Jed Rothwell wrote on 5/22/2010: Google Alerts brought me this gem:
http://www.guidetothecosmos.com/radio/radio_show_1021.html Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote on 5-24-10: ... "cold fusion" is merely a rough concept of what might be happening. What the scientists claim is excess heat, beyond that possible with known chemical reactions, helium that is correlated with the excess heat, and, a possibly misleading fact, the correlation is roughly that expected from deuterium-helium fusion. In addition, nuclear transmutations and radiation are reported, but the main reaction does not generate the expected gamma radiation from detuerium fusion to helium. While direct d-d fusion cannot be ruled out entirely, because some lattice phenomenon might possibly shift the branching ratio to the helium branch, and at the same time suppress the gamma radiation, few now think that the reaction is simple d-d fusion ... ... "cold fusion" is a popular term not a precise scientific one, "fusion" can refer to the overall process, not necessarily the specific reaction path. If the input is deuterium and the output is helium, the energy released will be that expected from deuterium fusion. If, in the middle, neutrons are juggled, palmed, mixed with this or that, it doesn't matter. The released energy will still be the same, except for whatever energy is shoved into other reaction products. Further, except for whatever other reaction products exist, the overall process is "fusion." ... Because of this, and because helium is clearly the most prominent reaction product, and the neutrons in deuterium cells would almost certainly be coming from deuterium, cold fusion researchers sometimes use the d -> helium energy ratio as a kind of benchmark ... If we wanted to prove "d-d reaction" from the energy/helium finding, we'd want to get rid of that report (almost exactly on 24 MeV), because it is extremely difficult to capture all the helium, and thus measured helium will always be above 23.8 MeV unless extreme measures are taken, and nobody has ever nailed this down to the last MeV except maybe one experiment from McKubre ... [Please see my question on McKubre below, Jack Smith] I don't know anyone who considers that single report conclusive, there are lots of ways it could have gone astray, such as additional generation of helium during the "cleaning" process that involved loading and deloading the lattice ... Most researchers, my impression, now think that some kind of cluster fusion is involved. Not straight d-d fusion ... 1. Low energy fusion of deuterium through muon catalysis branches the same way as hot fusion, and generates tritium (50% branching), easily detected, and copious radiation, enough radiation that, commensurate with the observed energy, would be fatal for unprotected researhers running a Pons-Fleischmann cell showing the reported excess heat. Instead, tritium is found, to be sure, but only at low levels, and radiation is likewise detected, but only at very low levels. There is no particular reason to think that electron-catalyzed d-d fusion, for example, would have a different branching ratio. However, muon-catalyzed fusion is not fusion in a solid lattice, and sometimes things can happen in a lattice that are different. The Mossbauer effect, as an example, allows coupling of recoil energy from gamma decay of a nucleus that is "locked" into a crystal, to the whole crystal domain, instead of seeing individual nuclear recoil. Some early theories attempting to explain how d-d fusion to helium might accomplish this were proposed, but, shall we say, it's thin. Not dead yet, because if fusion takes place, for example, within a Bose-Einstein Condensate, what happens to the energy released? Would it be shared among the constituents of the condensate? If so, this could be a Mossbauer-like effect. 2. Uncomplicated fusion of single deuterons to helium has a huge Coulomb barrier to overcome, the repulsive forces between positively charged nuclei requires high energy, normally supplied by high temperature (or velocity, same thing, effectively). Some theories attempted to propose that this was happening in the lattice, the energy being supplied by, say, the formation of cracks in the lattice, this is called "fractofusion." But this would simply be hot fusion, not cold fusion, and there would be no reason at all to think that it would behave differently from hot fusion. It would be like "sonofusion," where extremely high temperatures are proposed to be created when an ultrasound-created bubble collapses. Definitely, high temperatures are created, that's clear from sonoluminescence, for example, but it's controversial whether or not these temperatures are adequate for fusion. If so, though, this is, again, simply hot fusion in an cool overall environment. In the reports claiming sonofusion, the evidence is neutron radiation! 3. Where everyone is on the same page, in fact, is that the experimental reports show some kind of nuclear reaction ... Even if there are inaccuracies in the research data, a rough correlation between heat and helium is an astonishing result, and that this has been conclusively shown. Even Huizenga realized the importance of the early publication of Miles' work on heat/helium correlation, and was able to dismiss it only on the basis of, "of course," it not having been confirmed yet. And then he ignored the confirmations ... McKubre provided certain measurements to EPRI in the 1990s, and later published this material at a Conference, and some of the data made it into the 2004 DoE report. In reviewing that data, McKubre reports, he realized that the volume estimates involved in converting measured helium to generation rate were incorrect, and he thus modified the later report of heat/helium ratio. He also claims that he reported this to EPRI, but