DOE Report on Cold Fusion

thhamm writes "The DOE Report on Cold Fusion (mentioned here too) is out. Take a look at it on the DOE Website. Well, looks like there is nothing really new since Pons & Fleischmann in 1989, because "While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.""

Can't be more appropriate

Finally, a news that is "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.".

Not so fast

Lots of people felt the same way about nuclear energy in the 40s (both for war and peacetime use). Just because we can't make it work now doesn't mean that will be the case in the future. Nor does it mean we should abandon all avenues of research pertaining to it.

Re:Not so fast

So long as the research based on scientific merit rather than the desire for media stardom, and is peer-reviewed before going to the popular media, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Re:Not so fast

With all due respect, that's my field too and I say horse hockey. Ernst Mach was measuring supersonic drag in 1877, and supersonic rifle ammunition was a consumer product before that century was out. The X-1 aircraft's fuselage, in fact, was modeled on the ogival shape of the .50 caliber Browning machine gun bullet because of its demonstrated ability to sustain supersonic flight for a long way downrange. Supersonic airplane flight was a stability and control problem.

That tale is one of those "Aren't we smarter than those self-important authorities" homilies that are as persistent as herpes. It's on a par with "19th century scientists opposed railroad development because they believed you couldn't breathe at 20 mph"...which is very popular among folks who've never been outside in a gale or ridden the animal I alluded to in the first sentence above.

rj

Ok here you go

From this page [aerospaceweb.org]-

Sound barrier:
"The term sound barrier is often associated with supersonic flight. In particular, "breaking the sound barrier" is the process of accelerating through Mach 1 and going from subsonic to supersonic speeds. The term originated in the 1940s when researchers discovered a large increase in drag that seemed to indicate that an infinite amount of thrust would be needed to fly at the speed of sound. In other words, some believed that a physical barrier existed that would prevent an aircraft from ever being able to travel at supersonic speeds. Since there obviously is no such barrier, the term sound barrier is outdated and really should not be used any more. Nevertheless, it has become a popular part of the human language, and continues in use."

Obviously the people who believed this were using flawed methods of reasoning. However, claiming there were none who thought this way is simply denying history. The Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] has a good synopsis. Yes the fact that bullets were known to travel at supersonic velocities should have clued these people in as to the errors in their equations. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in another reply, scientists sometimes choose to ignore factual data that contradicts their preferred theories.

Re:Not so fast

That's ridiculous; it sounds like an urban legend to me.

Nope, not an urban legend. In fact that's how the term "sound barrier" first came into use. Some felt it was a barrier that could not be surpassed.

Bullets and other objects were well known to travel supersonically; they clearly didn't experience any "infinite drag" when passing through the sound barrier. Why, then, should a much more aerodynamic aircraft?

It's a different type of drag. There is more than one type. The predicted infinite drag was wave drag (this becomes significant for airfoils at supersonic speeds). A bullet experiences mostly pressure drag as it is a blunt object. Pressure drag and wave drag are not governed by the same equations.

Re:Not so fast

Fermi conducted neutron capture tests on various materials. He bombarded uranium with neutrons, among other elements, but did not interpret the results as fission.

Once fission itself was discovered, a critical nuclear reactor was constructed only three years later, and nuclear bombs only six years later.

The analogy between fission and cold fusion is very poor. Fission was a a clear cut, easily demonstrated physical phenomenon. It had an intuitive explanation (using the liquid drop model of the nucleus) that violated no known physical laws. Once the news got out physicists all over the place were confirming it within days. The application to large scale release of energy was immediately obvious. Cold fusion is murky, quirky, irreplicable, and almost certainly some combination of experimental errors, incompetence, and outright fraud.

ColdFusion?

Only old koreans use cold fusion. Everyone else has moved to J2EE and then LAMP

Slashdot story summary gets it right

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

How about the Department of Fish and Game releasing their report on Bigfoot? That coming soon?

Long live the true scientist!

I think it is commendable that so much effort is being put into a field of research that there has been little result in in the past 20 years. The results simply are not important, as we have seen in the race to defeat The NP Problem, it is the struggle to further the scientific knowledge. Even bearded terminal hackers should bow to the (surely bearded) physics hackers who thanklessly work on this day and night

We salute you!

I'm sorry

DOE!
Oh dear!
Cold fusion here! /ducks

Surprise!

Actually, that was the second draft. I believe the first draft read: "Despite committing some of the best minds in Physics to the task, we seem to have been one-uped by a bunch of chemists who clearly know more about energy than the er, Department formerly known as 'Energy.' We apologize for wasting tax payer money." "Ok guys, shut those experiments down. Steve got cold fusion. Turns out that the reaction only occurs in people's basements." Damn. Time for a career change. -WF

Titanium foil hats

... to provide evidence for low energy nuclear reactions. These experiments involved low energy deuterium beams impinging on deuterium loaded metal foils such as titanium.

