| Revision as of 09:53, 24 July 2008 editPcarbonn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,444 edits →Further developments (1989-2004): proper attribution← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:23, 24 July 2008 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,071 edits Enough of this POV-pushingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-semi|small=yes}} | |||
| {{two other uses|a contested field of scientific research|the computer programming language|ColdFusion|the ''Doctor Who'' novel|Cold Fusion (Doctor Who)}} | |||
| ] | |||
| '''Cold fusion''' is the name for a ] reaction that occurs well below the temperature required for ] reactions (millions of degrees ]). Such reactions may occur near ] and ], and even in a relatively small (table top) experiment. In a narrower sense, "cold fusion" also refers to a particular type of fusion supposedly occurring in ]s. | |||
| ] (2005)]] | |||
| The term "cold fusion" was coined by Dr Paul Palmer of ] in 1986 in an investigation of "geo-fusion", or the possible existence of fusion in a ]. It was brought into popular consciousness by the controversy surrounding the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in March of 1989. A number of other scientists have reported replication of their experimental observation of anomalous heat generation in electrolytic cells, but in a non-predictable way, and most scientists believe that there is no proof of cold fusion in these experiments. A majority of scientists consider this research to be ], while proponents argue that they are conducting valid experiments in a ] that challenges mainstream thinking. | |||
| '''Cold fusion''', sometimes called '''low energy nuclear reactions''' (LENR) or '''condensed matter nuclear science''', is a set of effects reported in controversial laboratory experiments at ordinary temperatures and pressures, which some researchers say is caused by ]s. | |||
| The subject has been of scientific interest since nuclear fusion was first understood. Hot nuclear fusion using ] yields large amounts of ], uses an abundant fuel source, and produces only small amounts of manageable waste; thus a cheap and simple process of nuclear fusion would have great ] impact. Unfortunately, no "cold" fusion experiments that gave an otherwise unexplainable net release of energy have so far been reproducible. | |||
| In 1989, ] and ] reported producing a tabletop nuclear fusion reaction at the University of Utah.<ref name="FleischmannPons_1989_301">{{harvnb|Fleischmann|Pons|1989|p=301}}.</ref> In their press conferences and papers, they reported the observation of anomalous heating ("excess heat") of an electrolytic cell during ] of ] using ] (Pd) electrodes. Lacking an explanation for the source of such heat, they proposed the ] that the heat came from ] of ] (D). The report of their results raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.<ref name="Browne_1989_para1">{{harvnb|Browne|1989|loc=para. 1}}.</ref> | |||
| == History of cold fusion by electrolysis == | |||
| Cold fusion gained a reputation as ] after other scientists failed to replicate the results.<ref name="Browne_1989_para29">{{harvnb|Browne|1989|loc=para. 29}}.</ref> A review panel organized by the ] (DOE) in 1989 did not find the evidence persuasive. Since then, other reports of anomalous heat production and anomalous ] production have been reported in ] journals{{Ref_label|heat_tritium_reports|α|none}} and have been discussed at scientific conferences.<ref>{{harvnb|Van Noorden|2007|loc=para. 2}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Chubb et al.|2006|Ref=APS2006}}.</ref> Most scientists have met these reports with ].<ref>{{harvnb|Feder|2005}},{{harvnb|Hutchinson|2006}},{{harvnb|Kruglinksi|2006}}</ref> In 2004 the US DOE organized another review panel ({{harvnb|US DOE|2004|Ref=DOE2004r}}) which—like the one in 1989—did not recommend a focused federally-funded program for low energy nuclear reactions. The 2004 panel identified basic research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field. It stated that the field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival academic journals. | |||
| === Early work === | |||
| Since 2004, two peer-reviewed literature reviews have concluded that cold fusion has been demonstrated by experiments that result in excess heat production and ] products such as ].<ref name="Hubler_2007">{{harvnb|Hubler|2007}}.</ref><ref name="Biberian_2007">{{harvnb|Biberian|2007}}.</ref> The reviews stated that although many explanations have been proposed, several of which do not use new physics, none is yet satisfactory. | |||
| The idea that ] or ] might catalyze fusion stems from the special ability of these metals to absorb large quantities of ] (including its deuterium isotope), the hope being that ] atoms would be close enough together to induce fusion at ordinary temperatures. The special ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized in the ]. In the late ], two ] scientists, F. Paneth and K. Peters, reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen is absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. These authors later acknowledged that the helium they measured was due to background from the air. | |||
| In ], ] scientist J. Tandberg said that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an ] with palladium electrodes. On the basis of his work he applied for a Swedish patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy". After deuterium was discovered in ], Tandberg continued his experiments with ]. Due to Paneth and Peters' retraction, Tandberg's patent application was eventually denied. | |||
| ==History== | |||
| ===Early work=== | |||
| The special ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized as early as the nineteenth century by ].<ref name="DOE_1989_7">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|Ref=DOE1989|p=7}}.</ref> In the late nineteen-twenties, two ] scientists, ] and K. Peters, reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen was absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature.<ref name="DOE_1989_7">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|Ref=DOE1989|p=7}}.</ref> These authors later acknowledged that the helium they measured was due to background from the air. | |||
| === Pons and Fleischmann's experiment === | |||
| In 1927, ] scientist J. Tandberg stated that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an ] with palladium electrodes.<ref name="DOE_1989_7">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|Ref=DOE1989|p=7}}.</ref> On the basis of his work, he applied for a Swedish patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy". After deuterium was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with ]. Due to Paneth and Peters' retraction, Tandberg's patent application was eventually denied.<ref name="DOE_1989_7">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|Ref=DOE1989|p=7}}.</ref> | |||
| On ], ], the chemists ] and ] ("P and F") at the ] held a press conference and reported the production of excess heat that could only be explained by a nuclear process. The report was particularly astounding given the simplicity of the equipment, just a pair of electrodes connected to a battery and immersed in a jar of ] (dideuterium oxide). The press reported on the experiments widely, and it was one of the front-page items on most newspapers around the world. The immense beneficial implications of the Utah experiments, if they were correct, and the ready availability of the required equipment, led scientists around the world to attempt to repeat the experiments within hours of the announcement. | |||
| The term "cold fusion" was coined by Dr. Paul Palmer of ] in 1986 in an investigation of "geo-fusion", or the possible existence of fusion in a ].<ref name="Kowalski_2004_IIA2">{{harvnb|Kowalski|2004|loc=II.A2}}.</ref> | |||
| The press conference followed about a year of work of increasing tempo by Pons and Fleischmann, who had been working on their basic experiments since ]. In ] they applied to the ] for funding for a larger series of experiments: up to this point they had been running their experiments "out of pocket". | |||
| ===Fleischmann-Pons announcement=== | |||
| Fleischmann said that he began investigating the possibility that ] could influence nuclear processes in the 1960s.<ref name="Fleischmann_2003_1">{{harvnb|Fleischmann|2003|p=1}}.</ref> He said that he explored whether collective effects, that would require ] to calculate, might be more significant than the effects predicted by ] calculations.<ref name="Fleischmann_2003_3">{{harvnb|Fleischmann|2003|p=3}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Leggett|1989}}.</ref> He said that, by 1983, he had experimental evidence leading him to believe that condensed phase systems developed ] structures up to 10<sup>-7</sup>m in size.<ref name="Fleischmann_2003_3">{{harvnb|Fleischmann|2003|p=3}}.</ref> In 1984, Fleischmann and Pons began cold fusion experiments.<ref>{{harvnb|Lewenstein|1994}} p. 21.</ref> | |||
