Exploring Cold Fusion: Is it Reliable?

[fargoth]

well, i stumbled across this link:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/index.htm

it seems unbelievable that something is really happening in there...
then i started looking around the net to see what other people think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/storms/review8.html
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/ColdFusionPrimer.html
http://www.matr.net/article-10711.html

i don't know if its reliable or not... like a lot of other stuff on the net, just thought id ask your opinions on this...

so, what do you think? are they deceivers?
i think i'll get the equipment for this experiment next year and try it by myself... though if the results were easy to duplicate i guess it would have gotten its approval from mainstream science...

 

[Mk]

Everybody on physicsforums looks down upon cold fusion believers, because well, it doesn't work, and the thread will probably soon be locked. However...
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/4/15/1
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/7/8/1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion

The experiment described in your first link very reminiscent of the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, seen in section 1.2 of the Wikipedia article.

The Wikipedia article also outlines three main reasons why it can't work.

In order for fusion to occur, the electrostatic force (Coulomb repulsion) between the positively charged nuclei must be overcome. Once the distance between the nuclei becomes comparable to 1 femtometre, the attractive strong interaction takes over and the fusion may occur. However, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between the nuclei separated by several femtometres is greater than interactions between nuclei and electrons by approximately six orders of magnitude. Overcoming the requires an energy on the order of 10 MeV per nucleus, whereas the energies of chemical reactions are on the order of several electron-volts; it is hard to explain where the required energy would come from in room-temperature matter. The electrostatic environment interior to a palladium metal matrix is very different from that of a plasma, and so the possibility exists that deuterons embedded in palladium settle at points and in channels within the metal's electron orbitals which substantially increase the likelyhood of deuteron collisions.

Absence of standard nuclear fusion products: if the excess heat were generated by the fusion of 2 deuterium atoms, the most probable outcome would be the generation of either a tritium atom and a proton, or a 3He and a neutron. The level of neutrons, tritium and 3He actually observed in Fleischmann-Pons experiment have been well below the level expected in view of the heat generated, implying that these fusion reactions cannot explain it. However, deuterons in a metal matrix have substantially less angular momentum (which is proportional to temperature and limited by interactions with the enclosing solid) than those in a plasma. This difference may explain the observed difference in branching ratios.

Fusion of deuterium into helium 4: if the excess heat were generated by the hot fusion of 2 deuterium atoms into 4He, a reaction which is normally extremely rare, gamma rays and helium would be generated. Again, insufficient levels of gamma rays have been observed in view of the heat generated, and there is no known mechanism to explain how gamma rays could be converted into heat. U.S. Navy researchers Stanislaw Szpak and Pamela Boss, with Jerry J. Smith from the Dept. of Energy have measured bremsstrahlung radiation consistent with very high energy alpha particles, suggesting that energy may be released as 4He nuclei momentum instead of the gamma radiation observed in plasma fusion.

 

[Maaneli]

Cold fusion

It is not universally agreed upon that the phenomenon producing excess heat is predominantly or even partially attributable to nuclear fusion. See the work of Puthoff, Bush, Eagleton, and Robert W. Bass for discussions of possible mechanisms involving zero-point fluctuations.

Finally, excess heat phenomena have been well confirmed. See the DOE report for these details, as well as Beaudette's book "Excess Heat".

 

[rindech]

"Cold Fusion" possible in this manner:
The general argument against deuterium fusion at lower temperatures is that the Columbic repulsion force is so much greater than the strong nuclear attractive force except at extremely close separation distances. Classically, high relative velocity experiments are performed to to bring the deuterium ions close enough; such velocity requires equivalent temperatures in the range of tens of millions of degrees centigrade, and hence magnetic bottling. Alternatively, since the 1950's experimenters have verifed that muons (particles with single negative electric charge and with mass 200x that of an electron) around the deuterium ion WILL allow room temperature fusion. Unfortunately, making such particles and utilizing the fusion heat so gained is economically inefficient. Further, recent use of collapsing bubbles have produced the local temperature needed for deuterium fusion. Also, in UCLA, local high temperatures have been produced by local electric field acceleration of the deuterium ions, resulting in a tabletop unit, but not economically efficient.
The problem then is developing an economically efficient deuterium ion shielding mechanism, similar to muons. Calculations show that a nanoengineered surface consisting of narrow cones coming to a point of only a few atoms, and electrically energized with respect to a neutral electrical plane, will yield sufficient charge density to shield the deuterium atoms to allow them to come close enough so that fusion can occur. As the charges are upon the metallized cones, and not attached to the deuterium ions themselves, one does not have a minimum radius of the electron about the ion nucleus as would be calculated from Schroedinger equation. It is noted that unlike conventional "cold fusion" cells, the platinum or palladium matrix itself is insufficient to provide the required shielding without these nanoengineered modifications an electric field enhancement. So much for the anomalous results criticized in conventional "cold fusion".
The easy method of fabrication of trillions of these nanocones has been known for about 10 years. The creation of the atomically flat surfaces needed for the unit have been known for 20 years. The remainder of the nanomaterial techniques needed for device fabrication have been known for the past 5 years.
If any would be further interested in such detailed theory and calculations, patent applications, as well as references to appropriate materials manipulation techniques, please e-mail me at rindech@hotmail.com
Thank you. Robert Indech, MSc, PhD, PE

 

[Maaneli]

Cold fusion

Dear Robert Indech,

I don't understand this statement below:

" The problem then is developing an economically efficient deuterium ion shielding mechanism, similar to muons. Calculations show that a nanoengineered surface consisting of narrow cones coming to a point of only a few atoms, and electrically energized with respect to a neutral electrical plane, will yield sufficient charge density to shield the deuterium atoms to allow them to come close enough so that fusion can occur. "

Can you clarify what deuterium ion shielding has to do with muons?

-Maaneli

 

[rindech]

In the experiments performed for the last 40 years, the muons have replaced the electrons around the deuterium ion core (ie.e. a muon around a proton and neutron nucleus). These experiments are detailed in an older Scientific American article, easily available on an online search.
The muons, being of very large mass compared with an ordinary electron, assume an orbital much closer to the nucleus. Thus, two muonic deuterium atoms will approach much closer before the protonic Columbic repulsion of their respective nuclie repels them. A closer approach allows much lower kinetic temperature of the entire gas to allow sufficient closeness for the strong nuclear (attractive force) to predominate.
The nanoengineered surface, properly energized, will essentially create the same effort as the muon, but without the muon. No muon needed=better economics. Basically, to lower kinetic temperature you need electronic shielding. In the muon case, the muons do the shielding. In the nanoengineered surface case, the high cone tip charge density does the shielding.
RI

 

[ZapperZ]

This thead is beginning to make the left turn that we were afraid of when it started. Therefore, it is being closed.

It is starting to make speculative ideas. This is against the Posting Guidelines of Physics Forums. If you would like to discuss your ideas, we invite you to submit a post to the Independent Research Forum, subject to the applicable guidelines, found https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82301.

We appreciate your cooperation, and hope you enjoy the Forums.



The Staff of Physics Forums