In moments like these I'm glad I bought the tin foil hat and not the more luxurious titanium one.

What a nothing document.

The "conclusion" is in this PDF document:

CF_Final_120104.pdf [doe.gov]
WARNING: PDF

Looks like it's a mixed bag. Apparently 1/3rd of the reviewers were very intrigued by the new results [and at least one reviewer was convinced].

Funding recommendations are similarly indecisive:

The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions.

Some excerpts

Charge Element 1: Examine and evaluate the experimental evidence for the occurrences of nuclear reactions in condensed matter at low energies (less that a few electron volts).

Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced. Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented.

Charge Element 2: Determine whether the evidence is sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that such nuclear reactions occur.

The preponderance of the reviewers' evaluations indicated that Charge Element 2, the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions, is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented. One reviewer believed that the occurrence was demonstrated, and several reviewers did not address the question.

Charge Element 3: Determine whether there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies and, if so, to identify the most promising areas to be pursued.

The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions.

Putting it in prospective

Well, a search for philosopher's stone eventually lead to major progress in chemistry. An attempt to solve NP complete problems may one day lead to progress in quantum computing.

Maybe one day this cold fusion nonsense would lead to progress in something - maybe calorimeters... I'm an optimist - so shoot me :)

[critical subject]

[comment on research]

[faulty logic]

[hope for future advancement]

The Answer's Been Available for 12 Years

Twelve years ago fusion prize award legislation [geocities.com] was proposed. It had the support not only of cold fusion researchers but of one of the three primary founders of the US fusion program supported the legislation. Prizes [bbc.co.uk] actually [charleslindbergh.com] work [xprize.org]. Let the DoE go ahead and do its skeptical measurements and the let private sector do what it does best -- take risks and compete -- peacefully -- while we still can compete peacefully.

mad scientist

Something over a year ago I came up with an alternative to the Pons-Fleischman testing apparatus that eliminated some of the problems with their design. (The biggest problem is that the operation of the cell pumps large amounts of heat into it, orders of magnitude larger than the amount being measured, making it difficult to detect the effect.) I was too lazy to set it up as an experiment so I made it available to the public [shambala.net]. I also sent it to a few of labs doing research in cold fusion. Never heard back, so I guess they're deluged with ideas from other crackpots too. :-D

Cold Fusion never happened, period.

Even Pons admitted it. A few months into cold fusion's hayday in the 1989s, a scientist asked them to use regular water instead of heavy water, as a control. They did--and got the *exact same results*. Hydrogen will NOT fuse with hydrogen except under extreme circumstances--deuterium might. Of course Pons covered it up and cold fusion went from foolishness to fraud.

excerpts since server overloaded

"Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and two disappeared in a pair of 340 kiloton thermonuclear blasts"

I saw some of this presented at APS last year

APS is the American Physical Society. They had a short session on cold fusion, and Chubb was the session chair. The skepticism surrounding this research is so great; my impression was that these people are driving themselves half mad with their efforts to get anyone to take them seriously. But addressing the data presented at that session alone, I would agree with the DOE's findings. I think it is good for the DOE to recommend funding for peer reviewed research. But, I cant imagine what clear eyed researcher with a sufficiently broad perspective would be tempted to invest their time and reputation in this research, given the attitude of the scientific community in general. Too risky.

Re:This is a real shame

What about all those environmentalists who respond with "What about Chernobyl?" every time someone mentions nuclear fission?

While the theory of fusion seems great, fission is possible now and should be explored further. If we are ever to move to a hydrogen economy, we'll have to start soon and we can't wait for fusion.

Re:This is a real shame

Proven reserves of uranium ore (consisting of U3O8 in combination with varying other elements) are in the millions, possibly billions, of metric tons worldwide. Even at relatively low grades (~2% seems to be a common level), a billion tons of ore would result in some 20 million tons of U3O8, which could be separated and enriched enough to provide power for centuries, especially when combined with breeder reactors that allow existing low-grade material to be enriched which could extend the fuel's useful life to thousands of years. Uranium mining operations are at work at least in the US, China, Australia, and Canada, and I imagine in a number of other nations around the world.

Re:U308?

Look more closely at what I wrote: U3O8 -- three uranium atoms and eight oxygen atoms, or uranium oxide. That's the most commonly-cited form I've found in terms of ores (though there are various other molecules, I'm sure.