At 09:31 PM 8/5/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote:
Jed and Craig,
It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay
attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write
*exactly* as you think we should write.
You complain endlessly about "sloppy journalism" and how the
theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out (as you think they
should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon
(Craig tellingly dismisses them as "establishment goons" ... an ad
hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry
at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion!
Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot.
[mg]
Well, Mark, perhaps you should factor for Jed having faced twenty
years of sloppy journalism. Your report wasn't bad, but you,
yourself, might profit from taking a sympathetic look at what he pointed out.
Yes, "establishment goons" is an ad hominem attack, and silly.
"Perpetually angry," from you, likewise, is a projection. Jed is
mostly resigned, and not so much about lack of attention -- that's
people's right, after all -- but about ... sloppy journalism. Your
article is not as sloppy as many, so something must have pushed him
over the edge.
I'll point out some problems with your post, below. But first, let me
appreciate the positive. You are paying attention to the field.
Great. You have effectively acknowledged the reality of the effect.
That's great as well, but in the context of reams of truly sloppy
journalism, that's easily overlooked, it will slide right past most people.
It's an old confusion, often mixed up in critique of cold fusion:
1. Cold fusion doesn't exist.
2. It is too unreliable to be practical.
Those are contradictory. Scientifically, for anyone willing to look
at the evidence, and not firmly nailed to a position by prior
commitment, cold fusion exists. That is, the heat effect is real, and
it is nuclear, this was established through helium correlation, long
ago discovered, and confirmed amply.
There was a remarkable event in 2010 that has gone almost entirely
unnoticed. There was a featured review of the field in a major
mainstream peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal,
Naturwissenschaften, where cold fusion came in out of the cold, came
out of the closet, being called "cold fusion," rather than the less
definitive "low energy nuclear reactions." That's "Status of cold
fusion (2010)," Edmund Storms. There is a preprint on lenr-canr.org,
but the abstract alone is remarkable.
Cold fusion had already come a long way by the time of the 2004 U.S.
Department of Energy review, as can be seen by reading it and
comparing it with the 1989 review. It was almost a majority position
(it was evenly split, 9/18) that the heat effect was conclusively
established, a vast difference from 1989, where probably only one or
two out of 15 reviewers thought that it might be real.
There is no accepted theory of how cold fusion works. But "fusion" is
a term that includes any reaction that takes lower-Z elements and
converts them to higher-Z. I.e., deuterium to helium. That
conversion, regardless of mechanism, releases a characteristic amount
of energy, a signature. That signature has been observed by many, and
there is no contradictory experimental record. The early "negative
replications" *confirm* the correlation, because they found no heat
and no helium. There is now a simple harmonizing interpretation of
all the experimental record with palladium deuteride: there is an
unknown nuclear reaction that converts deuterium to helium, with
little or no observed radiation, taking place on the surface,
probably in cracks of a certain size.
It's an error to think that a single reliable experiment is necessary
to establish something as a scientific fact. In lots of cases,
statistical analysis is necessary, because single experiments can
turn out many different ways, sometimes. Plasma physicists are
accustomed to running what amount to vast numbers of trials at once,
where statistical variations even out. Cold fusion, however, so far,
as manifest in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, requires a very
specific structure in the palladium, that is not present in pure
palladium, but that *sometimes* appears there with repeated loading
of deuterium into the lattice. And this structure is fragile, it does
not remain indefinitely, it's probable that the reaction itself
destroys the reaction sites.
The reproducible experiment, then, involves running a series of cells
according to the state of the art so that anomalous heat, measured
with a reliable method, shows up some percentage of the time, and
collecting and measuring (generally blind) helium in the outgas. The
result of the experiment is a correlation. Is anomalous heat
correlated with helium production? At what value?
Nobody who has done this has failed to find the correlation. The
"dead cells" are effectively the controls. The variability in the
amount of heat results in correlated variability in the amount of
helium. This effectively validates both the heat and helium
measurements, because it is highly unlikely that an artifact would
simultaneously affect both the heat and the helium, such that the two
results would track each other, and that the ratio was close to the
expected deuterium fusion value was considered astonishing by
Huizenga in 1993. He simply expected that the result would not be
confirmed, because of no gamma radiation. That revealed his basic
error: assuming that if the reaction is real, and if it is producing
helium, it must be d+d -> He-4 plus gamma. But if it isn't that
reaction, the argument completely fails.
Science moves on. The myth that Pons and Fleischmann's work was never
reproduced should be laid to rest. It was reproduced, hundreds of
times, by hundreds of research groups. People continued to argue
about the significance of that, and there is one lone crank who got a
letter published in Journal of Environmental Monitoring, who argues
for a systematic error in calorimetry, neglecting that the results
have been confirmed using many different methods of calorimetry, and
neglecting the corrrelation with helium. He was massively refuted in
that journal, and remains frustrated that the editors denied him the
right of further reply. The tables have been turned.
However, skepticism about claims of commercial reliability, that's
entirely in order, still. There is no confirmed evidence for it, only
claims by certain entrepreneurs, with, in the case of Rossi, some
very shaky public "demonstrations."
You seem to be aware of the difference between the reality of the
effect and the practicality of commercial application, but your
article doesn't make that clear. Given the widespread opinion that
cold fusion is some kind of pseudoscience, it would be important to
dispel the myth, so that we can move on to searching for ways to
understand the effect. It's probably going to take a massive effort
by the best minds in quantum physics to understand it, my guess.
Nobody should think that this would be an easy task, or that it
should have been accomplished by twenty years of restricted effort.
The funding, so far, has been large enough to allow some exploration,
but Fleischmann's opinion was that it would take a Manhattan-scale
project to make this commercial. There hasn't been enough funding to
develop the science to the point where such could even be rationally
considered. Both DoE reviews recommended modest funding to resolve
basic issues. That was never done by the DoE, and it's pretty clear why.
This is a huge story, Mark. Thanks for addressing it to the degree
that you have.
Now, to the article itself:
Fleischmann, along with Stanley Pons, another major league
electrochemist, claimed to have discovered "cold fusion" in 1989 but
for reasons that are still not completely clear, had significant
problems with the repeatability of their experiments.
The reasons are quite clear.
The role of micro- or nanostructure of the palladium was not
understood. Some batches of palladium produced the effect, some not.
Many small variations in experimental technique, contamination that
might seem harmess, produced drastic effects on the result. For
example, contamination of the heavy water with ordinary water reduced
the effect, to the point that 2% light water almost completely eliminated it.
Pons and Fleischmann had developed techniques of loading palladium to
very high ratios. Later work showed that the effect did not begin to
be visible until above 80%, with most reports requiring 90%. The
early replicators did not exceed 70%, which was, at the time, widely
considered the limit.
The same palladium rod, as a cathode, would show no effect, then
after many hundreds of hours of electrolysis, show a clear effect. A
great example of this was SRI P13/P14, run sometime around 1991. Two
cells in series, one with light water, one with heavy water. Both
were loaded to above 90%, maintained with a trickle current. Then a
current ramp was applied. The first two times this was done, both
cells showed no anomalous heat. The third time, the hydrogen cell
showed only an increase in noise (to be expected). The deuterium cell
showed a clear anomalous heat signal that tracked the current. I can
imagine the excitement in that lab ... the chimera had made its very
clear and unmistakeable appearance.
Consider this: SRI P13/P14 effectively confirmed both the negative
replications *and* the Pons and Fleischmann work. The variable? They
could not show it, but it's pretty obvious: the microstructure of
palladium shifts when the palladium is repeatedly loaded with
deuterium, the material expands, cracks form, etc. Cracks that are
too large, the material will deload, not maintain high loading.
Cracks too small or no cracks: no effect.
It is now known that PdD cold fusion is a surface effect, it doesn't
happen in the bulk, and Storms makes a very good case that the
nuclear active environment is cracks. What's happening in the cracks?
Beyond something that results in fusion, *we don't know.* There is no
theory that explains all the evidence. There are pieces of theory
that are "plausible," i.e, not completely impossible. And when we try
to look closely at this, there is something missing: adequate
experimental evidence. For example, tritium is produced at low levels
in PdD cold fusion, apparently. Is it correlated with the heat or
with H/D ratio in the heavy water? Early work dismissed this, but
because the levels of tritium were too low to explain the main
reaction (i.e., if it was classical deuterium fusion). They did not
report the actual heat and tritium levels such that correlation could
be examined. And this is quite important to theory!
Many have argued that the discrediting of Fleischmann and Pons was
driven and used by others in the science world to further their own
careers and to promote "big science" experiments with "hot fusion."
These same conspiracy theorists also argue ...
There is "conspiracy theory" argument, but there are also some simple
facts. "Conspiracy theorist" tends to dismiss the ideas. You do
recognize that there might be some truth here, but, in fact, there is
a lot known and written about what actually happened, in reliable
sources. The original DoE review was designed to reject cold fusion,
that's pretty clear. It was rushed, depending on reports from
replication attempts that were entirely inadequate. It took months of
prep for a FPHE demonstration. The negative replications on which the
ERAB panel depended took weeks, and they flat out did not know what
they were doing. Those replications were doomed, from what we now
know. What was the rush?
It's obvious. The rush was because of the "big science" projects, on
which various institutions depended. If cold fusion might be real,
then there was a possibility that the big science would be cancelled,
and these were truly large projects. Now, what the ERAB panel
*actually concluded* was modest. It found the evidence for cold
fusion "not convincing," which was reasonable *at that time*, but it
recommended further research, simply not a massive federal program.
The panel result was presented, however, by skeptics, as if it had
concluded that cold fusion was bogus, and the American Physical
Society, through Robert Park, made sure that all funding requests
were torpedoed. Even though the 2004 DoE panel similarly made such a
recommendation, no funding has been provided by the DoE. Requests by
competent scientists, with experience and credentials, have been
made. The rejections often treat cold fusion as if there were no
evidence for it. That's a sign of an entrenched and maintained
position, a *political* position, not based on science.
The big question is whether the output will be substantial enough as
too small a gain would make the effect just a laboratory curiosity.
I just want to congratulate you for saying this. Cold fusion is
actually *established* as a "laboratory curiosity." The "gain" issue
is only relevant to commercial application. If the gain were so small
as to be difficult to distinguish from noise, there would also be a
scientific issue, a result close to noise might be artifact or some
kind of systematic error. While *some* cold fusion results are close
to noise, many are not, and helium correlation ices the matter.
So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments
performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various
reactions that output more energy than is put into them but whether
these effects can be scaled up into devices that output a
significant amount of energy and operate reliably still isn't clear.
Jed would have preferred that you not mix the reality issue with the
scalability issue. That's all. He's a tad sensitive about this....
But I do think he has a point.
"Anomalous heat" is the term used in cold fusion work for "output
more energy," roughly. It really means heat that is not explained by
known sources. Those include input energy and known chemical
reactions (some of which absorb energy). For example, with an
electrolytic cell, where the evolved deuterium is recycled through
using a recombiner (which releases heat from recombination),
anomalous power will be output power minus input power. If the cell
is open (as with Pons and Fleishmann's original work), it will be
output power minus input power plus power stored in released gases.
With gas-loaded PdD cold fusion, there is no input energy, per se.
When the palladium -- or alloy -- is loaded with deuterium gas, there
is a release of heat, as the heat of formation of palladium
deuteride, it's exothermic. That heat dies off rapidly, and the
anomalous heat is what remains, typically steady, if the material
works, for many hours. It's not clear how long, Arata's experiments
were terminated at 3000 minutes. The heat was still steady at that point.
Here is what I'd have preferred to see:
So, is cold fusion real? Yes.
From the thousands of experiments [...]
However, whether these effects can be scaled up [...].
A few more comments. Rossi, Defkalion, and Brillouin are reportedly
working on LENR effects, i.e., "cold fusion," though what the actual
reaction is remains a mystery, and there no adequate public evidence
on which to base a judgment. There is rumor only. The cold fusion
research community, the scientists, do think that Nickel hydride heat
is possible, there have been scientific reports at modest levels, but
there is nowhere near as much evidence for NiH heat as for that from
palladium deuteride. Potential investors should watch their wallets
carefully. There have been many enthusiastic announcements over the
two decades, that led to bankruptcies and failures.
The most likely situation, that would explain the delays, is that the
effect is real, and substantial heat is sometimes generated, but it
isn't reliable. Even some test standards proposed would be inadequate
to validate the work for commercial application. Suppose that a NiH
heater works for a week, then heat drops off as the reaction sites
are destroyed. Rossi's megawatt plant might actually work for a few
days! Then what?
If these companies wanted to do it, and if they have what they have
claimed to have, they already have a commercial product, they could
sell it immediately. A reactor that will demonstrate the effect, for
a time. It would be sold to those who want to research the effect! It
would not need to be particularly reliable, and one would sell many
of them in a lot, and it would only be guaranteed that some would
perform for a certain time.
And, contrary to what has often been claimed, such a device would be
patentable, because demonstrations could be arranged.
Most of us in the cold fusion field are skeptical of the commercial
claims at this time, at the same time as being hopeful that there is
*something* there. PdD, even gas-loaded, is very expensive. NiH
should be cheap.
BlackLight Power is working on a reaction involving, allegedly,
hydrinos, Mills developed hydrino theory, not generally accepted.
It's possible that this is really the same as LENR, the difference
might be theoretical. As to claim, though, this is not cold fusion;
it would be, rather, a new chemistry. You correctly point out that
there have been unfulfilled promises.
Nanospire, however, is either a nutty fantasy or is working with a
form of hot fusion. Not cold fusion. If this is real, it's very
dangerous stuff. LeClair was working with cavitation, basically
similar to bubble fusion, which would be, if real, hot fusion, with
the resulting neutrons, and LeClair reports "radiation sickness," you
might note. People have attempted to verify LeClair's reports. So
far, no verification. Was a HazMat team actually called to his lab?
If so, what did they find? Were he and his partner actually ill with
radiation sickness? Were radioactive materials created in his lab?
All this could be verified if true. Samples that LeClair submitted
for analysis to an independent scientist showed nothing unusual. I
would place no credence in LeClair's theoretical claims, he's not
competent in the physics he spouts. He is a cavitation engineer,
though, and that he might have found a way to create extreme
cavitation pressures, adequate for hot fusion, is not impossible.
Indeed, if he's a bit nutty, it might be a result of the radiation poisoning.
