14 Years Later, Cold Fusion Still Gets The Cold Shoulder 561
segment writes "It has been 14 years since two little-known electrochemists announced what sounded like the biggest physics breakthrough since Enrico Fermi produced a nuclear chain reaction on a squash court in Chicago. Using a tabletop setup, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, of the University of Utah, said they had induced deuterium nuclei to fuse inside metal electrodes, producing measurable quantities of heat. That was the opening bell for one of the craziest periods in science. Cold fusion, if real, promised to solve the world's energy problems forever. Scientists around the world dropped what they were doing to try to replicate the astounding claim."
The linked AP story (carried on SFGate.com) is about the
Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, which took place in the last week of August.
"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:4, Insightful)
It was the irreproducability of the alleged results that meant that there wasn't a phenomenon worthy of further investigation.
At least morgan freeman was in it as well (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be silly. The results were reproducible, and many labs around the world announced success. But the results weren't reliably reproducible. So those who couldn't reporoduce them on the first or second try immediately dismissed the whole claim as a hoax.
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:3, Informative)
Taking a very difficult measurement(one in which experimental error is common and which the observations are barely above the noise level of the apparatus) and occasionally getting a positive result, and then not running any controls (after the initial media frenzy, several labs found the same minute energy increase was also sometimes observed while using non-
Cold Fusion Work at Bell Labs Back Then (Score:5, Funny)
One of my jobs was sysadmin for a departmental computer lab that was in a big glass-fishbowl room (remember when computers were big?) I was heading off for a week to see a customer on another project, but I took a few minutes to print out a line-printer banner about "Cold Fusion Research Laboratory" and cobble together some random parts and wires and 5-gallon jars of liquid and set them up in the window before I left. They were gone by the time I got back :-)
Simple rule of thumb: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Maybe it still gets the cold shoulder because there didn't turn out to be anything to it?
"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't."
That's what I said to a friend the day after the "discovery" hit the news, and I haven't had any cause to reconsider my position since.
Re:Simple rule of thumb: (Score:4, Informative)
The Scientist, the Madman, the Thief and Their Lightbulb: The Biggest Scandal in the History of Science [amazon.com]
The book is a good, fun read. Even if you don't believe everything in the book, there's great coverage of the science behind "cold fusion" (and other technologies). If you are sceptical and don't have "any cause to reconsider [your] position", read the book--You won't be dissapointed.
Full Disclosure: I have absolutely no association with the book, author, publisher, etc... -- Just a great book which I finished reading a month ago and have reccomended to a ton of my friends, all who have enjoyed it very much and made them ask questions they hadn't thought about asking before.
Re:Simple rule of thumb: (Score:3, Informative)
"Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion [amazon.com]
". It's a difficult read, but it has footnotes and goes to some pains to explain the issues involved. (And the authors other title is also serious scientific journalism.)
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:4, Interesting)
LS
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:4, Insightful)
So call it something else already, and maybe those who study whatever "it" is may have a shot at being taken seriously.
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:4, Insightful)
They have been studying "it" for 14 years now, and they are STILL at the "we suspect that something is there, but we don't really have a clue as to what it might be, nor do we even have any real evidence that anything is really there at all" stage.
Nonetheless, cold fusion conspiracy theorists like to point out that a "major Japanese corporation" has a working model that is due to be demonstrated Real Soon Now.....
and has been so due for 14 years so far.
Duke (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:3, Interesting)
They see what they
The difference between scientists and engineers (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I remember the time when high temperature superconductivity was announced (little pill of material magnetically levitated in a cooled environment). Scientists started spouting on about lossless power lines using superconductors. Engineers skeptically thought that the energy required for the refridgeratio
the engineers need the scientists (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The difference between scientists and engineers (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, real point was that there was no longer a theoretical barrier to there being 50 deg. C superconductors. If and when those are discovered, they'll radically change things, even if they turn out to be a bastard to work with mechanically.
