| Revision as of 06:28, 29 November 2011 edit84.106.26.81 (talk) Undid revision 463055427 by AndyTheGrump (talk)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:19, 12 July 2024 edit undoAdolphus79 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,360 edits →Claims and observations: ital, spacing... | ||
| (263 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Supposed energy device}} | |||
| <!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> | |||
| {{Use mdy dates|date=October 2017}} | |||
| {{AfDM|page=CETI Patterson Power Cell (2nd nomination)|year=2011|month=November|day=29|substed=yes|origtag=afdx|help=off}} | |||
| The '''Patterson power cell''' is a ] device invented by chemist James A. Patterson,<ref name="voodoo science"/> which he claimed created 200 times more energy than it used.<ref name=simon/> Patterson claimed the device neutralized radioactivity without emitting any harmful radiation.<ref name="voodoo science"/> Cold fusion was the subject of an intense scientific controversy in 1989, before being discredited in the eyes of mainstream science.<ref name="voss"/><ref>Simon, Bart (2002) ''Undead Science''; Park, Robert L. (2002) Voodoo Science</ref> Physicist ] describes the device as ] in his book '']''.<ref name="voodoo science"/> | |||
| <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> | |||
| {{expert-subject|Energy|date=June 2007}} | |||
| {{Primary sources|date=November 2011}} | |||
| The '''CETI Patterson Power Cell''' is an ] device invented by James A. Patterson,<ref name=NET>Krivit, Steven B. . ''New Energy Times,'' issue 27, March 20, 2008. Retrieved November 26, 2011.</ref> claimed to be generating more energy than it uses. It is one of several ] cells which have been the subject of media interest but little independent testing. | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Patterson Power Cell== | |||
| ===Construction=== | |||
| ] | |||
| The cell has a non-conductive housing. The cathode is composed of thousands of 1 mm microspheres (co-polymer beads), with a flash coat of copper and multiple layers of electrolytically deposited ] (650 Angstrom) ] and ]. The beads are submerged in water with a lithium sulfur (LiSO4) electrolyte solution. This makes the fluid conductive so that electric current can flow though it.<ref name="patent"> {{patent|US|5494559|"System for electrolysis"}}</ref><ref name=nen/><ref name=ceti/><ref name=newenergytimes/> When asked about reliability Patterson stated: ''"When they don't work, it's mostly due to contamination. If you get any sodium in the system it kills the reaction - and since sodium is one of the more abundant elements, it's hard to keep it out."''<ref name=wired2/> CETI holds at least 3 U.S. patents on the beads.<ref name=newenergytimes/> | |||
| <!-- Do try to find the other patents but only those that are relevant, Patterson is said to have over 150 US patents. --> | |||
| ==Company formed== | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| In 1995, Clean Energy Technologies Inc. was formed to produce and promote the power cell.<ref name=WSJ>Bishop, Jerry E., ''A bottle rekindles scientific debate about the possibility of cold fusion'', ], January 29, 1996</ref> | |||
| Its proponents claim that the device uses less than 1 ]s and yet is capable of generating thousands of times this amount of ] which is released as ] after a brief "warm-up" period.<ref>Manning, Jean. "" ''Atlantis Rising''. 1996. 6:37,56. Retrieved December 10, 2007.</ref><ref name=wired2/> This supposedly happens as ] or ] nuclei fuse together to produce heat through some form of ].<ref name="voodoo science">] . Oxford: ], 2002, p. 114–118. Retrieved December 5, 2007.</ref> Initially the byproducts of nuclear fusion had not been detected, e.g. a ] ] and a ] or an <sup>3</sup>He nucleus and a ], leading a vast majority of experts to think that no such fusion is taking place.<ref>Voss, David. ". ''],'' March 1, 1999. Retrieved December 5, 2007. </ref> | |||
| ⚫ | ==Claims and observations== | ||
| ⚫ | It |
||
| Patterson variously said it produced a hundred or two hundred times more power than it used.<ref name=simon>Simon, Bart (2002). . ], page 159. {{ISBN|0-8135-3154-3}}, {{ISBN|978-0-8135-3154-0}}</ref><ref>Park, Robert L. (2002) Voodoo Science p. 11-12, claimed 200 times in 1996 ABC's ''Good Morning America''</ref> Representatives promoting the device at the Power-Gen '95 Conference said that an input of 1 watt would generate more than 1,000 watts of excess heat (]).<ref name="wired2">{{cite magazine |first=Charles |last=Platt |magazine=] |date=November 1998 |volume=6 |number=11 |url=https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html |title=What If Cold Fusion Is Real?}}</ref> This supposedly happened as ] or ] nuclei fuse together to produce heat through a form of ].<ref name="voodoo science">] '']''. Oxford: ], 2002, p. 114–118. Retrieved December 5, 2007.</ref> The by-products of nuclear fusion, e.g. a ] ] and a ] or an <sup>3</sup>He nucleus and a ], were not detected in any reliable way, leading experts to think that no such fusion was taking place.<ref name="voss">Voss, David. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120112081819/http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1258 |date=January 12, 2012 }}, ''],'' March 1, 1999. Retrieved December 5, 2007.</ref> | |||
| ] has conducted research on ] in thin films of metals, including the thin films in the Patterson Power Cell.<ref>G.H. Miley, J.A. Patterson. , J. New Energy, 1996, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 5. Retrieved November 26, 2011.</ref><ref name=nen/><ref name=ceti/> | |||
| ⚫ | It was further claimed that if ] ]s such as ] were present, the cell enables the hydrogen nuclei to fuse with these isotopes, transforming them into stable ] and thus neutralizing the radioactivity. It was claimed that the transformation would be achieved without releasing any radiation to the environment and without expending any energy.<ref name="voodoo science" /> A televised demonstration on June 11, 1997, on '']'' provided no proof for the claims.<ref name="voodoo science" /> As at 2002, the neutralization of radioactive isotopes has only been achieved through intense neutron bombardment in a ] or large scale high energy ], and at a large expense of energy.<ref name="voodoo science" /> | ||
| By using what he refers to as a unique thin-film electrode configuration to isolate the transmutation region and measurements based on neutron activation analysis, Miley claims to have achieved, a quantitative measure of the yield of transmutation products.<ref name=nen/><ref name=ceti/> Results from a thin film (650 Angstrom) nickel coating on 1-mm microspheres in a packed-bed type cell with 1-molar LiSO4-H2O electrolyte had been reported.<ref>2nd International Conference On Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (Miley and Patterson, 1996).</ref> As well as results for thin-film Pd and for multiple Pd/Ni layers. Miley claims the transmutation products in all cases characteristically divide into four major groups with atomic number: | |||
| Patterson has carefully distanced himself from the work of Fleischmann and Pons and from the label of "cold fusion", due to the negative connotations associated to them since 1989.<ref name="voss" /><ref>Bart Simon (2002) ''Undead Science'' pp. 160–164, Park, Robert L. (2002) Voodoo Science p. 12, 115</ref> Ultimately, this effort was unsuccessful, and not only did it inherit the label of ], but it managed to make cold fusion look a little more pathological in the public eye.<ref>Bart Simon (2002) ''Undead Science'' p. 163-164</ref> Some cold fusion proponents view the cell as a confirmation of their work, while critics see it as "the fringe of the fringe of cold fusion research", since it attempts to commercialize cold fusion on top of making bad science.<ref>Bart Simon (2002) ''Undead Science'' p. 164</ref> | |||
| :Z = 6-18, 22-35, 38-55, and 75-85.<ref name=nen>New Energy News "" VOLUME 4, NUMBER 10 ISSN 1075-0045 FEBRUARY 1997</ref><ref name=ceti>CETI official website "" George H. Miley, G. Name, M.J. Williams, University of Illinois, Department of Nuclear Engineering, James A. Patterson (CETI), J. Nix, D. Cravens (CETI) and H. Hora</ref> | |||
| In 2002, ], professor of nuclear chemistry at the University of Rochester, who was head of a government panel convened in 1989 to investigate the cold fusion claims of Fleischmann and Pons, and who wrote a book about the controversy, said "I would be willing to bet there's nothing to it", when asked about the Patterson Power Cell.<ref name="voodoo science" /> | |||
| Furthermore, Miley and Patterson claim yields of ~1mg of key elements obtained in a cell containing ~1000 microspheres (~1/2 cc). In several cases over 40 atom % of the metal film consisted of these products after 2 weeks operation.<ref name=nen/><ref name=ceti/> | |||
| ==Replications== | |||