| The grant proposal was turned over to several people for ], including Steven Jones of ]. Jones had worked on ] for some time, and had written an article on the topic entitled ''Cold Nuclear Fusion'' that had been published in '']'' in July ]. He had since turned his attention to the problem of fusion in high-pressure environments, believing it could explain the fact that the interior ] of the ] was hotter than could be explained without nuclear reactions, and by unusually high concentrations of helium-3 around ]es that implied some sort of ] within. At first he worked with ]s, but had since moved to ]s similar to those being worked on by Pons and Fleischmann, which he referred to as ''piezonuclear fusion''. In order to characterize the reactions, Jones had spent considerable time designing and building a neutron counter, one able to accurately measure the tiny numbers of neutrons being produced in his experiments. | |||
| ] | |||
| In their original set-up, Fleischmann and Pons used a ] (a double-walled vacuum flask) for the ], so that heat conduction would be minimal on the side and the bottom of the cell (only 5 % of the heat loss in this experiment). The cell flask was then submerged in a bath maintained at constant temperature to eliminate the effect of external heat sources. They used an open cell, thus allowing the ]eous deuterium and oxygen resulting from the electrolysis reaction to leave the cell, along with some heat. It was necessary to replenish the cell with ] at regular intervals. The authors said that, since the cell was tall and narrow, the bubbling action of the gas kept the electrolyte well mixed and of a uniform temperature. Special attention was paid to the purity of the palladium cathode and electrolyte to prevent the build-up of material on its surface, especially after long periods of operation. | |||
| Both teams were in ], and met on several occasions to discuss sharing work and techniques. During this time Pons and Fleischmann described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", excess in that it could not be explained by ]s alone. If this were true, their device would have considerable commercial value, and should be protected by ]s. Jones was measuring ] flux instead, and seems to have considered it primarily of scientific interest, not commercial. In order to avoid problems in the future, the teams ''apparently'' agreed to simultaneously publish their results, although their accounts of their March 6th meeting differ. | |||
| The cell was also instrumented with a ] to measure the temperature of the ], and an electrical heater to generate pulses of heat and calibrate the heat loss due to the gas outlet. After ], it was possible to compute the heat generated by the reaction.<ref name="FleischmannPons_1989_301">{{harvnb|Fleischmann|Pons|1989|p=301}}.</ref> | |||
| In mid-March both teams were ready to publish, and Fleischmann and Jones were to meet at the airport on the 24th to both hand in their papers at the exact same time. However Pons and Fleischmann then "jumped the gun", and held their press conference the day before. Jones, apparently furious at being "scooped", faxed in his paper to ''Nature'' as soon as he saw the press announcements. Thus the teams both rushed to publish, which has perhaps muddied the field more than any scientific aspects. | |||
| A constant current was applied to the cell continuously for many weeks, and heavy water was added as necessary. For most of the time, the power input to the cell was equal to the power that went out of the cell within measuring accuracy, and the cell temperature was stable at around 30 °C. But then, at some point (and in some of the experiments), the temperature rose suddenly to about 50 °C without changes in the input power, for durations of 2 days or more. The generated power was calculated to be about 20 times the input power during the power bursts. Eventually the power bursts in any one cell would no longer occur and the cell was turned off. | |||
| Within days scientists around the world had started work on duplications of the experiments. On April 10th a team at ] published results of excess heat, and later that day a team at the ] announced neutron production. Both results were widely reported on in the press. Not so well reported was the fact that both teams soon withdrew their results for lack of evidence. For the next six weeks competing claims, counterclaims, and suggested explanations kept the topic on the front pages, and led to what writers have referred to as "fusion confusion." | |||
| In 1988, Fleischmann and Pons applied to the ] for funding towards a larger series of experiments. Up to this point they had been funding their experiments using a small device built with $100,000 ].<ref name="LADN_092489">{{harvnb|Crease|Samios|1989|p=V1}}.</ref> The grant proposal was turned over for ], and one of the reviewers was ] of ].<ref name="LADN_092489">{{harvnb|Crease|Samios|1989|p=V1}}.</ref> Jones had worked on ] for some time, and had written an article on the topic entitled "Cold nuclear fusion" that had been published in '']'' in July 1987. Fleischmann and Pons and co-workers met with Jones and co-workers on occasion in ] to share research and techniques. During this time, Fleischmann and Pons described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", in the sense that it could not be explained by ]s alone.<ref name = "vxuvtq">{{harvnb|Fleischmann et al.|1990|Ref=Fleischmann1990|p=293}}</ref> They felt that such a discovery could bear significant commercial value and would be entitled to ]. Jones, however, was measuring neutron flux, which was not of commercial interest.<ref name="LADN_092489">{{harvnb|Crease|Samios|1989|p=V1}}.</ref> In order to avoid problems in the future, the teams appeared to agree to simultaneously publish their results, although their accounts of their ] meeting differ.<ref name="Lewenstein-1994_8">{{harvnb|Lewenstein|1994|p=8}}</ref> | |||
| In mid-May Pons received a huge standing ovation during a presentation at the ]. The same month the president of the University of Utah, who had already secured a $5 million commitment from his state legislature, asked for $25 million from the federal government to set up a "National Cold Fusion Institute". On May 1st a meeting of the ] held a session on cold fusion that ran past midnight; a string of failed experiments were reported. A second session started the next evening and continued in much the same manner. The field appeared split between the "chemists" and the "physicists". | |||
| In mid-March, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on ] to send their papers to '']'' via ].<ref name="Lewenstein-1994_8">{{harvnb|Lewenstein|1994|p=8}}</ref> Fleischmann and Pons, however, broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the ''Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry'' on ], and disclosing their work via a press conference on March 23.<ref name="LADN_092489">{{harvnb|Crease|Samios|1989|p=V1}}.</ref> Jones, upset, faxed in his paper to ''Nature'' after the press conference.<ref name="Lewenstein-1994_8">{{harvnb|Lewenstein|1994|p=8}}</ref> | |||
| At the end of May the ] (under a charge of the ]) formed a special panel to investigate cold fusion. The scientists in the panel found the evidence for cold fusion to be unconvincing. Nevertheless, the panel was "''sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system''". | |||
| ===Reaction to the announcement=== | |||
| The press initially reported on the experiments widely, and due to the surmised beneficial commercial applications of the Utah experiments, "scores of laboratories in the United States and abroad" attempted to repeat the experiments.<ref name="Browne_1989_para13">{{harvnb|Browne|1989|loc=para. 13}}.</ref> The announcement raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.<ref name="Browne_1989_para1">{{harvnb|Browne|1989|loc=para. 1}}.</ref> | |||
| Both critics and those attempting replications were frustrated by what they said was incomplete information released by the University of Utah. With the initial reports suggesting successful duplication of their experiments there was not much public criticism, but a growing body of failed experiments started a "buzz" of their own. Pons and Fleischmann later apparently claimed that there was a "secret" to the experiment, a statement that infuriated the majority of scientists to the point of dismissing the experiment out of hand. | |||