informally, and no correction of the EPRI report was ever issued. It was a private report and not published until later, as part of a general release of this research. The independent publication by McKubre was of the corrected data. Note that if McKubre were trying to illegitimately prove "24 MeV," he would have preferred his incorrect data! The value he ultimately reported was over 100 MeV/He-4, which is anomalously high, not closer to the magic number ... --------------- Jed wrote: Ed Storms sent me a correction. The electron absorption is only the first step, according to the theory. Ed explains: "The issue about using the word "fusion" is the following: Fusion: two or more deuterons come together to make He-4. W-L (Windom-Larsen theory): an electron and a deuteron come together to make a dineutron, This dineutron reacts with Li6 to make He-4 and a beta. The difference involves which nuclear reaction makes the helium and the heat. The evidence is only consistent with fusion regardless of what Larsen says." ------------ On Apr 4, 2010, at 5:27 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Some frequency of trapping of D2 molecules at the surface of the lattice should be expected. The surface is where, I assume, dissociation of D2 to individual deuterons takes place. Off the top of my head, not having studied this process, I'd imagine that a D2 molecule peaks its head into a lattice, crossing a bit of a potential barrier at the face; perhaps the forces when the head is in and the neck is squeezed are such to separate them, as those electrons decide the lattice is a freer place, or perhaps at this moment, dissociation is aided by the action of other molecules. But sometimes, as the head is peeking in, the tail is whacked just right (or it had just the right momentum) and the whole thing is pushed in. It's tight in there, and i don't think that this is stable, but it might last for a while. And then another molecule hits at the right position and angle to squeeze in too. They have no freedom of motion to speak of now, they can't rotate, they can only fit in one way, with the deuterium nuclei forming a tetrahedron. If they are in low relative motion, they condense and Bang! Horace wrote on 4-5-10: Brilliant description of fusion. A concise definition. They condense and Bang! What is missing is not sufficient theories, but a sufficient experimental exploration of the parameter space. Theories, fully correct or not, might be useful in reducing the size and cost of such an exploration. However, no theory of any kind should be necessary to justify increasing funding for such research because the evidence for the phenomenon is experimental, not theoretical. Theory is just the tail on the dog in this case. A useful adjunct perhaps, but the dog can do just fine without it. Large funding for research of LENR is justified now by (1) the huge potential benefit compared to the cost, (2) the potential for quick development if a breakthrough is forthcoming, and now, with global warming and other issues becoming more universally clear, (3) the potential huge cost of failure to pursue it in a timely way. ----------------- (1) Is it possible for the Tetrahedral Symmetric state to form? I won't say "Condensate" [TSC] here because condensation followed by fusion is what he predicts theoretically will follow. (2) If the TS forms, what happens to it? ... There is no force that is involved in overcoming the "Coulomb barrier" if the barrier is invisible to the reactants. This is exactly what Takahashi has shown: starting with two deuterium molecules in a particular spatial and energetic relationship (i.e, relative temperature of close to absolute zero, and a particular orientation and spacing (distance between centers being very small), he predicts fusion. You can call that "overcoming the Coulomb barrier" if you like, but it's not really different from muon-catalyzed fusion (MCF), it's just done with electrons. MCF also takes place at very low temperatures. --------------- Hi All, Would someone please tell me what actually happened at SRI in 1992? Thanks, Jack Smith --------------- http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/ColdFusionPrimer.html Dr. Michael McKubre's group at SRI (Stanford Research Institute) has produced definiteive proof of excess heat and energy production far beyond chemical explanation (200 megajoules/mole). In his Electric Power Research Institute-funded work, McKubre achieved reproducible excess power with four different palladium electrodes. His group now understands the conditions necessary to produce excess heat at will. Dr. McKubre stated categorically that the excess energy produced in his group's work cannot be explained by chemistry. Dr. McKubre's work was interrupted by a tragic, unexplained explosion on Januar 2, 1992. Dr. Andrew Riley, an electrochemist, died in the blast. Dr. McKubre and Dr. Stuart Smedley were also hurt. In 1993, the SRI work resumed, and will become more aggreessive in its effort to identify the physical nature of the "cold fusion" process. -------------------- http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf083/sf083c16.htm Science Frontiers ONLINE No. 83: Sep-Oct 1992 Cold-fusion update SRI explosion due to wayward piece of Teflon? The final report on the fatal explosion of a cold-fusion experiment at SRI International (SF#80) blames a loose piece of Teflon that may have blocked a gas outlet tube. Possible scenario: After many hours, the researchers finally noticed something was awry. When A. Riley lifted the cell from its water bath, it exploded. "The investigators believe that hot palladium ignited the pressurized mixture of oxygen and deuterium. The bottom blew off the cell, turning the rest of it into a rocket which shot upwards at 50 metres per second. It struck Riley in the head."