Free Energy? (Score:3, Funny)
From what I hear, George W Bush strongly advocates further research into free energy and antigravity [byzantinec...ations.com].
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:3, Insightful)
The cold fusion-ists can't even agree amongst themselves what that "something" is! Heat? Neutrons? Helium? Alchemy? In the quantities they claim, all three are DIFFERENT and MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE of each other. Only the low-level, low-rate neutron claim is even consistent with nuclear fusion!!!!
What seems to go over the article writer's head completely is that the claims _were_ looked at, scrutinized, dissected, analyzed and critiqued already FOURTEE
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:3, Troll)
If there were any fusion taking place, there would be excess heat, released neutrons (posibly), and helium produced, which could be called Alchemy (H + H = He). We know fusion is possible, because the Sun can do it, and we can do it will intertial or magnetic confinement and simple thermal energy
Re: "Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:5, Insightful)
> It was investigated by all the best labs in the world. Result: they have no theory; they have no data.
Never stopped other varieties of kook from sticking to their story.
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:3, Interesting)
While there is some data to be found, the lack of theory isn't necessarily a problem.
After all, Volta never lived to learn about the electron.
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:5, Interesting)
Nonsense like this breaks out periodically in physics. Remember polywater? The '14 KeV neutrino'? The 'fifth force'? The 'Allison Effect'? 'N rays'? All of these were big in their day, but died away because there turned out not to be anything there.
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:3, Insightful)
A bad experiment doesnt necesarrily disprove a theory. Just the experiment.
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:3, Interesting)
If you have a chance, check out the book The Scientist, the Madman, the Thief and Their Lightbulb: The Biggest Scandal in the History of Science. Other than greats like Tesla, it talks about the political maneuvering that took place at their university, and institutions and other scientists with which they worked.
Fleischmann
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly their results have been duplicated by many, but for every duplication that produced excess heat, their has been two that fail to do so. An experiment that can only be replicated by believers isn't science, it's charlatanism. (Testable propositio
Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder" (Score:4, Informative)
Not quite what's happening here. It's obvious that most people here haven't read anything about what's going on with those studying 'cold fusion'. Most of those who do study it agree that whatever is happening, it isn't fusion. It retains the name for historical reasons.
What IS happening doesn't seem to conform to what anyone understands about physics. People performing (as far as they can tell) the exact same expierment will get different results. Even the same person doing the same expierment multiple times gets different results.
Often there is a significant amount of heat generated, often not. Somtimes there are neutrons, sometimes not. Most of those who are looking into it will freely say that it isn't fusion, and that most likely it isn't going to be too useful. The fact that there are some anomolous results happening, that aren't easily accounted for, indicates that it's at least worth studying.
If real? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:If real? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If real? (Score:5, Funny)
Your own sense of self-satisfaction?
Re:If real? (Score:3, Informative)
What really happened (Score:5, Funny)
- "Yo, Mike!"
- "Yeah, Gabe?"
- "We got a problem down on Earth. In Utah."
- "I thought you fixed that last century!"
- "No, no, not that. Someone's found a security problem in the physics program. They're getting energy out of nowhere."
- "Blessit! Lemme look... Hey, it's there all right! OK, just a sec... There, that ought to patch it. Dist it out, wouldja?"
-- Cold Fusion, 1989
Re:What really happened (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, to be honest, we DID patch it, about 60 million years ago, but our lead felt it was so hilarious, he put it back in as an easter-egg in the evolution module's garbage collection heap, where he figured noone would see it.