| On ], ], Fleischmann and Pons, who later suggested pressure from patent attorneys, published a rushed "preliminary note" in the ''Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry''.<ref name="FleischmannPons_1989_301">{{harvnb|Fleischmann|Pons|1989|p=301}}.</ref> This paper notably contained a gamma peak without its corresponding ], a discrepancy that triggered accusations of fraud.<ref>{{harvnb|Tate|1989|p=1}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Platt|1989}}.</ref> Their "preliminary note" was followed up a year later in July 1990, when a much longer paper, going into details of calorimetry but without any nuclear measurements, was published in the same journal.<ref name = "vxuvtq"/> | |||
| By the end of May much of the ] attention had faded. This was due not only to the competing results and counterclaims, but also to the limited attention span of modern media. However, while the research effort also cooled to some degree, projects continued around the world. | |||
| Also occurring on ], a team at ] published their results of excess heat, followed up by a team at the ] who observed production of neutrons.<ref name="Broad_1989">{{harvnb|Broad|1989}}.</ref> Both results were widely reported on in the press, although both Texas A&M and the Georgia Institute of Technology withdrew their results for lack of evidence.<ref name="Broad_1989">{{harvnb|Broad|1989}}.</ref> For the next six weeks, additional competing claims, counterclaims and suggested explanations kept what was referred to as "cold fusion" or "fusion confusion" in the news.<ref>{{harvnb|Bowen|1989}}.</ref> | |||
| === Experimental set-up and observations === | |||
| On ], Pons received a standing ovation from about 7,000 chemists at the semi-annual meeting of the ]. The University of Utah asked Congress to provide $25 million to pursue the research,<ref name="Browne_1989_para8">{{harvnb|Browne|1989|loc=para. 8}}.</ref> and Pons was scheduled to meet with representatives of ] in early May. | |||
| ] | |||
| Then on ], the ] held a session on cold fusion, which included several reports of experiments that failed to produce evidence of cold fusion. A second session began the next day with other negative reports, and eight of the nine leading speakers stated that they considered the initial Utah claim dead.<ref name="Browne_1989">{{harvnb|Browne|1989}}</ref> Dr. Steven E. Koonin of ] described the Utah report as a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann."<ref name="Browne_1989">{{harvnb|Browne|1989}}</ref> Dr. Douglas R. O. Morrison, a physicist representing ], called the entire episode an example of ].<ref name="Browne_1989_para29">{{harvnb|Browne|1989|loc=para. 29}}.</ref><!-- The following citation does not support that statement: {{citation|editor-last=Krumhansi|editor-first=J. A.|title=APS Special Session on Cold Fusion, May 1-2, 1989|year=1989|url=http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate/aps.ascii}} -->''Nature'' published papers critical of cold fusion in July and November.<ref>{{harvnb|Gai et al.|Ref=Gai1989|1989|pp=29-34}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Williams et a.|1989|Ref=Williams1989|pp=375-384}}.</ref> | |||
| In their original set-up, Fleischmann and Pons used a ] (a double-walled vacuum flask) for the ], so that heat conduction would be minimal on the side and the bottom of the cell (only 5 % of the heat loss in this ]). The cell flask was then submerged in a bath maintained at constant temperature to eliminate the effect of external heat sources. They used an open cell, thus allowing the ]eous deuterium and oxygen resulting from the ] reaction to leave the cell (with some heat too). It was necessary to replenish the cell with ] at regular intervals. The cell was tall and narrow, so that the bubbling action of the gas kept the electrolyte well mixed and of a uniform temperature. Special attention was paid to the purity of the palladium cathode and electrolyte to prevent the build-up of material on its surface, especially after long periods of operation. | |||
| ===1989 DOE panel=== | |||
| In November, a special panel formed by the Energy Research Advisory Board, under a charge of the ], said that it was not possible to state categorically that cold fusion has been convincingly either proved or disproved.<ref name="DOE_1989_36">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|Ref=DOE1989|p=36}}</ref> The experimental results of excess heat from calorimetric cells reported to them did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion. These experiments did not present convincing evidence to associate the reported anomalous heat with a nuclear process. Current understanding of hydrogen in solids gives no support for the occurrence of cold fusion in solids. Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process. | |||
| The cell was also instrumented with a thermistor to measure the temperature of the ], and an electrical heater to generate pulses of heat and calibrate the heat loss due to the gas outlet. After ], it was possible to compute the heat generated by the reaction. | |||
| The panel "recommended against the establishment of special programs or research centers to develop cold fusion", but was "sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system." The Panel recommended that "the cold fusion research efforts in the area of heat production focus primarily on confirming or disproving reports of excess heat" and stated that "investigations designed to check the reported observations of excess tritium in electrolytic cells are desirable.". <ref name="DOE_1989_37">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|Ref=DOE1989|p=37}}.</ref> | |||
| A constant current was applied to the cell continuously for many weeks, and heavy water was added as necessary. For most of the time, the power input to the cell was equal to the power that went out of the cell within measuring accuracy, and the cell temperature was stable at around 30 °C. But then, at some point (and in some of the experiments), the temperature rose suddenly to about 50 °C without changes in the input power, for durations of 2 days or more. The generated power was calculated to be about 20 times the input power during the power bursts. Eventually the power bursts in any one cell would no longer occur and the cell was turned off. | |||
| ===Further developments (1989-2004)=== | |||
| The first published replication of excess heat was reported by Richard Oriani while he was professor of physical chemistry at the ], in December 1990. The results were published in his paper, "Calorimetric Measurements of Excess Power Output During the Cathodic Charging of Deuterium Into Palladium", in ''Fusion Technology''.<ref>{{harvnb|Oriani|Nelson|Lee|Broadhurst|1990|pp=652-662}}, cited by {{harvnb|Krivit|2005}}..</ref> | |||
| ===Continuing efforts=== | |||
| In 1991, Dr. ] stated that the negative report issued by the ] in 1989, which was highly influential in the controversy, was fraudulent because data was shifted without explanation, obscuring a possible positive excess heat result at MIT.<!-- the following citation is not valid (or is OR) for the previous statement. {{cite web|last=Krivit|first=Steven|title=Controversial MIT. Cold Fusion Graphs|url=http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/HistoricalAnalysisSummaryCharts.htm#mit}}</ref> --> In protest of ]'s failure to discuss and acknowledge the significance of this data shift, Mallove resigned from his post as chief science author at the MIT news office on ], ]. He maintained that the data shift was biased to support the conventional belief in the non-existence of the cold fusion effect as well as to protect the financial interests of the plasma fusion center's research in hot fusion.<ref>{{harvnb|Mallove|1999}}.</ref> | |||
| There are still a number of people researching the possibilities of generating power with cold fusion. Scientists in several countries continue the research, and meet at the ] (see Proceedings at ). | |||
| The late Nobel Laureate ] (1918 - 1994) also stated in 1991 that he had experienced "the pressure for conformity in editor's rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous reviewers," and that "the replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."<ref>{{harvnb|Schwinger|1991}}.</ref> He resigned as Member and Fellow of the ] in protest of its peer review practice on cold fusion. | |||
| The generation of excess heat has been reported by | |||
| In 1992, workers at General Electric challenged the Fleischmann-Pons 1990 report in the ''Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry'', stating that the claims of excess heat had been overstated.<ref>{{harvnb|Wilson|1992|p=1}}, cited by {{harvnb|Krivit|2005}}.</ref> The challenge concluded that the Fleischmann and Pons cell generated 40% excess heat, more than ten times larger than the initial error estimate. Despite the apparent confirmation, Fleischmann and Pons replied to General Electric and published a rebuttal in the same journal.<ref>{{harvnb|Beaudette|2002|pp=188, 357-360}}.</ref><!-- commented out extraordinary statement lacking extraordinary sources: "...which has never been refuted in scientific literature."<ref>{{cite web|last=Krivit|first=Steven|title=The Seminal Papers of Cold Fusion|publisher=New Energy Times|url=http://newenergytimes.com/PR/TheSeminalPapers.htm}}</ref> --> | |||
