Cold Fusion

Mr. Robin Parsons

Russ what about the use of a fission reactor to create isotopes of substances like cobalt, therein the neutron is being inserted into a nucleus simply by the speed of it's release from the radiating materials.

As for chemical nuclear reactions, the only one I could think of (quickly) 'off-hand' would be the capture of electrons, by protons, that then become neutrons, (a form of 'fussioning') in certain chemical processes.

Russ I think that the reason that they used the word 'Cold' was simply in reference to the extreme (difference in) temperature that was seen as needed to cause fusion, as compared to the temps that they thought they had used to achieve fusion.

Saw an excellant TV program that told of the "testing" researchers having moved the line (on the graph) to dis-prove Flieshmans and Ponds results.

russ_watters

Thats still a ton of energy. And maybe we covered this before, but I think fusion requires protons, not neutrons. If you add a neutron to an atom, you get a new isotope, not a new atom.

Yes, thats correct. The goal of "cold fusion" was to make the reaction occur near room temperature instead of at a few million degrees.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Yes, I had mentioned that there is a chemical pathway that has protons capturing electrons as to generate neutrons.

Adding neutrons should have effects upon the atoms, more then just the radioactivity, aside from which, the reason that I make the note of it is that it does demonstrate that the effects of atoms, and atomic nuclear arrangements, have opportunites to function in manners that we have yet to have discovered.

Scale counting for so much, there is a possibility that some kinds of atomic arrangements might just be able to fuse under conditions that we have yet to see/figured out, scalar conditions.

The idea that it is a "Ton of energy" sorta wants to state that it is impossible under other circumstances, yet it can occur for 'isotopic' function in much less of an energetic environment then the 'ton of energy' one.

sir-pinski

Adding neutrons does have an effect on atoms namely it makes a new isotope. However this leads to unstable elements. This is pretty well established in nuclear physics now. Firing neutrons at atoms smaller than iron will not enable fusion. You need to have an entire nucleus. And this nucleus needs to overcome the coulomb barrier which unfortunately requires a lot of energy either in the form of confinement and/or in the form of temperature.

Whilst I can't say that is impossible I find it highly unlikely that altering the number of neutrons in an atom will have any beneficial aspects to fusion.

Give me an example of where this can occur? What do you mean by I mean by "'isotopic' function in much less of an energetic environment"? If it's so easy then why don't we see it elsewhere in the universe? Why does it take sun the billions of tonnes of mass just to ignite fusion? It's simply because trying to get two nuclei to fuse together is nto an easy thing and it requires a hell of a lot of energy - even at the atomic scale.

maximus

this is obvious. the point of cold fusion is that one could create this energy without ionizing a gas into a plasma, thus creating a "cold" fusion reaction. massive eneergy will be the byproduct, not the egnition.

emanon

Interesting thread.

Cold Fusion is fusion caused chemically rather than by using plasma's.

I remember a New Scientist article back in the Early Eighties inwhich they used the sticking probabilty of proton's to attach them to nuclei.

I forget the two elements that were mixed and heated, but the reaction relied on a metal catalyst, which was honeycombed. I think it was in 1983-84 as I remember writing something on it for course work.

Basically Cold Fusion relies on merging particles onto atoms, rather than creating a soup and bashing the things onto the atom.

It therefore has low reaction rates and so will require large amounts of material to produce significant energy.

however, what is wrong with using a sea of reactants to power a city or country? it is no worse than hydroelectric power?

The reason why money has not been spent on research into FUSION is because stupid politicians wasted our money on FISSION, so they could blow each other up, over something or other.
[;)]

sir-pinski

And this is precisely the problem chemical processes can't do this becuase they only involve the electons not the nuclei. This is the problem with cold fusion in that it ignores the fact that you are fusing two nuclei not the atoms i.e. it is the binding energy difference which is important. Chemical processes don't do it. This is also why you usuall need a plasma i.e. you have nuclei floating around and able to bash into each other. Chemical reactions can't create fusion.

As far as the comment about nuclear fission goes: it's not a waste and it most certainly hasn't resulted in a lack of funding for fusion. You also seem to equate nuclear fission as a power source with weapons. You could say the same about dynamite and yet that has a large number of civil uses which are readily accepted.

emanon

Protons sticking to nuclei is a known phenomena.

The problem is the reaction rates are low. This is why they used a catalyst.

There is a low reaction rate due to the electron shell barrier. I am guessing that the catalyst disturbed the electron shells alongside the other reactant, allowing protons to tunnel into the necleus during a slow breaking and re-bonding of the atams electrons.