We had to cancel memory deallocation when people showed up and started LIVING there, before the memory corruption spread too far. We managed to stabilize the region, of course, but not before they started thinking "G'day mate" was a proper way to talk.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Say what you want, alchemists were very smart for their time. They made that one thing that produced energy around 2000 years ago, and it has held the human mind captive ever since. What did they call t
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously some crackpot mixing chemicals in his crucible isn't going to achieve the same (and may as well be pissing in the wind for all the good it would do him). But the underlying principle that you can make turn base metals or anything else into gold is true if you have a spare ten billion years and a star or two to do it with.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Obviously some crackpot mixing chemicals in his crucible isn't going to achieve the same
Oddly enough, if he mixes the right sort of earth with quicksilver and then applies fire 'to drive away the excess water', he will in fact find gold has been left behind. Of course he'll also get a terrible case of mercury poisoning.
This is the way it's always been... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always been this way. Theres a big difference between the scientific method, and Science, Inc. And while you're at it, realize that Science Inc is as much a religion as any other faiths. It has its orthodoxies just like anything else. The Atkins Diet has always had its detractors. It took them, what, over two decades to admit that you can lose weight with it? And even now some doctors refuse to acknowledge that it can work. It violated the dogma of low fat/high carbs. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, science has its dogmas. Stephen Hawking is considered a genius now, but back when he was starting his career, the Steady State theory was the reigning dogma of physics. Some scientists simply refused to acknowledge any other possibilities.
Revolutionary ideas in science are often met with skepticism at first.
Re:This is the way it's always been... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Phenomenon may be measured.
2. If phenomenon is observerd to repeat at least 19 times out of 20, then it will be considered repeating.
3. Theories should be based on evidence, and when evidence is contrary to the theory, the theory should be suspect.
I don't see any measurement of the phenomenon in any labs that I feel are credible (ie most of the world), and I don't see repeatability (either in the one lab that claims creation, or the other lab t
Cold fusion works! (Score:4, Funny)
Chain Reaction (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Chain Reaction (Score:3, Interesting)
publish instead of patenting it and when something is published
it can't be patented.
So the only option they got where a cover up.
Re:electric cars (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Chain Reaction (Score:3, Interesting)
I am talking about the ability for a single crazy person to kill many people by himself.
For instance, long ago when the only personal weapons we had were sticks and rocks, it was hard to kill single person, and in the meantime someone would stop the attacker.
Then we had swords. A single person with a sword can kill more effectively with a sword and would require an opponent with a sword to stop him.
Now we have personal firearms. A single person ca
Let us dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Im not saying that cold fusion itself is the future, but what we are presently using is certainly not the platform for all future generations. Hell, if Bush gets his way there might not even be enough sun left for solar energy so there has to be soemthing to fill the void.
Re:Let us dream (Score:3, Interesting)
It *was* given a chance--many of them--and it failed to turn up. Dream if you like, and the rest of us will keep working toward power solutions that actually function.
Re:Let us dream (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have plain old fission nuclear power, and the only think really wrong with it is that it works TOO well. Any relatively small package capable of releasing tremendous energy will be usable as a weapon, and that is exactly what's keeping nuclear power down.
I realize there are environmental concerns too, but I think fear over the devastating potential of nuclear weapons is the root problem. Without that, pollution can be managed and contained.
Carl Sagan: "The Burden of Skepticism" (Score:5, Interesting)
Carl Sagan addressed this issue in his essay, "The Burden of Skepticism." [positiveatheism.org] (See also lecture version [uiowa.edu]).
Sagan explained:
Stop cold fusion research... (Score:4, Funny)
So you could say the trail has grown cold? (Score:4, Interesting)
It been at least that long since we were promised Hydrogen fuel cells. Where's my fuel cell powered truck?
I think consumers have been patient enough. Now it is time for companies to deliver something.
Re:So you could say the trail has grown cold? (Score:3, Informative)
Argonne National Laboratory Hydrogen Research [anl.gov]
Give us 0.1% of the money we spent on Iraq and we'll give you a hydrogen economy. The question is, do you really want a change, or will you ride your SUV into oblivion?
The US Millitary is rolling out fuel powered vehic (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing that got me about the coldfusion people was when they started doing the calorimetry to prove it worked.