| * Michael McKubre, director of the Energy Research Center at ], | |||
| * Richard A. Oriani (], in December 1990), | |||
| * Robert A. Huggins (at ] in March 1990), | |||
| * Y. Arata (], ]), | |||
| among others. In the best experimental set-up, excess heat was observed in 50% of the experiment reproductions. Various fusion ashes and transmutations were observed by some scientists. | |||
| Dr. Michael McKubre thinks a working cold fusion reactor is possible. Dr. Edmund Storms, a former scientist with The ] in ], maintains an international database of research into cold fusion. | |||
| Fleischmann and Pons relocated their laboratory to France under a grant from the ]. The laboratory, IMRA, was closed in 1998 after spending £12 million on cold fusion work. By comparison, research on the proven hot fusion reaction has run into the billions.<ref>{{harvnb|Voss|1999}}.</ref> | |||
| In March, ], the ] (DOE) decided to review all previous research of cold fusion in order to see whether further research was warranted by any new results. | |||
| ], a cold fusion proponent, contends that by 1991, 92 groups of researchers from 10 different countries had reported excess heat, tritium, helium4, neutrons or other nuclear effects.<ref>{{harvnb|Mallove|1991|p=246-248}}.</ref> Proponents estimate that 3,000 cold fusion papers have been published, <ref>{{harvnb|Anderson|2007}}</ref> including over 1,000 journal papers and books, where the latter number includes both pro and con articles.{{Ref_label|heat_tritium_reports|α|none}} | |||
| On ], ], a foremost cold fusion champion, ], was brutally murdered in a yet unresolved case. His death has both saddened and inspired the cold fusion and ] community in general and has drawn international attention to the status of cold fusion today. | |||
| ] | |||
| The generation of excess heat has been reported by (among others): | |||
| * ], while he was professor at ], Japan, | |||
| * Robert A. Huggins, while he was professor at ] (in March 1990), | |||
| * Michael McKubre, of ], | |||
| * T. Mizuno (], Japan), | |||
| * T. Ohmori (Japan), | |||
| * Richard A. Oriani, while he was professor at ] (in December 1990), | |||
| * the late ], while he was at ], and | |||
| * Edmund Storms, while he was at ]. | |||
| Many of these researchers continued their research in the phenomena after retirement. | |||
| == Arguments in the controversy == | |||
| Researchers share their results at the International Conference on Cold Fusion, recently renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. The conference is held every 12 to 18 months in various countries around the world, and is hosted by , a scientific organization that was founded as a professional society to support research efforts and to communicate experimental results. A few periodicals emerged in the 1990s that covered developments in cold fusion and related new energy sciences (''Fusion Facts, Cold Fusion Magazine, Infinite Energy Magazine'', and ''New Energy Times''). | |||
| A majority of scientists consider current cold fusion research to be ], while proponents argue that they are conducting valid experiments that challenge mainstream science. (see ]). Here are the main arguments in the controversy. | |||
| === Reproducibility of the result === | |||
| ] of the open type, used at the New Hydrogen Energy Institute in Japan. ''Source: SPAWAR/US Navy TR1862'']] Between 1992 and 1997, Japan's ] sponsored a "New Hydrogen Energy Program" of US$20 million to research cold fusion. Announcing the end of the program, Dr. Hideo Ikegami stated in 1997 "We couldn't achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion." He added, "We can't find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future."<ref>{{harvnb|Pollack|1997|p=C4}}.</ref> | |||
| While some scientists have reported to have reproduced the excess heat with similar or different set-ups, they could not do it with predictable results, and many others failed. Some see this as a proof that the experiment is pseudoscience. | |||
| Yet, it is not uncommon for a new phenomenon to be difficult to control, and to bring erratic results. For example attempts to repeat electrostatic experiments (similar to those performed by ]) often fail due to excessive air ]. That does not mean that electrostatic phenomena are fictitious, or that experimental data are fraudulent. On the contrary, occasional observations of new events, by qualified experimentalists, can in some cases be the preliminary steps leading to recognized discoveries. | |||
| In 1994, Dr. ] described cold fusion as "a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here."<ref name="Goodstein_1994">{{harvnb|Goodstein|1994}}.</ref> | |||
| The reproducibility of the result will remain the main issue in the Cold Fusion controversy until a scientist designs an experiment that is fully reproducible by simply following a ], or that ] continuously rather than sporadically. | |||
| Cold fusion researchers said that cold fusion was being suppressed, and that skeptics suffered from "]".<ref>{{harvnb|Josephson|2004}}.</ref> They said that there was virtually no possibility for funding in cold fusion in the United States, and no possibility of getting published.<ref name="Feder_2004_27">{{harvnb|Feder|2004|p=27}}.</ref> They said that people in universities refused to work on it because they would be ridiculed by their colleagues.<ref>{{harvnb|Rusbringer|2005}}</ref> | |||
| === Current understanding of nuclear process === | |||
| In February 2002, a laboratory within the United States Navy released a report<ref>{{harvnb|Szpak|Mosier-Boss|2002a}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Szpak|Mosier-Boss|2002b}}</ref> that came to the conclusion that the cold fusion phenomenon was in fact real and deserved an official funding source for research.<ref>{{harvnb|Szpak|Mosier-Boss|2002a|p=iv-v}}</ref> Navy researchers say that, since 1990, they have published roughly 10 papers on cold fusion in ].<ref>{{harvnb|Szpak|Mosier-Boss|2002a|p=113}}</ref> | |||
| The DOE panel says: "''Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process''". | |||
| However, this argument only says that the experiment has unexplained results, not that the experiment is wrong. As an analogy, ] was observed in ], and explained theoretically only in ]. | |||
| ===2004 DOE panel=== | |||
| In 2004, the DOE organized another panel to take a look at cold fusion developments since 1989 to determine if their policies towards cold fusion should be altered.<ref name="DOEr_2004_3">{{harvnb|US DOE|2004|Ref=DOE2004r|p=3}}.</ref> | |||
| Current understanding of hot ] shows that the following explanations are not adequate: | |||
| It concluded: "While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review." "The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers in the 2004 review was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few ]s (eV). These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions." "The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals."<ref name="DOEr_2004_5">{{harvnb|US DOE|2004|Ref=DOE2004r|p=5}}.</ref> | |||
| * Nuclear reaction in general: The average density of deuterium in the palladium rod seems vastly insufficient to force pairs of nuclei close enough for fusion to occur according to mechanisms known to mainstream theories. The average distance is approximately 0.17 ]s, a distance at which the attractive ] cannot overcome the ]. Actually, deuterium atoms are closer together in D2 gas molecules, which do not exhibit fusion. | |||
| ===Recent developments=== | |||
| The reports of excess heat and anomalous tritium production{{Ref_label|heat_tritium_reports|α|none}} have met by most scientists with ],<ref>{{harvnb|Feder|2005}}</ref> although discussion in professional settings still continues. The American Chemical Society's (ACS) 2007 conference in Chicago held an "invited symposium" on cold fusion and low-energy nuclear reactions, and thirteen papers were presented at the "Cold Fusion" session of the 2006 American Physical Society (APS) March Meeting in Baltimore.<ref>{{harvnb|Van Noorden|2007|loc=para. 2}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Chubb et al.|2006|Ref=APS2006}}.</ref> Articles supporting cold fusion have been published in ]ed journals such as ''Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, ]'', and ''Journal of Fusion Energy''. <ref> cited by Krivit, Steven, "Selected Papers - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions," </ref> | |||