| ] is a professor of nuclear engineering and a cold fusion researcher who claims to have replicated the Patterson power cell. During the 2011 World Green Energy Symposium, Miley stated that his device continuously produces several hundred watts of power.<ref>Xiaoling Yang, George H. Miley, Heinz Hora. {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120714111519/http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/1103/450/1 |date=July 14, 2012 }}. ''] Conference Proceedings,'' March 16, 2009, vol. 1103, pp. 450–458. The conference was . October 19–21, 2011</ref> Earlier results by Miley have not convinced researchers.<ref name="voss"/> | |||
| Scott Little and ] made an independent test and they were unable to measure any excess heat from the cells, but they didn't publish their results outside of their website.<ref>, Scott Little and ]</ref> | |||
| On ''Good Morning America'', Quintin Bowles, professor of mechanical engineering at the ], claimed in 1996 to have successfully replicated the Patterson power cell.<ref name="GMA">{{cite video |people= |date= 7 January 1996 |url= |title=Good Morning America | medium=Television Show |location=United States |publisher=ABC News}}</ref> In the book '']'', Bowles is quoted as having stated: "It works, we just don't know how it works."<ref name="voodoo science" /> | |||
| ] is a nuclear physicist, active in research on ]s (LENR) in ]. He replicated the Patterson Power Cell and he constructed a "Nuclear Battery" that, like the Patterson Power Cell, contains thin films of nickel and palladium.<ref>. ''e-Cat Site'' (blog), October 22, 2011.</ref> | |||
| A replication has been attempted at Earthtech, using a CETI supplied kit. They were not able to replicate the ].<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/rifex/rifex.pdf |title=Search for Evidence of Nuclear Transmutations in the CETI RIFEX Kit |access-date=May 30, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120812232707/http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/rifex/rifex.pdf |archive-date=August 12, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
| During the 2011 World Green Energy Symposium,<ref>. October 19–21, 2011.</ref> Miley stated that his device continuously produces several hundred watts of energy. <ref> (Video). Miley's report begins at 5 minutes and 30 seconds and his statement about his Nuclear Battery begins at 17 minutes and 55 seconds.</ref> <ref>G.H. Miley, J.A. Patterson: ''Nuclear transmutations in thin-film nickel coatings undergoing electrolysis'', ], , p. 19–32</ref><ref>George H. Miley, Heinrich Hora, Andrei Lipson, Sung-O. Kim, Nie Luo, Carlos H. Costano G., Taeho Woo. . In ''The 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science,'' 2002. Beijing: ].</ref><ref>Xiaoling Yang, George H. Miley, Heinz Hora. . ''] Conference Proceedings,'' March 16, 2009, vol. 1103, pp. 450–458.</ref> | |||
| Quintin Bowles, was professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Missouri in Kansas City at the time. Bowles also claimed to have successfully replicated the Patterson power cell. <ref name=nightline/><ref name="voodoo science"/> | |||
| ===Demonstrations=== | |||
| In April 1995, at the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF5) CETI demonstrated a cell with input of 0.14 watts and a peak excess of 2.5 watts, a ratio of 1:18.<ref name=newenergytimes/> | |||
| In October 1995, at the 16th biannual Symposium on Fusion Engineering (SOFE '95) the University of Illinois showed a CETI cell with 0.06 watts input and 5 watts peak output, a ratio of 1:83.<ref name=newenergytimes/> | |||
| December 5-7, 1995, a 1-kilowatt cold fusion reactor, manufactured by Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI), was demonstrated at ''POWER–GEN 95'' in Anaheim (a power generation conference and exhibition). | |||
| <ref name=newenergytimes>http://newenergytimes.com/v2/commerce/ceti/CETI-ColdFusionTechnologyMagazine.shtml</ref><ref>. Sponsored by ]. Held at the ], Anaheim, California: December 5–7, 1995.</ref><ref name=wired2>] ""</ref> During the demonstration, the electrical input was between 0.1 and 1.5 Watt, and the heat output between 450 and 1,300 Watt, ratios ranged from 1:1000 to 1:4000.<ref name=newenergytimes/> | |||
| On February 7, 1996, ] shows ] and ] featured stories about the Patterson Power Cell.<ref name=nightline>Nightline report (Video: February 7, 1996) on the Patterson Power Cell: ; ; ; .</ref> | |||
| On June 11, 1997, Good Morning America did a follow up with a public demonstration<ref name="voodoo science" /><ref>, June 11, 1997. Transcribed by '']'' magazine.</ref> but they didn't measure the radioactivity of the beads after the test, thus it can't be discarded that the beads had simply absorbed the uranium ions and become radioactive themselves.<ref name="voodoo science" /> | |||
| Also in 1997, the Lightworks studio documentary film ''Free Energy - The Race To Zero Point'' was released. The documentary, narrated by Bill Jenkins, shows many controversial energy technologies including a section on the Paterson cell.<ref>{{cite video | people=Bill Jenkins | date=1997-06-16 | url=http://www.lightworksav.com/freeenergy-theracetozeropointvhs.aspx | title=Free Energy - The race to zero point | medium=VHS | location=United States | publisher=Lightworks Audio Video}} contains a segment on the Patterson Power Cell, beginning at 44 minutes and 51 seconds.</ref> | |||
| == James A. Patterson == | |||
| Dr. James Patterson(- 2008<ref></ref>) of Sarasota, Florida was granted over 150 U.S. patents in a variety of technical disciplines.<ref name=pressrelease> forwarded by ]</ref> | |||
| == Clean Energy Technologies Inc. == | |||
| Since its foundation in 1995 Clean Energy Technologies Inc.(CETI), of Dallas Texas, has spent about $2 million on research, much of it family money, a large fraction was used to pay for patents.<ref name=wired2/> James Patterson's grandson, Jim Reding, served as CETI's CEO.<ref name=wired2/> | |||
| {{Quotation|We just finished a $2.5 offering about nine months ago. That enabled us to hire a president, Jack St.Genis, who was a very senior manager at Matsushita, NEC, and IBM. And Lou Furlong joined us six months ago as director of research, formerly at Exxon. Altogether we have 10 people here. Now we're going to raise another $5 million for three projects. The first is filtering tritium from waste water out of fission reactors, using a different invention of Dr. Patterson's. The second project is neutralizing other forms of radioactivity. The third is power cells. When the first venture creates revenue, we'll spin that out and use it as liquidity to raise capital for the other two.|Jim Reding<ref name=wired2/>|}} | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| <references /> | |||
| ==Further reading== | ==Further reading== | ||
| ⚫ | * Bailey, Patrick and Fox, Hal (October 20, 1997). ''A review of the Patterson Power Cell.'' Retrieved November 19, 2011. An earlier version of this paper appears in: Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1997; Proceedings of the 32nd Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. Publication Date: Jul 27 – Aug 1, 1997. Volume 4, pages 2289–2294. Meeting Date: July 27, 1997 – January 8, 1997. Location: Honolulu, HI, USA. {{ISBN|0-7803-4515-0}} | ||
| * Miley, G.H. and J.A. Patterson (1996). . ''Journal of New Energy,'' '''1'''(3): p. 5. Retrieved November 19, 2011. | |||
| ⚫ | * , ], October 21, 1999,(Patterson is mentioned on page 2). Retrieved December 5, 2007 | ||
| * . ''e-Cat Site'', October 22, 2011. Retrieved November 19, 2011. | |||
| ⚫ | * Bailey, Patrick and Fox, Hal (October 20, 1997). |
||
| * ] (November 1998). . ''],'' Issue 6.11, page 7. Retrieved November 19, 2011. | |||
| ⚫ | * |
||
| * (Video; 3 minutes and 59 seconds). | |||
| * (Video; 9 minutes and 38 seconds). | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
Latest revision as of 15:19, 12 July 2024
Supposed energy deviceThe Patterson power cell is a cold fusion device invented by chemist James A. Patterson, which he claimed created 200 times more energy than it used. Patterson claimed the device neutralized radioactivity without emitting any harmful radiation. Cold fusion was the subject of an intense scientific controversy in 1989, before being discredited in the eyes of mainstream science. Physicist Robert L. Park describes the device as fringe science in his book Voodoo Science.
Company formed
In 1995, Clean Energy Technologies Inc. was formed to produce and promote the power cell.
Claims and observations
Patterson variously said it produced a hundred or two hundred times more power than it used. Representatives promoting the device at the Power-Gen '95 Conference said that an input of 1 watt would generate more than 1,000 watts of excess heat (waste heat). This supposedly happened as hydrogen or deuterium nuclei fuse together to produce heat through a form of low energy nuclear reaction. The by-products of nuclear fusion, e.g. a tritium nucleus and a proton or an He nucleus and a neutron, were not detected in any reliable way, leading experts to think that no such fusion was taking place.
