Cold Fusion Fact or Fiction?
Cold Fusion (LENR) as a scientific problem
In 1989, there was next to the revolutions in Eastern Europe, an observation of Pones and Fleischmann that could extend far beyond the date. Excess heat at a palladium cathode was created and interpreted as a sign of the energy release resulting from the fusion of deuterium. This observation was announced on March 23, 1989, in a press conference.
Why is this observation of such importance
At least since the droppings of the atomic bombs, everyone knows that nuclear energy can release extremely large amounts of energy and can also be destructive. In the "Atoms for Peace" speech by President D.D. Eisenhower, a research program was initiated to construct nuclear reactors to produce energy from uranium in large quantities. Ultimately, this technology has significant side effects, particularly long-lasting results, radioactive substances (final storage), the reactor may melt (worst case scenario) and the technology is suitable in principle for the development of nuclear weapons (proliferation). Therefore, the development of nuclear energy in the version of nuclear fission has come to an almost complete stop.
Wendelstein 7 experiment in Germany using temperatures above 10 million °C to analyze "hot" fusion.
The energy of the atomic nuclei can also by fusing of hydrogen, specifically deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, release extraordinarily much energy. The waste product is helium, a completely harmless gas. Science is trying hard to produce nuclear fusion for over fifty years, unfortunately so far without visible success. The main problems lie in the extremely high temperature, several 10 million degrees Celsius, the elaborate reactor construction with considerable problems by neutrons and thus radioactivity as well as problems of energy, if it ever occurs, because the dissipate process is far from easy.
The absolute silver bullet would be a catalyst that merges two deuterium atoms into helium, thereby releasing heat energy, but not emitting radioactive radiation. Just that would be cold nuclear fusion, the perfect power source. Since deuterium is present in very larger amounts in normal water, there are no resource problems, no waste problems, no size limitation of the reactors. A range from a few watts to gigawatts could be possible, thus the perfect power source!
With such a power source all the classic energy sources from coal to oil as well as wind and solar energy would no longer be necessary. Including the infrastructure such as power grids, gas stations, storage and the like.
At least since the droppings of the atomic bombs, everyone knows that nuclear energy can release extremely large amounts of energy and can also be destructive. In the "Atoms for Peace" speech by President D.D. Eisenhower, a research program was initiated to construct nuclear reactors to produce energy from uranium in large quantities. Ultimately, this technology has significant side effects, particularly long-lasting results, radioactive substances (final storage), the reactor may melt (worst case scenario) and the technology is suitable in principle for the development of nuclear weapons (proliferation). Therefore, the development of nuclear energy in the version of nuclear fission has come to an almost complete stop.
The energy of the atomic nuclei can also by fusing of hydrogen, specifically deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, release extraordinarily much energy. The waste product is helium, a completely harmless gas. Science is trying hard to produce nuclear fusion for over fifty years, unfortunately so far without visible success. The main problems lie in the extremely high temperature, several 10 million degrees Celsius, the elaborate reactor construction with considerable problems by neutrons and thus radioactivity as well as problems of energy, if it ever occurs, because the dissipate process is far from easy.
 |
| Wendelstein 7 experiment in Germany using temperatures above 10 million °C to analyze "hot" fusion. |
The absolute silver bullet would be a catalyst that merges two deuterium atoms into helium, thereby releasing heat energy, but not emitting radioactive radiation. Just that would be cold nuclear fusion, the perfect power source. Since deuterium is present in very larger amounts in normal water, there are no resource problems, no waste problems, no size limitation of the reactors. A range from a few watts to gigawatts could be possible, thus the perfect power source!
With such a power source all the classic energy sources from coal to oil as well as wind and solar energy would no longer be necessary. Including the infrastructure such as power grids, gas stations, storage and the like.
The observation problem
Modern science is based on a simple principle, someone makes a discovery, publishes this discovery, others reconstruct the experiment and confirm or refute the observation. In the case of cold fusion, the sequence is unfortunately difficult. This is due to a fact that scientists Pones and Fleischmann did not take the traditional route to publication, they have chosen the path of a press conference. That did leave the taste of dubious at least.
In the second phase, the experiment was even by Pones and Fleischmann not direct reproducible. There is a lack of, at least at that time, the expected neutron radiation and in particular the generation of heat. Within a few months, the topic was done and could actually disappear in the archives of science.
A particular problem was, that the Department of Energy (DOE) described in a report [in the fall of 1989, 1]
" Others, however, report excess heat production and either no fusion products or fusion products at a level well below that implied by reported heat production."