| *Absence of standard nuclear fusion products: if the excess heat were generated by the fusion of 2 ] atoms, the most probable outcome would be the generation of either a ] atom and a proton, or a <sup>3</sup>He and a ]. The level of neutrons, tritium and <sup>3</sup>He actually observed in Fleischmann-Pons experiment have been well below the level expected in view of the heat generated, implying that these fusion reactions cannot explain it. | |||
| In 2008, the government of India reviewed the field.<ref>{{harvnb|Jayaraman|2008}}</ref> Dr. M. R. Srinivasan, former chairman of the ] said: "There is some science here that needs to be understood. We should set some people to investigate these experiments. There is much to be commended for the progress in the work. The neglect should come to an end".<ref>{{harvnb|Srinivasan|2008}}</ref> On May 22, 2008, Arata and Zhang publicly demonstrated what they say is a cold fusion reactor at Osaka University.<ref>{{harvnb|Cartwright|2008}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Cartwright|2008b}}</ref> | |||
| *Fusion of deuterium into helium 4: if the excess heat were generated by the hot fusion of 2 deuterium atoms into <sup>4</sup>He, a reaction which is normally extremely rare, ]s and helium would be generated. Again, insufficient levels of helium and gamma rays have been observed to explain the excess heat, and there is no known mechanism to explain how gamma rays could be converted into heat. | |||
| ==Summary of evidence for cold fusion== | |||
| Cold fusion experiments have been conducted with many types of apparatus. The main constituents are: | |||
| * a metal, such as Palladium or Nickel, in bulk, thin films or powder; | |||
| * heavy or light water, hydrogen or deuterium gas or plasma; | |||
| * an excitation in the form of electricity or magnetism, of temperature or pressure cycle, of laser beam, or of acoustic waves.<ref>{{harvnb|Storms|2007|p=144-150}}</ref> | |||
| === Energy source vs power store === | |||
| Cold fusion has remained controversial, but several experimenters have reported excess heat, helium-4, low-level neutron production, X-ray emission, and/or transmutation of elements. | |||
| While the output power is higher than the input power during the power burst, the power balance over the whole experiment does not show significant imbalances. Since the mechanism under the power burst is not known, one cannot say whether energy is really produced, or simply stored during the early stages of the experiment (loading of deuterium in the Palladium cathode) for later release during the power burst. | |||
| A "power store" discovery would have much less value than an "energy source" one, especially if the stored power can only be released in the form of heat. | |||
| ===Excess heat=== | |||
| The excess power observed in some experiments is reported to be beyond that attributable to ordinary chemical or solid state sources; proponents attribute this excess power to nuclear fusion reactions.<ref name="DOEr_2004_3">{{harvnb|US DOE|2004|Ref=DOE2004r|p=3}}.</ref> | |||
| == Other kinds of fusion == | |||
| The cold fusion researchers who presented their review document to the 2004 DOE panel said that "the hypothesis that the excess heat effect arises only as a consequence of errors in calorimetry was considered, studied, tested, and ultimately rejected".<ref name="DOE_2004_1">{{harvnb|Hagelstein et al.|2004|Ref=DOE2004|p=1}}.</ref> They said that numerous experiments conducted by ] showed excess power well above the accuracy of measurement.<ref>{{harvnb|Hagelstein et al.|2004|Ref=DOE2004|p=22}}.</ref> The researchers also said that the amount of energy reported in some of the experiments appeared to be too great compared to the small mass of the material in the cell for it to be stored by any chemical process. They said that their control experiments using light water did not show excess heat. | |||
| This article focuses on fusion in electrolytic cells. Other forms of fusion have been studied by scientists. Some are "cold" in the sense that no part of the reaction is actually hot (except for the reaction products), some are "cold" in the sense that the energies required are low and the bulk of the material is at a relatively low temperature, and some are "hot", involving reactions which create macroscopic regions of very high temperature and pressure. | |||
| Locally cold fusion : | |||
| In 2007, a cold fusion proponent wrote a review by of experiments with a solid ] cathode and an electrolyte with ], or with D<sub>2</sub> gas loaded in palladium powders. The author said that more than 10 groups worldwide have reported the measurement of excess heat in 1/3 of their experiments and that most of the research groups have reported occasionally seeing 50-200% excess heat for hours to days.<ref name="Hubler_2007"/> | |||
| * ] is a well-established and reproducible fusion process which occurs at low temperatures. It has been studied in detail by ] in the early ]. Because of the energy required to create ]s, it is not able to produce net energy. | |||
| Generally cold, locally hot fusion : | |||
| ===Nuclear products=== | |||
| * In ], microscopic droplets of ] (on the order of 100-1000 molecules) are accelerated to collide with a target, so that their temperature at impact reaches at most 10<sup>5</sup> ], 10,000 times smaller than the temperature required for hot fusion. In 1989, Friedlander and his coworkers observed 10<sup>10</sup> more fusion events than expected with standard fusion theory. Recent research () suggests that the calculation of effective temperature may have failed to account for certain molecular effects which raise the effective collision temperature, so that this is a microscopic form of hot fusion. | |||
| ].<ref>{{harvnb|Mosier-Boss|Szpak|Gordon|2007|loc=slide 7}}<br />reported in {{harvnb|Krivit|2007|p=2}}.</ref>]] The cold fusion researchers who presented their review document to the 2004 DOE panel on cold fusion said that there are insufficient chemical reaction products to account for the excess heat by several orders of magnitude.<ref name="DOE_2004_7">{{harvnb|Hagelstein et al.|2004|Ref=DOE2004|p=7}}.</ref> They said that several independent studies have shown that the rate of helium production measured in the gas stream varies linearly with excess power. Bursts of excess energy were time-correlated with bursts of <sup>4</sup>He in the gas stream. Extensive precautions were taken to ensure that the samples were not contaminated by helium from the ] (5.2 ]). They say that "numerous investigators" <!--direct quote from source--> have reported that <sup>4</sup>He was produced at levels above that of the concentration in air.<ref>{{harvnb|Hagelstein et al.|2004|Ref=DOE2004|p=10}}.</ref> However, the amount of helium in the gas stream was about half of what would be expected for a heat source of the type D + D -> <sup>4</sup>He. Searches for ] and other energetic emissions commensurate with excess heat have uniformly produced null results. | |||
| * In ], acoustic shock waves create temporary bubbles that collapse shortly after creation, producing very high temperatures and pressures. In ], Rusi P. Taleyarkhan explored the possibility that ] occurs in those collapsing bubbles. If this is the case, it is because the temperature and pressure are sufficiently high to produce hot fusion. | |||
| In 2007, the ] reported their observation of pits in ] detectors during D/Pd codeposition experiments in the '']''. They said that those pits have features consistent with those observed for nuclear-generated tracks, that the Pd cathode is the source of those pits, and that they are not due to contamination or chemical reactions. They attributed some pits to knock-ons due to neutrons, and said that other pits are consistent with those obtained for ]s.<ref>{{harvnb|Mosier-Boss|Szpak|Gordon|Forsley|2007}}.</ref> | |||
| * The ] is a tabletop device in which fusion occurs. This fusion comes from high effective temperatures produced by electrostatic acceleration of ions. The device can be built inexpensively, but it too is unable to produce a net power output. | |||
| ===Nuclear transmutations=== | |||
| In nuclear reactions, a ] may be ] into another. There are numerous reports of nuclear transmutations and ] anomalies in cold fusion experiments.<ref name="Storms_2007_93_95">{{harvnb|Storms|2007|p=93-95}}.</ref> Cold fusion proponents say that it is generally accepted that these anomalies are not the ash associated with the primary excess heat effect.<ref name="DOE_2004_7">{{harvnb|Hagelstein et al.|2004|Ref=DOE2004|p=7}}.</ref> | |||
| * ] uses small amounts of antimatter to trigger a tiny fusion explosion. This has been studied primarily in the context of making ] feasible. | |||