The surest way you can spot bullshit power generation claims, is when their proponents pull out the calorimeter. Anything thats going to be a real power generation technology isn't going to need a calorimeter to prove it will work. The amount of he
Embarassed (Score:5, Insightful)
No win situation for their critics really. They are going to have a tough time getting any support.
Re:Embarassed (Score:3, Interesting)
It is true that physicists can be a prideful lot, but that tends be truer than not for smart people in general. But to reject what would be remarkable new science because they 'got burned' would be beyond pride and well into hubris.
Lots of physicists tried the experiments back in 1989 because the claims were so remarkable, the recipe so sim
Cold Fusion? (Score:5, Funny)
Here's a good article... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html [caltech.edu]
Pons and Fleischmann (Score:5, Interesting)
The Pons and Fleischmann "cold fusion" experiment was thoroughly discredited shortly after the press conference (in which they grossly overstated their results). Apparently they were spooked by another researcher working in a similar area. They had signed an agreement with him not to release any results, but got paranoid that he was going to "claim the credit", and went ahead and announced - kind of an "announce and hope the results back you up" gamble. Well, the results *didn't* back them up, although it is interesting that many reputable teams who sought to replicate the results initially did so, but one by one retracted their findings when they discovered various flaws in their methodologies.
I think the basic problem with the original Pons and Fleischmann experiment was that their calorimeter (which they used to get their "excess heat" measurements) was either faulty, or inappropriate for the experiement they were performing, and they didn't control for it.
grib.
Broadband access for $2/month (Score:4, Funny)
We all know the typical objection to unlimited data compression. One needs only to Google for "counting argument" to realize that further compression of essentially random (e.g., binary) data is impossible. Searches for better compression algorithms at best have minimal returns (1-2% reductions are considered remarkable) or at worst ineffective or outright hoaxes.
My new technology builds upon quantum duality -- influence at a distance. From first year quantum physics we know that observation of a particle can fix its state. Should a particle and anti-particle be released, we can *at a distance* fix the identity of the opposite particle merely by observation. What does this mean? Well, for one, by sending a stream of anti-particles to a remote observer then observing its opposite, we can then fix the identity of the remote particles *no matter how much distance*. This means we can instantaneously send as a stream of quantum particles. Schroedinger's and Heisenbergs body of work more than amply addresses the mechanics of this remote communication so I won't bore you with the technical details here.
How does my method overcome the inherent randomness of quantum identity? It doesn't. I rely upon a remote lookup table. The receiver will only need to be sent a key of several bits. The remote receiver can then index the key to a table of longer values. For example, a key code of 001 would correspond to a larger sequence such as 00100111. By performing a lookup on this table the receiver can then expand the key to arbitrarily large bit sequences. How are the keys transferred? Our new technology -- Extended Schroedinger Particle (ESP) -- bases itself upon the aforementioned work by Mr. Schroedinger. Of course, trade secrets and corporate lawyers prevent me from revealing the exact method.
Anyhow, please send me money so that I can continue my research. It has the potential to obviate and obsolete all current telecommunications networks.
KLL
Old Cold Fusion Stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pub
Re:Old Cold Fusion Stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
"We do not know if Cold Fusion will be the answer to future energy needs, but we do know the existence of Cold Fusion phenomenon through repeated observations by scientists throughout the world. It is time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap whatever benefits accrue from additional scientific understanding."
I am fairly skeptical of extraordinary claims, but if the US military has researchers writing things like this, I'm definitely willing to listen.
and when we do achieve cold fusion... (Score:5, Funny)
(you have to know how a nukular power plant works to get this joke)
Cold Shoulder? (Score:3, Funny)
What the heck kind of shoulder did you expect cold fusion to get?
Things to remember (Score:5, Interesting)
Science by press release is almost never ever good science.
Big physics has been getting more money than big chemistry. Many chemists jumped on the bandwagon in the hopes of getting research grants in their discipline.
The nature of fusion makes the whole idea of "cold fussion" an oxymoron.