Fission was indeed developed for primarily military purposes. You need to go back to school if you think otherwise. And learn a bit more about the history of the Cold War.

If you think it was developed because it was a nice clean means of generating electricity. You are blind in both eyes and have failed to understand that politcal fear drove most of what happened in the 20th Century.

It is the duty of all scientists to understand what uses for the technology they develop. Otherwise like Einstien they run the risk of becoming a liability to the human race. Rather than a great scientist.

russ_watters

Actually, most of our bombs are fission-fusion. Very few are fission only. The reason they put money into resarch is there is no compelling political reason to do so.
By definition.
The two cannot be separated, but it is not correct to say that it was developed for "primarily military purposes."

emanon

FUSION is a nucluei process by definition, but it can be initiated through chemical reactions, what is your point?

All you need to do is allow heavy particles access to the nucleus, the method is irrelevent.

The term 'chemical' is used to differentiate the process from plasma FUSION reastions.


Who funds research?
What drives research?

FISSON was developed out of fear as a weapon. Harnessing the energy was an after thought for the military, who drove the initial development of the nuclear research.

The scienetists saw FUSION as the clean inexhaustable power source, since it is FUSION that drives the Sun. When the Sun eventually dies, it will of only used up 10% of it's mass. That is pretty efficient.

Not only that but it's waste is not dangerous once the reactions have stopped, unlike FISSION.

FISSION is a poisonous form of generating electricity and more dangerous that fossile fuels. In the long term.

Whoever sold FISSION as a clean energy source needs to be sued and then made to clear it all up.

I am guessing it was the United States and United Kingdom governments.

Mr. Robin Parsons

One of the best reponces that I have heard, to date, on "Cold" fusion, was that the reaction was not 'sustainable'.

This is NOT to state that the reaction cannot/did not occur, just that as a conmmercial enterprise, if it is not sustainable, then it does not yet have a commercial usefullness, hence no further research funding.

That a micro environment of energy levels sustaining the possibility of a 'fusile' event, could be possible, but the sustaining of it might really be what the problem with it is, as the event might just have parameters of consequence that require elemens of timing that we are, as of yet, unaware of.

That is what I meant about an 'isotopic' environment, the same throughout, briefly, in a very confined space. One, or two, atoms worth of space, briefly!

emanon

'sustainable' is a funny statement. No fusion reaction is self sustaining. Even the Sun relies on an external power source, gavity.

The more likely reason for not investigating it further was the idea that plasma fusion was the way forward. At the time it was estimated that the first Fusion reactor would be online this decade. Which is currently unachieveable.

I would suggest that given modern techniques and understanding, that this form of fusion may well be cost effective and achieveable relatively quickly, given that the only real machinary will be heat extraction and catalyst replacement.

It would truely be a safe source of energy.

Remember at the time wind power was considered a ridiculas form of energy generation for the national grid.

How times have changed.[;)]

Mr. Robin Parsons

Actaully EMANON, fusion in the Sun is somewhat self sustaining as the fusion of matter generates higher density matter, which increases the gravitational pull, which fuses more higher density matter, which generates more gravity, and so on, and so on, and so on......till it changes, Nova's or shrinks and explodes, or runs out of fuel, etc. etc.

russ_watters

All of this is quite simply WRONG. Fission was a strictly civilian research project until Einstein wrote his famous letter to Roosevelt advising him that he should develop a nuclear bomb before the Germans did. And nuclear reactors predate nuclear bombs. The "Chicago pile" in 1942 looked very much like the type of reactor now used for generating power. It produced a sustained and controlled reaction.

Fission is NOT more dangerous than fossil fuels. This has been addressed in the thread on alternate energy, but BOTH fossil fuels and fission create waste - the difference is the waste in fission is contained. If contained correctly (the US has a near perfect record for this) it NEVER reaches the environment. In the US there has NEVER been a confirmed civilian death from nuclear fission. There are thousands a year from fossil fuel power via air pollution. Gravity provides a FORCE, not a power. The reaction itself is self-sustaining as Mr. Robin Parsons indicated - it is contained by its own gravity. And a fusion reaction in a power plant can be self-sustaining too. Right now the problem is containment. Where did you hear that? In fact, NO cold fusion reaction has ever been confirmed to have taken place - much less be "sustainable." Fusion is still a nuclear reaction. It still produces particle radiation and high energy EM radiation.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Television, if I remember it properly it was a PBS program, perhaps Nova?(?)