The interesting part of that sentence is, that heat production was found, but the theoretical explanation was not possible, suggesting, that the fact of heat production did not exist. This is a curious situation in science, that some experiments, not aligned with the current theory are rejected simply by the result!
The DOE continues with "... Hence, we recommend against the establishment of special programs or research centers to develop cold fusion...", sorry, the results are against the current theory, we don't fund such stuff.
It is a deep problem of science, on the one hand, one can never disprove an experiment, due to open problems in using the exact same material and procedure, it can only show that it is reproduce-able in the best case. This corresponds, in a modification, to the Popper's principle, that, while falsify is simple, verification is in theory impossible.
Modern science is based on a simple principle, someone makes a discovery, publishes this discovery, others reconstruct the experiment and confirm or refute the observation. In the case of cold fusion, the sequence is unfortunately difficult. This is due to a fact that scientists Pones and Fleischmann did not take the traditional route to publication, they have chosen the path of a press conference. That did leave the taste of dubious at least.
In the second phase, the experiment was even by Pones and Fleischmann not direct reproducible. There is a lack of, at least at that time, the expected neutron radiation and in particular the generation of heat. Within a few months, the topic was done and could actually disappear in the archives of science.
A particular problem was, that the Department of Energy (DOE) described in a report [in the fall of 1989, 1]
" Others, however, report excess heat production and either no fusion products or fusion products at a level well below that implied by reported heat production."
The interesting part of that sentence is, that heat production was found, but the theoretical explanation was not possible, suggesting, that the fact of heat production did not exist. This is a curious situation in science, that some experiments, not aligned with the current theory are rejected simply by the result! The DOE continues with "... Hence, we recommend against the establishment of special programs or research centers to develop cold fusion...", sorry, the results are against the current theory, we don't fund such stuff.
It is a deep problem of science, on the one hand, one can never disprove an experiment, due to open problems in using the exact same material and procedure, it can only show that it is reproduce-able in the best case. This corresponds, in a modification, to the Popper's principle, that, while falsify is simple, verification is in theory impossible.
Why Cold Fusion should be impossible
The nuclear physics and solid state physics, both based on quantum mechanics, are well-developed theories of physics.
The following facts play an important role in the evaluation of cold nuclear fusion.
- Atomic nuclei are positively charged and therefore repel each other. For a fusion these rejection needs to be overcome, using an energy corresponding to a temperature of about 100 million degrees.
- With the fusion of deuterium to helium energy of 27 MeV, emitted as a gamma ray, should be visible. Such a radiation has never been observed.
- Chemical catalysts can lower the energy barrier, but the changes are in the range of chemical bonding forces, these are a million times smaller than the nuclear forces.
The behavior of matter, especially in crystals, is anything but easy to understand. Again and again, effects that are not expected surprise physicists. As two examples out of many, I will introduce the Mössbauer effect and the discovery of high-temperature superconductor. In the Mössbauer effect, a gamma decay of the atomic nucleus happens, the momentum is directly released into the crystal lattice, one would have expected that the atomic nucleus flies away, taking the momentum with it. Rudolf Mössbauer, the discoverer of the effect, found a theoretical description that explains the effect.
High-temperature superconductors are far above the temperature, described by the theoretical limit of the well known BCS theory, without electrical resistance. The exact reason is unfortunately still not fully understood.
The nuclear physics and solid state physics, both based on quantum mechanics, are well-developed theories of physics.
The following facts play an important role in the evaluation of cold nuclear fusion.
- Atomic nuclei are positively charged and therefore repel each other. For a fusion these rejection needs to be overcome, using an energy corresponding to a temperature of about 100 million degrees.
- With the fusion of deuterium to helium energy of 27 MeV, emitted as a gamma ray, should be visible. Such a radiation has never been observed.
- Chemical catalysts can lower the energy barrier, but the changes are in the range of chemical bonding forces, these are a million times smaller than the nuclear forces.
The behavior of matter, especially in crystals, is anything but easy to understand. Again and again, effects that are not expected surprise physicists. As two examples out of many, I will introduce the Mössbauer effect and the discovery of high-temperature superconductor. In the Mössbauer effect, a gamma decay of the atomic nucleus happens, the momentum is directly released into the crystal lattice, one would have expected that the atomic nucleus flies away, taking the momentum with it. Rudolf Mössbauer, the discoverer of the effect, found a theoretical description that explains the effect.
High-temperature superconductors are far above the temperature, described by the theoretical limit of the well known BCS theory, without electrical resistance. The exact reason is unfortunately still not fully understood.
Observed facts
helium development
Notably, the observation of cold fusion begins in 1926! The German scientist Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters report on the transformation of hydrogen with the aid of a palladium catalyst to form helium [3].They go very well into the questions of possible error sources and also calculate the heat.