A lot of ameteur's have been getting closer to fusion in their homes [fusor.net] than the cold fusion people have ever gotten.
See sig for final thoughts on this subject.
Cold fusion and muon catalysis (Score:5, Insightful)
QMech says that if you've got hydrogens with muon shells instead of electron shells, you'll see spontaneous fusion reactions at very low temperatures. The reasons why are hard to explain without going into a lot of math, but it's quite possible according to the Standard Model.
Of course, there's a world of difference between possible and feasible. But physicists are only concerned with the possible. Feasible is for engineers.
The primary beneficiary (Score:4, Funny)
Coincidentally, it's been 14 years since my Introductory Physics professor blew off pretty much the entire second semester to try to replicate the Pons & Fleischman findings. It worked out well -- he got a cover article in Nature and I got an A+ after he reused all the previous years' exams verbatim.
(You'd think everyone else would have gotten old exams from their friends, but I, though hardly an Alpha Beta, was apparently one of the few students who _had_ friends. For that matter, I could never understand how people could be given a word problem with the force and mass, told to find the acceleration, and given the relevant equations, couldn't locate f=ma and plug the values in.)
The same guy, when he talked about the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse pronounced it "Tacomanaros". It was years before I learned that it wasn't in Uruguay or Bolivia...
Cold Fusion"and Neural Networks: Similar Fates (Score:3, Interesting)
To briefly summarize the tale of woe, Frank Rosenblatt invented the perceptron in 1957. It had one layer of artificial neurons and sparked an entire field of research in artificial learning. In 1969, Marvin Minsky at MIT wrote a book called "Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational Geometry"; in it, he mathematically proved that the perceptron could not solve certain classes of problems. This book essentially decimated funding for neural-network research for about 15 years.
In 1982, John Hopfield at Caltech revived the field with the invention of the Hopfield Networks. Further, several researchers invented backpropagation as a way to train neural networks with 2 or more layers or artificial neurons and overcame the limitations that Minsky indicated. Now, the field of neural networks has plenty of money to do research.
So, there is a possibility that research into cold fusion will grow hot again.
... from the desk of the reporter [geocities.com]
Media, Culture vs Science (Score:5, Interesting)
I spoke [stanforddaily.com] with a nobel laureate physicist about cold fusion. I found that while he didn't think there was much to cold fusion (it isn't his primary area of research, but if he can't comment on it, who can?), I didn't get the feeling he held the anomosity usually attributed to the scientific community at large. (I frankly don't either) I think that the media plays a significant role in blackening the field. Kind of like the kid on the playground who eggs on fights, but never participates in them.
Scientists believe in publication, in particular good ones. If cold fusion-ites publish interesting/good research on the subject, they will be recognized. As pointed out in the above link, there was a seemingly cold fusion-like experiment that was published in science quite recently (it isn't quite cold fusion, because the events themselves are hot and very small).
Most scientists deal with skeptical peers regularly, this isn't just a property of the cold fusion community. That said, just because there is a conference on it doesn't make it real or even interesting. I personally find it interesting, but I wouldn't bet on seeing commercial applications of this in our lifetimes.
-Sean
More SCO news..... (Score:5, Funny)
Crackpot Index... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Crackpot Index... (Score:5, Funny)
Old Compuserve Science & Math forum (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems there were a lot of complex things interacting, electrical, chemical, thermal and *mechanical*. The palladium electode absorbing hydrogen gets visibly larger as it pulls the ions in - there was speculation that a lot of energy was being stored this way via a spring-loading effect, but nobody on the forum knew or cared to calculate how much. Spontaneous collapse of many microscopic internal structures in the electrode could account for episodes of heat release IF enough energy is stored this way.
The CFers also claimed elevated radiation near the experiments once. It turned out they were measuring radon levels in the basement where the experiment was being conducted.
