Misplaced Pages

Patterson power cell: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:30, 29 November 2011 editAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,016 edits Undid revision 463055794 by 84.106.26.81 (talk) fuck off, scumbag← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:19, 12 July 2024 edit undoAdolphus79 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,333 edits →Claims and observations: ital, spacing... 
(262 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 -->
]


]
The '''CETI Patterson Power Cell''' is a patented ] device invented by ].<ref>Krivit, Steven B. . ''New Energy Times,'' issue 27, March 20, 2008. Retrieved November 26, 2011.</ref> The device is composed of a non-conductive housing filled with a large number of small plastic beads coated with ] layers of ] and a metal hydride, as well as a solution of a conductive salt in water, through which an electric current flows.<ref name="patent">{{patent|US|5494559|"System for electrolysis"}}.</ref> During the operation of the device, some of the water in it is reduced to ] and ] gasses and these gasses are allowed to flow out of the device.


==Company formed==
Dr. Dennis Cravens, a ], worked with Dr. Patterson in 1995 to optimize the heat-generating capacity of the Patterson Power Cell. On December 4, 1995, Patterson and Cravens jointly applied for a United States patent. The patent was granted on March 4, 1997.<ref>. ''System for electrolysis.''</ref>
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>


==Claims and observations==
A Patterson Power Cell was demonstrated<ref>] (November 1998). . ''],'' Issue 6.11, page 8. Retrieved November 28, 2011.</ref> at ''POWER–GEN 95'', a power generation conference and exhibition.
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&nbsp;watt would generate more than 1,000&nbsp;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>


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" />
On February 7, 1996, ] shows ] and ] featured stories about the Patterson Power Cell.<ref> (Video). ], February 7, 1996.</ref>

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>

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" />

==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"/>

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" />

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>


==References== ==References==
{{reflist}}
<references />


==Further reading== ==Further reading==
* Bailey, Patrick and Fox, Hal (October 20, 1997). Retrieved November 19, 2011. An of this paper appears in: Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1997; Proceedings of the 32nd Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. Publication Date: 27 Jul-1 Aug 1997. Volume 4, pages 2289–2294. Meeting Date: 07/27/1997 - 08/01/1997. Location: Honolulu, HI, USA. ISBN 0-7803-4515-0 * 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}}
* , ], October 21, 1999,(Patterson is mentioned on page 2). Retrieved December 5, 2007


] ]
] ]
] ]
]
]

Latest revision as of 15:19, 12 July 2024

Supposed energy device

The 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.

Drawing of the cell.

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

  1. ^ Park, Robert L. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 114–118. Retrieved December 5, 2007.
  2. ^ 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
  3. ^ Voss, David. "Whatever happened to cold fusion?" Archived January 12, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Physics World, March 1, 1999. Retrieved December 5, 2007.
  4. Simon, Bart (2002) Undead Science; Park, Robert L. (2002) Voodoo Science
  5. U.S. patent 5,494,559 System for electrolysis. February 27, 1996
  6. Bishop, Jerry E., A bottle rekindles scientific debate about the possibility of cold fusion, Wall Street Journal, January 29, 1996
  7. Park, Robert L. (2002) Voodoo Science p. 11-12, claimed 200 times in 1996 ABC's Good Morning America
  8. Platt, Charles (November 1998). "What If Cold Fusion Is Real?". Wired. Vol. 6, no. 11.
  9. Bart Simon (2002) Undead Science pp. 160–164, Park, Robert L. (2002) Voodoo Science p. 12, 115
  10. Bart Simon (2002) Undead Science p. 163-164
  11. Bart Simon (2002) Undead Science p. 164
  12. 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
  13. Good Morning America (Television Show). United States: ABC News. January 7, 1996.
  14. "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

Categories: