Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Cold fusion?

  1. Jan 18, 2006 #1
    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 dont know if its reliable or not... like alot 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...
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 19, 2006 #2

    Mk

    User Avatar

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2006
  4. Jan 21, 2006 #3
    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".
     
  5. Mar 4, 2006 #4
    "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 anomolous 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
     
  6. Mar 4, 2006 #5
    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
     
  7. Mar 4, 2006 #6
    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
     
  8. Mar 4, 2006 #7

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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 here.

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

    Best regards,

    The Staff of Physics Forums
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Cold fusion?
  1. Cold Fusion Questions (Replies: 4)

  2. Cold fusion? (Replies: 16)

  3. Cold Fusion demo (Replies: 11)

  4. Cold Fusion (Replies: 8)

Loading...