Wish I'd saved my Compuserve logs of this stuff, but I couldn't afford the floppies, $5 each at the time. :-)
Anyway, once it became apparent the experiments had many possible flaws and were failing to produce any clear positive results, researchers who valued their career would have been crazy to waste the time.
Anybody here participate in the Science & Math forum back then? I've always wondered what happened to the moderator, Emory Kimbrough.
Two independent issues. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who presents their data to the popular press prior to being peer reviewed should be heavily criticized. Even the most senior and brightest scientist make mistakes, become too enthusiastic, or may fail to run the proper controls. Furthermore, given that their data changed over time (from one Watt in, four out to one Watt in, ten out) with no reasoning, backing or explanation, one has to question the accuracy of their data.
Great scientists sometimes make big mistakes, such as with Dr. Atassi and his experiment with pepzymes. Unlike the cold fusion scientists, Dr. Atassi went through the peer review process and later didn't play the ego game. Personally, I think Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann were greatly mislead by their enthusiasm (I wouldn't go nearly so far as to call them frauds). Just as the mistakes of these two scientists don't invalidate the field of cold fusion, the successes of the field don't make their claims any more accurate.
Re:Two independent issues. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Horsepoo. (Score:3, Insightful)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Papers, or in the case of the cold fusion scientists - press conferences, that go against conventional thought must provide additional evidence, additional controls, and extremely meticulous record keeping. Simply beca
Codl fusion != Cold Fusion (Score:3, Flamebait)
The Pons and Fleischmann "cold fusion" experiments where reproduced by several labs(including my university). However, it has nothing to do with cold fusion, that is the resume. As fusion, cold or not, creates measureable amounts of neutrons. Those did not get detected.
What remains is a heat producing aparatus with unknown reaction.
Second:
There are a lot of other ways to get a cold fusin reaction. And that is old science from the late 70th. One is "myon catalised fusion". In that case you bombard H atoms with myons. Myons are particls with similar behaviour likel electrons. Those can replace the electorns of an H atom. As a myon has about 300,000 times the mass of an electron it orbits the H atom very close. When two H atoms with their electrons replaced by myons form a mulecule, the two H cores are brought so close together that a fusion can happen.
There are likely other ways for "cold fusion".
Interesting, that a "geek net magazine" where posters/readers are supposed to have a clue about computers and related sciences behave like inquisitors when it goes about cold fusion and behave like experts when it goes about asteroid deflection or near earth misses
Probably it would be at least nice, if not wise, to open up your mind.
angel'o'sphere
Muon fusion catalysis (Score:5, Informative)
They hit the theoretical; they're within a factor of 15 of practical. This makes muon-catalyzed fusion the closest to viability of any fusion method so far. On the other hand, people have been throwing themselves at it for 20 years now trying to close that factor-of-15 gap and haven't gotten anywhere. Nowadays it's thought that there are some physical limitations on muon fusion which will prevent it from closing that factor-of-15 gap, and muon catalysis is no longer considered to be the most promising light on the horizon.
Muons are not 300,000 times the mass of an electron; they're 207 times the mass of an electron (or appreciably close to the mass of a proton).
Re:What about aneutronic fission? (Score:3, Informative)
No. Hydrogen bombs are horribly misnamed; they're really just very, very large fission bombs. The initial fission core goes off; the heat and pressure creates a very brief fusion reaction; as a consequence of this fusion reaction a huge amount of very energetic neutrons are produced; and the neutrons from the fusion reaction are then u
There IS something there... (Score:5, Interesting)
Although it's now been 10 years since I've done any serious research on the subject (every now & then I read the symposium notes), I can give you my opinions of the whole Cold Fusion uproar:
-There is something strange & new going on in these experiments
-This something strange & new has been very difficult to reproduce consistently (much of the research focuses on certain types of atomic level imperfections in the cathodes)
-Pons & Fleischmann screwed the pooch by announcing their results before they could reproduce them. This basically had the effect of turning 95% of the scientific community against them. This has led to many people assuming the entire field of study as bogus.