| Tadahiko Mizuno was among the first to contribute a paper<ref>{{harvnb|Mizuno|1996}}</ref> and a book on the subject.<ref>{{harvnb|Mizuno|1998}}, cited by {{harvnb|Britz|2008}}</ref> Dr. Miley, who also developed a process for making small ] devices to serve as portable fusion neutron sources,<ref>{{harvnb|Prow|2001}}.</ref> wrote a review of these experiments.<ref name="MileyShrestha_2003_?#1">{{harvnb|Miley|Shrestha|2003}}</ref> Some report the creation of only a few elements, while others report a wide variety of elements from the ]. Calcium, copper, zinc, and iron were the most commonly reported elements, often with ].<ref name="MileyShrestha_2003_?#2">{{harvnb|Miley|Shrestha|2003}}.</ref> | |||
| Hot fusion : | |||
| Iwamura and associates published what they say to be further evidence of transmutations in the ''Japanese Journal of Applied Physics'' in 2002.<ref name="IwamuraSakanoItoh_2002_full">{{harvnb|Iwamura|Sakano|Itoh|2002|pp=4642-4650}}.</ref> Instead of using electrolysis, they forced deuterium gas to ] through a thin layer of ] or ] deposited on ] and palladium, while periodically analyzing the nature of the surface through ]. They said that as the deuterium gas permeated over a period of a week, cesium appeared to be progressively transmuted into praseodymium while strontium appeared to be transmuted into ] with anomalous isotopic composition representing an addition of four deuterium nuclei to the original nuclide. When the deuterium gas was replaced by hydrogen in control experiments, no transmutation was reported to be observed. The authors said that they analyzed, and then rejected, the possibility of explaining these various observations by contaminations or migration of impurities from the palladium interior.<ref name="IwamuraSakanoItoh_2002_4648">{{harvnb|Iwamura|Sakano|Itoh|2002|p=4648-4649}}.</ref> | |||
| * "Standard" ], in which the fuel reaches tremendous temperature and pressure inside a ], ], or ]. | |||
| Several of these systems are "nonequilibrium systems", in which very high temperatures and pressures are produced in a relatively small region adjacent to material of much lower temperature. In his doctoral thesis for ], Todd Rider did a theoretical study of all non-equilibrium fusion systems. He demonstrated that all such systems will leak energy at a rapid rate due to ], radiation produced when ]s in the ] hit other electrons or ]s at a cooler temperature and suddenly decelerate. The problem is not as pronounced in a hot plasma because the range of temperatures, and thus the magnitude of the deceleration, is much lower. | |||
| ==Criticism== | |||
| The skepticism towards cold fusion results from four issues: the precision of calorimetry, the lack of consistently reproducible results, the absence of nuclear products in quantities consistent with the excess heat, and the lack of a mainstream theoretical mechanism.<ref name="DOE_1989_6_8">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|Ref=DOE1989|pp=6-8}}.</ref> | |||
| ==References== | |||
| ===Precision of calorimetry=== | |||
| *] (2000) gives a thorough account of cold fusion and its history which represents the perspective of the mainstream scientific community. | |||
| {{main|Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments}} | |||
| *Two other sceptical books from the scientific mainstream are those by Frank Close (1992) and John Huizenga (1992). Huizenga was co-chair of the ] panel set up to investigate the Pons/Fleischmann experiment, and his book is perhaps the definitive account of the cold fusion affair. | |||
| The efficacy of the stirring method in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, and thus the validity of the temperature measurements has been disputed by Browne.<ref name="Browne_1989_para16">{{harvnb|Browne|1989|loc=para. 16}}.</ref> The experiment has also been criticized by Wilson.<ref name="Wilson_1992">{{harvnb|Wilson|1992}}</ref> Other experiments using open cells have been criticized by Shkedi<ref name="ShkediMcDonaldBreenMaguireVeranth_1995_?">{{harvnb|Shkedi et al.|1995|Ref=Shkedi1995}}.</ref> and Jones.<ref name="JonesHansenJonesSheltonThorne_1995_1">{{harvnb|Jones et al.|1995|Ref=Jones1995|p=1}}.</ref> Other experiments using mass flow calorimetry have been criticized by Shanahan.<ref>{{harvnb|Shanahan|2002}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Shanahan|2005}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Shanahan|2006}}</ref> | |||
| *]'s ''Fire from Ice'' (1991) is an early account from the pro-cold-fusion perspective. ]'s ''Excess heat'' (2000) is a more recent scientific account of why cold fusion research prevailed. | |||
| * '''Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud''', by Robert L. Park; Oxford University Press, New York; ISBN 0195135156; May 2000. | |||
| * '''Too Hot To Handle''', by Frank Close; Penguin Books; ISBN 0140159266; 1992. | |||
| * '''Cold Fusion: the scientific fiasco of the century''', by John R Huizenga; Oxford Paperbacks; ISBN 0198558171; 1992. | |||
| * '''Fire from Ice''', by ]; Infinite Energy Press; ISBN 1892925028; 1991. | |||
| * '''Excess Heat: why cold fusion research prevailed''', by Charles Beaudette; ; ISBN 0967854814 | |||
| ===See also=== | |||
| Cold fusion researchers find these critique unconvincing, and not applicable to other experimental design.<ref name="Fleischmann_1992">{{harvnb|Fleischmann|1992|Ref=Fleischmann1992}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Will|1997|p=177}}.</ref><ref name="Storms_2007_195">{{harvnb|Storms|2007|p=195}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Storms|2006}}.</ref> | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| == External links == | |||
| The 2004 DOE panel noted that significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since 1989. Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic.<ref name="DOEr_2004_3">{{harvnb|US DOE|2004|Ref=DOE2004r|p=3}}.</ref> | |||
| Information: | |||
| * Energy Research Advisory Board, "''''" | |||
| * "''''". -- Information and links from pro-cold fusion research. | |||
| * : an overview of the current state of cold fusion research from a physics teacher | |||
| * : An extentisve overview and review of almost all available publications about cold nuclear fusion. | |||
| News: | |||
| Many of the reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented to the DOE panel. The reviewers who did not find the production of excess power convincing said that excess power in the short term is not the same as net energy production over the entire time of an experiment, that such short-term excess power is only a few percent of the total external power applied and hence ] and systematic effects could account for the purported effect, that all possible chemical and solid state causes of excess heat had not been investigated and eliminated as an explanation, that the ] of the effect had not increased after over a decade of work.<ref name="DOEr_2004_3">{{harvnb|US DOE|2004|Ref=DOE2004r|p=3}}.</ref> | |||
| * "''''". PhysicsWeb. February 2002. | |||
| * "''?''". Physics World. March 1999. | |||
| * "''''". ] News. July 25, 2002 | |||
| * "''. CBC Science. | |||
| * ''Physics Today'' April 2004. | |||
| * "''Additional evidence of nuclear emissions during acoustic cavitation''", R. P. Taleyarkhan, J. S. Cho, C. D. West, R. T. Lahey, Jr., R. I. Nigmatulin, and R. C. Block. | |||
| ] | |||
| ===Lack of reproducibility of excess heat=== | |||
| ] ] ] | |||
| The cold fusion researchers who presented their review document to the 2004 DOE panel on cold fusion said that the observation of excess heat has been reproduced, that it can be reproduced at will under the proper conditions, and that many of the reasons for failure to reproduce it have been discovered.<ref name="DOE_2004_14">{{harvnb|Hagelstein et al.|2004|Ref=DOE2004|p=14}}.</ref> Contrary to these assertions, most reviewers stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.<ref name="DOE_2004_3">{{harvnb|US DOE|2004|Ref=DOE2004r|p=3}}.</ref> | |||
| In 1989, the DOE panel noted that "Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. As a result, it is difficult convincingly to resolve all cold fusion claims since, for example, any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons."<ref name="DOE_1989_36">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|Ref=DOE1989|p=36}}.</ref> | |||
| ===Missing nuclear products=== | |||
| The fusion of two ] nuclei usually produces either a ] nucleus and a ], or a ] (<sup>3</sup>He) nucleus and a ]. The level of neutrons, tritium and <sup>3</sup>He actually observed in the Fleischmann-Pons experiments have been well below the level expected in view of the heat generated, implying that these fusion reactions cannot explain it. If the excess heat were generated by the fusion of two deuterium nuclei into helium (<sup>4</sup>He), a reaction which is normally extremely rare, ]s and helium (alpha particles) would be expected. In 1989, insufficient levels of helium (alpha particles) and gamma rays were observed to explain the excess heat.<ref name="DOE_1989_5_6">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|Ref=DOE1989|pp=5-6}}.</ref> | |||
