the first reaction to be a kind of fusion,
followed by fission, but that's a semantic quibble. Notice that
What's missing from this picture?
Reaction rates. Is the production of helium from a cell dependent on
the lithium concentration? Wouldn't this mechanism predict that? ULM
neutrons would be absorbed by many things, and we'd see lots of
transmutations. Why would ULM neutrons be less reactive than slow
neutrons? Why would L-7 not be greatly enriched? If the reaction rate
for neutron absorption by Li-6 is r(6), and it must be low or else
the cell would detonate, and then the reaction rate for absorption by
Li-7 is r(7), would r(6) and r(7) be greatly different? What is
supplying the neutrons? Well, Larsen proposes they are being
generated from protons and deuterons interacting with electrons.
Since there aren't many protons in a heavy water CF cell, it would be
deuterons. A deuteron plus an electron, he suggests, produces two
neutrons and a neutrino.
Let me point this out. Larsen is describing an extremely complex way
to fuse deuterium into helium. He first breaks down the deuterium
into two neutrons and then puts them together through a series of
reactions ending up with helium. It's fusion, if you look at the whole process.
Krivit should get this: W-L theory is a fusion theory. Krivit is busy
debunking "cold fusion," while promoting a cold fusion mechanism.
That's what is completely insane about this.
5. Experimental Evidence of LENR Is Strong
The consequences of attempting to sell people and the U.S.
government on the speculative, unsupported theory of
"cold fusion" caused them to have less confidence in the
very real and strong experimental evidence of LENR.
Recently, the result of the ACS press conference was that the press
reported that the former believer in cold fusion had recanted and was
now saying "It isn't fusion." Since what Larsen is claiming that it
is something that nobody understands, that seems to involve a big
pile of new physics (though Larsen claims otherwise, I think), this
is not progress, it is reinforcing the idea that (1) fusion is
impossible -- which would include the hocus-pocus, excuse me,
sophisticated series of neutron absorption reactions with no
independent evidence -- and (2) people interested in cold fusion are
unstable, and, if they read Krivit's confession, gullible. So what
else is new? Didn't we know this all along?
Read all the media reports on Krivit's questions at the press
conference and his "censored" document.
6. LENR Progress Delayed
The subgroup's efforts to promote its "cold fusion" theory
have come at the expense of the acceptance and recognition
of the entire LENR field.
After horse puckey, comes .... hogwash. The field attempted mightily
to distance itself from all theory, except for the basic one of
"nuclear." It was useless, it fooled nobody, and nobody is fooled by
Krivit's rants except those who are inclined to keep with what they
already believe, that it's all bogus. The rejection of "fusion" does
not lead to the acceptance of "LENR."
And it all shouldn't matter. The experimental evidence should be
considered. Are there anomalies here? It's very clear, by now, that
there are? Well, what are they, what can be reproduced? Excess heat.
Helium correlated with the excess heat. (By Huizenga's standards,
this would have iced it.) And then many other effects, including
transmutations. Fusion? Well, that's an obvious operating hypothesis,
but because there are many mechanisms which might result in fusion, a
fact that was overlooked early on, nobody is waving a big sign that
says "D-D." I don't think it's "D-D," lots of people don't, but it
cannot be completely ruled out, because if there is some other
unknown mechanism that ends up in the same place (helium and heat,
plus some other reactions, probably at lower levels), there might
also be some conditions that cause direct D-D fusion to behave
differently than expected. It just seems less likely to me, and
apparently to many.
Almost all the knee-jerk reactions to cold fusion are rejections of
simple D-D fusion, they make assumptions based on the characteristics
of that reaction. But this does not apply to all fusion reactions, by
far, and, as I pointed out, Larsen seems to be proposing simply a
different form of fusion. Take the deuterium apart before you fuse
it! Then fuse part of it at a time. I have seen no examination that
doesn't propose some kind of magic effect, like an ability to
completely suppress gammas from expected neutron absorption. Which
would take a *dense* effect, not some occasional event.