-Many scientist around the world have reported "good results" - ranging from melted cathodes (excess heat) to extra helium (fusion of hydrogen atoms?).
My guess is that there is some new type of reaction occuring in these experiments. It may or may not be able to produce excess heat. Regardless, I'd bet in 10-20 years, a paper will be published that will explain it all.
As a side note, Dr. Bockris was a very "interesting" fellow to work with - he was the epitomy of the absent minded professor; one day he came in to work with his button down dress shirt on INSIDE OUT (think about how much effort it would take you to button a dress shirt in such a fashion); he frequently would put a MARKER in his front pocket without the cap on - leading to a HUGE ink stain on many of his dress shirts. And yes, I know he's done some weird stuff in his life (alchemy, anyone?! - http://www.spectrometer.org/path/free.html).
Re:There IS something there... (Score:3, Insightful)
-There is something strange & new going on in these experiments
I've no doubt this is quite possibly true. Regardless of what "it" turns out to be (or whether we'll ever know) I think it makes an excellent case study of why the system of peer review and formal publication exists, and the costs of electing to
Forget cold fusion -- (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw a paper once which even offered up the possibility of non-radioactive nano-fusion -- boron and carbon, I think.
What are you talking about? (Score:5, Funny)
Secrecy Alone Should Have Nipped This in the Bud (Score:3, Insightful)
Like the cart pulling the horse, agenda is leading all aspects of investigation. The end result doesn't function.
Now, I'm not densedly supposing that agenda (bias, philosophy
But
In addition, I often wonder if the majority of scientists today are simply too badly trained to even begin to address their serious lack of objectivity. As their mentors become progressively more whores for government and industry grants, that agenda-rich attitude can only pervade their students. The developing product is what we clearly see today: cold fusion is still an "I don't know" topic when all they had to do was run some arguably cheap and computationally simple experiments. Forgetting to take into account mass and heat loss from evaporation? These people aren't scientists.
Let's not forget the brouhaha over Pons's and Fle.'s legendary reluctance to be forthcoming about methods in order to have their experiment duplicated. That alone should have had the claim laughed off the press (non full disclosure is a hallmark of a hoax). But it wasn't
Cold fusion is right freakin' up there with perpetual motion. PM claims are easy to debunk
Not the University research, but independant. (Score:5, Informative)
Stanly Pons and Martin Fleischmann were both separately employeed by the University, but the research was not sponsored by the school. They were using some of the school's facilities with permission, basically because of the high cost of the equipment.
See http://www.chem.utah.edu/depthistory/ChemDept_Hist ory.pdf [utah.edu] for some of this:
Because the original press conference was conveniend at the University, and because both professors were affiliated with the U of U, and that further research was taken up by the University at the time of the press conference, many journalists jumped to the conclusion that it was the University's project.Other than the /. error, the article iteself is rather interesting, including this answer from a professor: "The question I get more than any other is, 'Are you still doing this?', " says Prof. Jones. "The answer is yes, and what we are seeing is very difficult to explain outside of cold fusion. The repeatability of these experiments now approaches 80 percent." [Insert comparison to Microsoft here.]
frob
Other countries (Score:3, Insightful)
We are just ignoring something that might be possible "out of hand". The MIT prof said several times "I wish some physicist would prove us wrong now", but they don't. It's just completly ignored, even though there is some current evidence. But other countries continue work.
There is a vested intrest against cold-fushion and pro hot-fushion in the US. Hot fushion is a hard thing to do, therefor it's not really profitable as an energy source for the public. Plus, the US already is against nuclear plants after three-mile island and such. So, we stay dependent on...coal. Oil for the initial energy source.
Other countries don't need to be tied to oil like the US is, and are moving on. Just as our prohibition on stem-cell research is mostly religious based. Someone else will figure it out, and we will have some problems dealing with someone else with the upper technological hand for once...especially if they don't like us.
What annoys me about the Cold Fusion conference (Score:3, Funny)
Re:they made a movie about it too! (Score:3, Funny)
But the scientist concerned wore a real lab coat, so it must work...
Re:cold fusion? (Score:3, Funny)
"6 versions later and ColdFusion still gets the cold shoulder (And crashes now and then for some reason)"
Re:Cold Fusion experiments for everyone... (Score:4, Interesting)
If he really had a reaction that was actually creating energy, you could unplug the power supply and the reaction would continue. Infact the reaction would continue to grow and a means of throttling the reaction would be necessary.
What he really has here is a rather dangerous light bulb. It's none too efficient either.
My analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
Source of reactor info:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/html/cfrtiny2
Experimental setup:
Place tungsten welding rods in a corrosive solution of NaHCO3. Use a AC/DC rectifier to convert wall current to a high DC potential across the rods. Measure the input energy using a power meter. Calculate the output energy by measuring the evaporated water and increase in heat (like you would with a cheapo calorimeter). Compare.
Test and analysis:
Run the system for approximately 3 minutes. Note that, as the rods corrode, their conductance goes down, bringing down the Wattage as well.
This is easily predicted. Resistance (R) is roughly proportional to the rod corrosion. Current (I) equals the applied voltage (V) divided by the resistance; I=V/R. Power (P) is P=I^2*R; for our system, P=(V/R)^2*R=V^2/R. Therefore, as R goes up, the input power goes down. This agrees with the experiment.
The "researcher" then makes several obvious mistakes in calculating the output energy. First, he ignores the effect of the NaHCO3, and pretends the rods were dipped in pure water. Second, he forgets to subtract the 6mL of evaporated water from the 150mL of water that rose in temperature. He also ignores the chemical effect of eating away at the tungsten rods.
His experiment does show more energy output than input, and I believe his numbers are roughly accurate (barring the mistakes outlined above).
My analysis:
This experiment shows that exothermic chemical reactions exist. Other famous examples of exothermic chemical reactions which corrode metal are Energizer and Duracell batteries. Burning a match is also characteristically similar.
His experiment has nothing to do with nuclear reactions. Just chemical ones.
Re:Cold Fusion experiments for everyone... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you look at the power meter [imars.com] picture, you'll see 0.347 kWh of electricity used.
He converts this to an input power of 347 watts - which is (pardon my French) cuillons (that's 'bollocks' for the non-Francophones).
0.347 kWh used in 30 minutes is 694 watts input power - thus (as someone has pointed out) he has just made a dangerous lightbulb.
It's an elementary mistake, but buried in so much garbage that it's easy to miss.
Re:Where are the neutrons? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A Logical Explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fusion Reactor Types (Score:3, Interesting)
I always thought that neither pressure nor temperature does even come close to the needed levels.
btw: The ultimate energy source would be an ultrasmall black whole trapped in a ioffe-trap.
Just keep it at a size with significant hawking radiation and feed it with a particle jet.
You get 100% mass to energy conversion.
(but i thing you also get a small problem with entropy and thermodynamics. they dont really like such stuff
Re:Cold fusion it's impossible (Score:4, Informative)
Sort of. That version of the 2nd law is true in classical thermodynamics. But when you throw relativity and nuclear reactions into the mix, it breaks down. Instead, you have talk about both mass and energy, which are equivalent in the good old ratio E=mc^2. This is why atomic fission (nuclear reactors and fission bombs) and "hot" fusion (hydrogen bombs) work. A small fraction of the mass is converted into energy. The classical versions of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are being violated, but if you take the equivalence of mass and energy into account then it all works again. (It's been ages since I studied this stuff, but I think I have that basically right.)
Re:Well what do you expect? (Score:3)
Indeed. And that can be extended to, "Just because the media tells you something which you are too lazy to investigate more deeply on your own, doesn't make popular concensus true either."
Hell, popular concensus is never particularly reliable.
-FL