| When asked about evidence of low energy nuclear reactions, twelve of the eighteen members of the 2004 DOE panel did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence "somewhat convincing", and one was entirely convinced. The evidence of D+D fusion was taken as convincing or somewhat convincing by some reviewers; for others the lack of consistency was an indication that the overall hypothesis was not justified. Contamination of apparatus or samples by air containing <sup>4</sup>He was cited as one possible cause for false positive results in some measurements.<ref name="DOEr_2004_34">{{harvnb|US DOE|2004|Ref=DOE2004r|p=3-4}}.</ref> | |||
| ===Lack of theoretical explanations=== | |||
| Temperatures and pressures similar to those in ]s are required for conventional nuclear fusion. The 1989 DOE panel said that such "nuclear fusion at room temperature would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century" and "it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process."<ref name="DOE_1989_37">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|Ref=DOE1989|p=37}}.</ref> but it also recognized that "the failure of a theory to account for cold fusion can be discounted on the grounds that the correct explanation and theory has not been provided",<ref name="DOE_1989_36">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|Ref=DOE1989|p=36}}.</ref> that is, the lack of a satisfactory explanation could not be used to dismiss experimental evidence. | |||
| Cold fusion observations are contrary to the conventional physics of nuclear fusion in several ways : | |||
| * The average density of deuterium atoms in the palladium rod seems vastly insufficient to force pairs of nuclei close enough for fusion to occur according to mechanisms known to mainstream theories. The average distance is approximately 0.17 ]s, a distance at which the attractive ] cannot overcome the ]. Deuterium atoms are closer together in D<sub>2</sub> gas molecules, which do not exhibit fusion.<ref name="DOE_1989_6_7">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|Ref=DOE1989|pp=6-7}}.</ref> | |||
| * There is no known mechanism that would release fusion energy as heat instead of radiation within the relatively small metal lattice.<ref name="Goodstein_1994_528">{{harvnb|Goodstein|1994|p=528}}.</ref> The direct conversion of fusion energy into heat is not possible because of energy and ] conservation and the laws of ].<ref name="Kee_1999_5">{{harvnb|Kee|1999|p=5}}.</ref> | |||
| * Transmutations introduce additional discrepancies between observations and conventional theory because of the increased Coulomb barrier. | |||
| Cold fusion researchers acknowledge these issues and have proposed various speculative theories (for a full review, see {{harvnb|Storms|2007}}) to explain the reported observations, but none has received mainstream acceptance.<ref name="Biberian_2007" /> | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| {{refbegin}} | |||
| * '''α'''.{{Note_label|heat_tritium_reports|α|none}} References to publications are listed in {{harvnb|Storms|2007|pp=52-61,79-81}} and in {{harvnb|Hagelstein et al.|2004|Ref=DOE2004|pp=25-29}}, to include {{harvnb|Arata|Zhang|1998}}, {{harvnb|Iwamura|Sakano|Itoh|2002}}, {{harvnb|Mizuno|Ohmori|Akimoto|Takahashi|2000}}, {{harvnb|Miles et al.|1993|Ref=MilesEtAl1993}} and {{harvnb|Bush|Langowski|Miles|Ostrom|1991}}. Electrochemist , who has remained neutral on the question of whether cold fusion exists,<!-- http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.fusion/msg/cd82ea9f80a813c0 --> has compiled which includes numerous published scientific journal articles marked "res+", indicating positive research results or supportive theoretical calculations. | |||
| {{refend}} | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist|3}} | |||
| ==Bibliography== | |||
| {{refbegin}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Anderson|first=Mark|title=Cold-Fusion Graybeards Keep the Research Coming|journal=Wired Magazine|year=2007|volume=2007|issue=8|url=http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/08/cold_fusion| accessdate = 2008-05-25}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Arata|first=Yoshiaki|last2=Zhang|first2=Yue-Chang|title=Anomalous difference between reaction energies generated within D<sub>2</sub>0-cell and H<sub>2</sub>0 Cell|journal=Japanese Journal of Applied Physics|volume=37|issue=11A|year=1998|pages=L1274-L1276}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Beaudette|first=Charles G.|title=Excess Heat & Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed|year=2002|location=New York|publisher=Oak Grove Press|isbn=9-9678548-2-2}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Biberian|first=Jean-Paul|title=Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (Cold Fusion): An Update|journal=International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology|volume=3|issue=1|year=2007|pages=31–43|doi=10.1504/IJNEST.2007.012439 |url=http://www.jeanpaulbiberian.net/Download/Paper%2056.pdf}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Bowen|first=Jerry|title=Science: Nuclear Fusion|periodical=CBS Evening News|issue=April 10, 1989|year=1989|url=http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1989-4/1989-04-10-CBS-7.html| accessdate = 2008-05-25}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Broad|first=William J.|title=Georgia Tech Team Reports Flaw In Critical Experiment on Fusion|journal=New York Times| date=April 14, 1989|year=1989| url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7DE1130F937A25757C0A96F948260| accessdate = 2008-05-25}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Britz|first=Dieter|title=Book review:The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction|journal=J. Sci. Exploration|year=2008| volume=21, #4| pages=801}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Browne|first=M.|title=Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion| journal=New York Times| date=May 3, 1989 |year=1989| url=http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html| accessdate = 2008-05-25}}. | |||
| * {{citation|last=Bush|first=Ben F.|last2=Lagowski|first2=J. J.|last2=Miles|first2=M. H.|last2=Ostrom|first2=Greg S.|year=1991|title=Helium Production During the Electrolysis of D<sub>2</sub>O in Cold Fusion|journal=Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry|volume=304|pages=271–278}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Bush|first=R. T.|last2=Eagleton|first2=R.D.|title=Evidence of electrolytically induced transmutation and radioactivity correlated with excess heat in Electrolytic cells with light water rubidium salt electrolytes|journal=Transactions of Fusion Technology|year=1994|volume=26|issue=4T}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Cartwright|first=Jon |year=2008|title=Cold-fusion demonstration "a success" |publisher=PhysicsWorld.com|url=http://physicsworld.com/blog/2008/05/coldfusion_demonstration_a_suc.html| accessdate = 2008-05-25}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Cartwright|first=Jon |year=2008b|title=Cold-fusion demonstration: an update |publisher=PhysicsWorld.com|url=http://physicsworld.com/blog/2008/06/coldfusion_demonstration_an_up_1.html| accessdate = 2008-06-23}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Chubb|first=Scott et al.|ref=APS2006|title=Session W41: Cold Fusion|publisher=American Physical Society|year=2006|url=http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR06/SessionIndex2/?SessionEventID=45597| accessdate = 2008-05-25}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Close|first=Frank E.|authorlink=Frank Close|title=Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion|location=Princeton, N.J.|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1991|isbn=0-691-08591-9}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Crease|first=Robert|last2=Samios|first2=N. P.|title=Cold Fusion confusion|journal=New York Times Magazine|page=34-38|year=1989|issue=September 24, 1989|accessdate=2008-02-02}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Feder|first=Toni|title=DOE Warms to Cold Fusion|journal=Physics Today|year=2004|volume=57|issue=4|pages=27–28|url=http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_57/iss_4/27_1.shtml| accessdate = 2008-05-25}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Feder|first=Toni|title= Cold Fusion Gets Chilly Encore|journal=Physics Today|year=2005|url=http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_1/31_1.shtml| accessdate = 2008-05-25}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Fleischmann|first=Martin|authorlink=Martin Fleischmann|last2=Pons|first2=Stanley|title=Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium|journal=Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry|volume=261|issue=2A|pages=301–308|year=1989|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0728(89)80006-3}}. | |||