It was further claimed that if radioactive isotopes such as uranium were present, the cell enables the hydrogen nuclei to fuse with these isotopes, transforming them into stable elements and thus neutralizing the radioactivity. It was claimed that the transformation would be achieved without releasing any radiation to the environment and without expending any energy. A televised demonstration on June 11, 1997, on Good Morning America provided no proof for the claims. As at 2002, the neutralization of radioactive isotopes has only been achieved through intense neutron bombardment in a nuclear reactor or large scale high energy particle accelerator, and at a large expense of energy.
Patterson has carefully distanced himself from the work of Fleischmann and Pons and from the label of "cold fusion", due to the negative connotations associated to them since 1989. Ultimately, this effort was unsuccessful, and not only did it inherit the label of pathological science, but it managed to make cold fusion look a little more pathological in the public eye. Some cold fusion proponents view the cell as a confirmation of their work, while critics see it as "the fringe of the fringe of cold fusion research", since it attempts to commercialize cold fusion on top of making bad science.
In 2002, John R. Huizenga, professor of nuclear chemistry at the University of Rochester, who was head of a government panel convened in 1989 to investigate the cold fusion claims of Fleischmann and Pons, and who wrote a book about the controversy, said "I would be willing to bet there's nothing to it", when asked about the Patterson Power Cell.
Replications
George H. Miley is a professor of nuclear engineering and a cold fusion researcher who claims to have replicated the Patterson power cell. During the 2011 World Green Energy Symposium, Miley stated that his device continuously produces several hundred watts of power. Earlier results by Miley have not convinced researchers.
On Good Morning America, Quintin Bowles, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, claimed in 1996 to have successfully replicated the Patterson power cell. In the book Voodoo Science, Bowles is quoted as having stated: "It works, we just don't know how it works."
A replication has been attempted at Earthtech, using a CETI supplied kit. They were not able to replicate the excess heat.
References
- ^ Park, Robert L. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 114–118. Retrieved December 5, 2007.
- ^ Simon, Bart (2002). Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion. Rutgers University Press, page 159. ISBN 0-8135-3154-3, ISBN 978-0-8135-3154-0
- ^ Voss, David. "Whatever happened to cold fusion?" Archived January 12, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Physics World, March 1, 1999. Retrieved December 5, 2007.
- Simon, Bart (2002) Undead Science; Park, Robert L. (2002) Voodoo Science
- U.S. patent 5,494,559 System for electrolysis. February 27, 1996
- Bishop, Jerry E., A bottle rekindles scientific debate about the possibility of cold fusion, Wall Street Journal, January 29, 1996
- Park, Robert L. (2002) Voodoo Science p. 11-12, claimed 200 times in 1996 ABC's Good Morning America
- Platt, Charles (November 1998). "What If Cold Fusion Is Real?". Wired. Vol. 6, no. 11.
- Bart Simon (2002) Undead Science pp. 160–164, Park, Robert L. (2002) Voodoo Science p. 12, 115
- Bart Simon (2002) Undead Science p. 163-164
- Bart Simon (2002) Undead Science p. 164
- Xiaoling Yang, George H. Miley, Heinz Hora. "Condensed Matter Cluster Reactions in LENR Power Cells for a Radical New Type of Space Power Source" Archived July 14, 2012, at archive.today. American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, March 16, 2009, vol. 1103, pp. 450–458. The conference was "2011 World Green Energy Symposium". October 19–21, 2011
- Good Morning America (Television Show). United States: ABC News. January 7, 1996.
- "Search for Evidence of Nuclear Transmutations in the CETI RIFEX Kit" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 12, 2012. Retrieved May 30, 2013.
Further reading
- Bailey, Patrick and Fox, Hal (October 20, 1997). A review of the Patterson Power Cell. Retrieved November 19, 2011. An earlier version of this paper appears in: Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1997; Proceedings of the 32nd Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. Publication Date: Jul 27 – Aug 1, 1997. Volume 4, pages 2289–2294. Meeting Date: July 27, 1997 – January 8, 1997. Location: Honolulu, HI, USA. ISBN 0-7803-4515-0
- Ask the experts, "What is the current scientific thinking on cold fusion? Is there any possible validity to this phenomenon?", Scientific American, October 21, 1999,(Patterson is mentioned on page 2). Retrieved December 5, 2007