The first observation of cold fusion back in the year 1926 [3]
They also investigate whether there is radioactive radiation which is not proved successful. It should be noted that this was done prior to the establishment of the quantum mechanics. Due to the small amount of helium, 10E-7 cc, economical conversion to helium production is not pursued. This article is so far harmless since he obviously has no interests other than purely scientific reporting.
|
| The first observation of cold fusion back in the year 1926 [3] |
heat
Leaving the experiment of pones and Fleischmann first unconsidered, we found in the literature numerous indications where palladium cathodes together with deuterium release a surprising excess heat. I quote from the report of the European Commission: "The main task was to demonstrate, on the basis of signals well above the measurement uncertainties and with a cross check, the existence of the excess of heat production during electrochemical loading of deuterium in palladium cathodes. The target was achieved and the existence of the effect is no longer in doubt." [2] emphasis added by author. This statement is very remarkable, in particular, it is clear that there is definitely an excess of heat. The source of the heat, due to the amount far beyond any known chemical reaction, can only be from a nuclear origin.
material ejection
The occurrence of material ejection in palladium, which is loaded with deuterium, is another strange observation [4]. An examination under the electron microscope of a palladium cathode, as Jacques Ruer has analyzed when it came to unusual heat, shows clearly small craters. See picture.
Five-micrometer crater in palladium, what generated this artifact? [4]
How do these craters exactly develop is unclear, an estimate in his article suggests selective high heat up to temperatures beyond 20,000 °C. It is very difficult to imagine an effect that is based on chemical reaction to produce such a local high energy density.
The occurrence of material ejection in palladium, which is loaded with deuterium, is another strange observation [4]. An examination under the electron microscope of a palladium cathode, as Jacques Ruer has analyzed when it came to unusual heat, shows clearly small craters. See picture.
|
| Five-micrometer crater in palladium, what generated this artifact? [4] |
How do these craters exactly develop is unclear, an estimate in his article suggests selective high heat up to temperatures beyond 20,000 °C. It is very difficult to imagine an effect that is based on chemical reaction to produce such a local high energy density.
neutron
The observation of neutrons is a notoriously difficult problem because neutrons are neutral and therefore do not cause ionization. To observe neutrons, one must observe a nuclear reaction of neutrons. For example, a carbon-12 nucleus decays into three alpha particles by the capture of a neutron. There are special detector substances, such as CR-39 doing this.
Detected neutrons in a cold fusion experiment. Source: P.A. Mosier Boss [5]
PA Mosier-Boss has a CR-39 detector mounted on a palladium cathode and observed after two weeks, several neutrons with an energy above 9.6 MeV [5]. This can be seen in the graph above: You always see a point, from where three "lobes" emerge, these are the three alpha-particles. The two left columns are from an experiment of cold nuclear fusion, the two right-hand columns show the same detector substance as measured in a well-known neutron source. Obviously, no difference can be seen between cold fusion neutrons and "normal" neutrons. However, the neutron flux is extremely low, this can only be a sub-branch of the reaction.
The observation of neutrons is a notoriously difficult problem because neutrons are neutral and therefore do not cause ionization. To observe neutrons, one must observe a nuclear reaction of neutrons. For example, a carbon-12 nucleus decays into three alpha particles by the capture of a neutron. There are special detector substances, such as CR-39 doing this.
|
| Detected neutrons in a cold fusion experiment. Source: P.A. Mosier Boss [5] |
PA Mosier-Boss has a CR-39 detector mounted on a palladium cathode and observed after two weeks, several neutrons with an energy above 9.6 MeV [5]. This can be seen in the graph above: You always see a point, from where three "lobes" emerge, these are the three alpha-particles. The two left columns are from an experiment of cold nuclear fusion, the two right-hand columns show the same detector substance as measured in a well-known neutron source. Obviously, no difference can be seen between cold fusion neutrons and "normal" neutrons. However, the neutron flux is extremely low, this can only be a sub-branch of the reaction.
Problems for physics
Following the previous observations, and I find it very difficult to stamp all those experiments with the simple word "fraud", there is obviously a phenomenon that is not understood to date.
This is by no means unusual in physics, as already indicated, the high-temperature superconductivity (HTSC), or the exact way in which a lithium battery works, are not fully understood. Noteworthy is the surprising resistance of scientists over this discovery. Why accept the reference magazines nature and science no paper which reports cold nuclear fusion experiments and delivers positive results? Negative results are regularly adopted.
