Cold Fusion in 3 months?

  • Thread starter elbeasto
  • Start date
  • #1
33
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html

I know you guys had to have seen this article by now. I am a just a tech guy so most of this is over my head but I am curious what you guys think about it. Is it possible? If you combine Hydrogen with Ni62 or Ni64 will it yield a positron to annihilate with a Ni electron to produce the energy they are claiming?

A few people have worked out the math on that pages comment section which seems to add up but I dont know what physics principles that they may be missing or intentionally avoiding.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
2,685
20
I point you to some rather interesting points in the article:
Rossi and Focardi’s paper on the nuclear reactor has been rejected by peer-reviewed journals, but the scientists aren’t discouraged. They published their paper in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, an online journal founded and run by themselves, which is obviously cause for a great deal of skepticism.
They say their paper was rejected because they lack a theory for how the reaction works. According to a press release in Google translate, the scientists say they cannot explain how the cold fusion is triggered, “but the presence of copper and the release of energy are witnesses.”
Rossi and Focardi have applied for a patent that has been partially rejected in a preliminary report. According to the report, “As the invention seems, at least at first, to offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories, the disclosure should be detailed enough to prove to a skilled person conversant with mainstream science and technology that the invention is indeed feasible. … In the present case, the invention does not provide experimental evidence (nor any firm theoretical basis) which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention. The description is essentially based on general statement and speculations which are not apt to provide a clear and exhaustive technical teaching.”
Emphasis mine.
 
  • #3
33
0
Ya but the way I interpreted that section of the article was that it was rejected because they couldn't explain all of why it worked. They are having the same hang up when trying to file for a patent.

Don't get me wrong, I believe they should have to be able to explain how their device works for safety purposes if for nothing else. And if you watch the video, it does appear as though they look really uncomfortable like they are hiding something or hoping something doesn't fail( as if there is a chance it could ).

But regardless, what I am wondering is if their idea is possible. Has anyone tried anything like this before? My understanding is that no one believed fusion was possible on atoms lighter than iron so is this a first? Did scientists with really crummy backgrounds actually stumble onto something good? Or is there some underlying principle that no one has mentioned that negates this whole article.
 
  • #4
2,685
20
Ya but the way I interpreted that section of the article was that it was rejected because they couldn't explain all of why it worked. They are having the same hang up when trying to file for a patent.

Don't get me wrong, I believe they should have to be able to explain how their device works for safety purposes if for nothing else. And if you watch the video, it does appear as though they look really uncomfortable like they are hiding something or hoping something doesn't fail( as if there is a chance it could ).
Which to me, implies they just randomly stumbled on it. Something doesn't ring true.
But regardless, what I am wondering is if their idea is possible. Has anyone tried anything like this before? My understanding is that no one believed fusion was possible on atoms lighter than iron so is this a first? Did scientists with really crummy backgrounds actually stumble onto something good? Or is there some underlying principle that no one has mentioned that negates this whole article.
You understand that the sun is a giant nuclear fusion reactor don't you? Using Hydrogen and Helium as fuel.

I don't know why you are under the impression it can't be done with anything lighter than iron.

Fusion uses the 'light' atoms, fission uses the 'heavy' ones (as a general guide).
 
  • #5
33
0
Nope I didnt know that. As stated above I am only a tech guy. I read this stuff for fun because computer news isn't all that interesting anymore. I was under that impression because several sources that I have read stated that fusion couldn't happen on atoms lighter than iron. I must have read it out of context.
 
  • #6
33
0
Wait isn't the sun's core iron?
 
  • #7
2,685
20
Wait isn't the sun's core iron?
No.

Check the wiki on the Sun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Core
The Sun is composed primarily of the chemical elements hydrogen and helium; they account for 74.9% and 23.8% of the mass of the Sun in the photosphere, respectively.[66] All heavier elements, called metals in astronomy, account for less than 2 percent of the mass. The most abundant metals are oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%).
You really need to start choosing your sources more carefully.
 
  • #8
33
0
Cool thanks.
 
  • #9
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
683
This is one of the banned topics at this site. Please read our rules.

As far as I can tell, this is yet another cold fusion hoax. These "researchers" claim a slew of reactions, all apparently exothermic: 58Ni+1H→59Cu, which decays to 59Ni, then 59Ni+1H→60Cu, and so on, eventually stopping at 62Cu. However, this appearance of a sequence of endothermic reactions is just that, an appearance. The simple mass number math ignores spin and parity. As is, each of these transitions is not allowed. At each stage, the nickel isotope will need to be excited to some other higher energy spin/parity before a transition can occur, and this excitation saps all of the apparent energy gain (and then some). Once spin and parity are taken into account each of the transitions in the chain from 58Ni to 62Cu is in fact endothermic.

The simple mass number calculations that make each reaction in the chain appear to be exothermic is analogous to computing the energy output from burning dry paper. All it takes is a little energy from a match to set the paper ablaze.

A better analogy would be using a match to light soaking wet paper. They are ignoring that the paper first has to be dried (requiring a huge energy input) before it will start to burn. Ignoring the energy input from drying the paper makes it appear that the energy output is positive. It isn't.


Thread closed.
 

Related Threads on Cold Fusion in 3 months?

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
4K
Top