For a research program, it would be important to clarify the key question, how are the reaction details of cold fusion. With today's technical resources, it was possible to prove the Higgs particle, I find it very hard to believe that this could not quickly succeed in the area of cold fusion if sufficient resources are provided.
There are now some good theoretical approaches, such as Peter Hagelstein at MIT who tried to clarify the energy transfer of 27 MeV in the crystal lattice. Those who are interested, view MIT Colloquium ColdFusion / LENR IAP online (Note the list of speakers).
Following the previous observations, and I find it very difficult to stamp all those experiments with the simple word "fraud", there is obviously a phenomenon that is not understood to date.
This is by no means unusual in physics, as already indicated, the high-temperature superconductivity (HTSC), or the exact way in which a lithium battery works, are not fully understood. Noteworthy is the surprising resistance of scientists over this discovery. Why accept the reference magazines nature and science no paper which reports cold nuclear fusion experiments and delivers positive results? Negative results are regularly adopted.
For a research program, it would be important to clarify the key question, how are the reaction details of cold fusion. With today's technical resources, it was possible to prove the Higgs particle, I find it very hard to believe that this could not quickly succeed in the area of cold fusion if sufficient resources are provided.
There are now some good theoretical approaches, such as Peter Hagelstein at MIT who tried to clarify the energy transfer of 27 MeV in the crystal lattice. Those who are interested, view MIT Colloquium ColdFusion / LENR IAP online (Note the list of speakers).
Consequences
After a review of the raw material prices, I noticed that the palladium price increases regardless of the gold and platinum prices for some time. As an explanation, I suggest, the reason could be that some hard facts for cold nuclear fusion were encountered. Refer to the blog post (in German).
The price of palladium, red line, is now decoupled from gold and platin prices. source: http://www.finanzen.net/charttool/
Being a very skeptical scientist, I read some papers on the subject available to me and I am now convinced that the phenomenon of low-temperature nuclear reaction (LTNR) exists.
However, this means that the global power supply can potentially take a completely different direction in the near future, as we all have previously believed.
I want to take this opportunity deliberately not to spread too much euphoria since many aspects are unclear:
- Is it possible to build inexpensive palladium reactors?
- If the catalyst is so rapidly destroyed (cratering) that a deployment is ultimately uneconomical?
- Are there companies aware of the development and try to slow down the cold fusion development?
Obviously, there is a massive need for research, as many questions remain unanswered and the potential benefit in the success would be almost immeasurable.
Notice: Who holds the opposite opinion, can read the contribution of publicly funded Germany Radio. You can find the article here. There is surprisingly many information from the year 1989, although it was presented in 2014, why did they not address the current state of research, this remains a mystery to me.
Sources:
After a review of the raw material prices, I noticed that the palladium price increases regardless of the gold and platinum prices for some time. As an explanation, I suggest, the reason could be that some hard facts for cold nuclear fusion were encountered. Refer to the blog post (in German).
|
| The price of palladium, red line, is now decoupled from gold and platin prices. source: http://www.finanzen.net/charttool/ |
Being a very skeptical scientist, I read some papers on the subject available to me and I am now convinced that the phenomenon of low-temperature nuclear reaction (LTNR) exists.
However, this means that the global power supply can potentially take a completely different direction in the near future, as we all have previously believed.
I want to take this opportunity deliberately not to spread too much euphoria since many aspects are unclear:
- Is it possible to build inexpensive palladium reactors?
- If the catalyst is so rapidly destroyed (cratering) that a deployment is ultimately uneconomical?
- Are there companies aware of the development and try to slow down the cold fusion development?
Notice: Who holds the opposite opinion, can read the contribution of publicly funded Germany Radio. You can find the article here. There is surprisingly many information from the year 1989, although it was presented in 2014, why did they not address the current state of research, this remains a mystery to me.
Sources:
[1] Cold Fusion Research, November 1989, A Report of the Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy
[2] European Commission, Materials for Emerging Energy Technologies, 2012, page 23
[3] Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters (1926). " About the transformation of hydrogen into helium. " Natural Sciences 14 (43): 956-962.
[4] Jacques Ruer, Simulation of Crater Formation on Surfaces LENR Cathodes, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 12 (2013) 54-68
[5] PA Mosier-Boss et al. Flawed How the Journal Review Process Impedes Paradigm Shifting Discoveries
[1] Cold Fusion Research, November 1989, A Report of the Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy
[2] European Commission, Materials for Emerging Energy Technologies, 2012, page 23
[4] Jacques Ruer, Simulation of Crater Formation on Surfaces LENR Cathodes, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 12 (2013) 54-68
[5] PA Mosier-Boss et al. Flawed How the Journal Review Process Impedes Paradigm Shifting Discoveries