| *{{citation|ref=Fleischmann1990|last=Fleischmann|first=Martin|last2=Pons|first2=Stanley|last3=Anderson|first3=Mark W.|last4=Li|first4=Lian Jun|last5=Hawkins|first5=Marvin|title=Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system|journal=Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry|volume=287|year=1990|pages=293–348}} | |||
| *{{citation|ref=Fleischmann1992|last=Fleischmann|first=Martin|last2=Pons|first2=Stanley|title=Some Comments on The Paper 'Analysis of Experiments on The Calorimetry of Liod-D2O Electrochemical Cells,' R.H. Wilson et al., Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 332, (1992)",|journal=Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry|volume=332|year=1992|pages=33}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Fleischmann|first=Martin|year=2003|chapter=Background to cold fusion: the genesis of a concept|title=Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion|location=Cambridge, MA|publisher=World Scientific Publishing|ISBN=978-9812565648}} | |||
| *{{citation|ref=Gai1989|last=Gai|first=M.|first2=S. L.|last2=Rugari|first3=R. H.|last3=France|first4=B. J.|last4=Lund|first5=Z.|last5=Zhao|first6=A. J.|last6=Davenport|first7=H. S.|last7=Isaacs|first8=K. G.|last8=Lynn|title=Upper limits on neutron and big gamma-ray emission from cold fusion|journal=Nature|volume=340|pages=29–34|year=1989|doi=10.1038/340029a0}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Goodstein|first=David|title=Whatever happened to cold fusion?|journal=The American Scholar|volume=63|issue=4|year=1994|pages=527-541|url=http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html| accessdate = 2008-05-25}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Hagelstein|first=Peter|authorlink=Peter L. Hagelstein|last2=Michael|first2=McKubre | |||
| |last3=Nagel|first3=David|last4=Chubb|first4=Talbot|last5=Hekman|first5=Randall | |||
| |title=New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides|location=Washington|publisher=USDOE|year=2004 | |||
| |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070106185101/www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/Appendix_1.pdf | |||
| |ref=DOE2004| accessdate = 2008-07-19}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Higashiyama|first=Taichi|last2=Sakano|first2=Mitsuru|last3=Miyamaru|first3=Hiroyuki|last4=Takahashi|first4=Akito|chapter=Replication of MHI Transmutation Experiment by D2 Gas Permeation Through Pd Complex|title=Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion|year=2003|location=Cambridge, MA|publisher=publisher=World Scientific Publishing Company|ISBN=978-9812565648}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Hubler|first=G. K.|title=Anomalous Effects in Hydrogen-Charged Palladium - A Review|journal=Surface and Coatings Technology|volume=201|issue=19-20|year=2007|pages=8568-8573|doi=10.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.03.062}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Huizenga|first=John R.|title=Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century|location=Rochester, N.Y.|publisher=University of Rochester Press|year=1992|isbn=1-878822-07-1}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Hutchinson|first=Alex|title=The Year in Science: Physics|journal=Discover Magazine|year=2006|url=http://discovermagazine.com/2006/jan/physics| accessdate = 2008-06-20}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Iwamura|first=Yasuhiro|first2=Mitsuru|last2=Sakano|first3=Takehiko|last3=Itoh|title=Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D<sub>2</sub> Gas Permeation|journal=Japanese Journal of Applied Physics|year=2002|volume=41|issue=7A|pages=4642-4650|doi=10.1143/JJAP.41.4642}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Iwamura|first=Yasuhiro|chapter=Observation of Nuclear Transmutation Reactions induced by D2 Gas Permeation through Pd Complexes|title=Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science|year=2004|location=Marseille, France|publisher=World Scientific Publishing Company|isbn=978-9812566409}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Jayaraman|first=K. S.|title=Cold fusion hot again|url=http://www.nature.com/nindia/2008/080117/full/nindia.2008.77.html| accessdate = 2008-05-25|journal=Nature India|year=2008|date=Jan 17, 2008|doi=10.1038/nindia.2008.77}} | |||
| *{{citation|ref=Jones1995|last=Jones|first=J. E.|last2=Hansen|first2=L. D.|last3=Jones|first3=S. E.|last4=Shelton|first4=D. S.|last5=Thorne|first5=J. M.|title=Faradaic efficiencies less than 100% during electrolysis of water can account for reports of excess heat in`cold fusion` cells|year=1995|journal=Journal of Physical Chemistry|volume=99|issue=18|pages=6973-6979}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Josephson|first=Brian. D.|auhtorlink=Brian David Josephson|title=Pathological Disbelief|year=2004|series=Lecture given at the Nobel Laureates’ meeting Lindau, June 30th., 2004|year=2004|url=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JosephsonBpathologic.pdf| accessdate = 2008-07-17}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Kee|first=B|title=What is the current scientific thinking on cold fusion? Is there any possible validity to this phenomenon?|series=Ask the Experts|journal=Scientific American|year=1999|date=October 21, 1999|url=http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0007CC4D-394F-1C71-84A9809EC588EF21&pageNumber=2&catID=3| accessdate = 2008-05-25}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Kim|first=Y. E.|last2=Yoon|first2=J.-H.|last3=Rice|first3=R. A.|last4=Rabinowitz|first4=Mario|title=Cluster-Impact Fusion and Effective Deuteron Temperature|journal=Physical Review Letters|volume=68|issue=3|year=1992|pages=373-376}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Kozima|first=Hideo|title=The Science of the Cold Fusion phenomenon|publisher=Elsevier Science|location=New York|year=2006|ISBN=0-08-045110-1}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Krivit|first=Steven B.|title=The Seminal Papers of Cold Fusion|journal=New Energy Times|year=2005|url=http://www.newenergytimes.com/PR/TheSeminalPapers.htm| accessdate = 2008-05-25}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Krivit|first=Steven B.|title=Extraordinary Courage: Report on Some LENR Presentations at the 2007 American Physical Society Meeting|journal=New Energy Times|issue=21|year=2007|url=http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#apsreport| accessdate = 2008-05-25}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Krivit|first=Steven B.|title=Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Research – Global Scenario|journal=Current Science|year=2008|volume=94|issue=7|pages=854-857|url=http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/apr102008/854.pdf| accessdate = 2008-07-19}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Kruglinksi|first=Susan|title=Whatever Happened To... Cold Fusion?|journal=Discover Magazine|year=2006|url=http://discovermagazine.com/2006/mar/cold-fusion| accessdate = 2008-06-20}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Kowalski|first=Ludwik|title=Jones’s manuscript on History of Cold Fusion at BYU|location=Upper Montclair, NJ|publisher=csam.montclair.edu|year=2004|url=http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/131history.html| accessdate = 2008-05-25}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Leggett|first=A.J.|title=Exact upper bound on barrier penetration probabilities in many-body systems: Application to ‘‘cold fusion’’|year=1989|journal=Phys. Rev. Lett.|issue=63|year=1989|pages=191-194}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Lewenstein|first=Bruce V.|title=Cornell cold fusion archive|year=1994|url=http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/EAD/pdf_guides/RMM04451.pdf| accessdate = 2008-05-25|location=collection n°4451, Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Mallove|first=Eugene|authorlink=Eugene Mallove|title=Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor|location=London|publisher=Wiley|year=1991|ISBN=0-471-53139-1}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Mallove|first=Eugene|title=MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report|year=1999|journal=Infinite Energy Magazine|volume=24|url=http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf| accessdate = 2008-05-25}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Miles|first=Melvin H.|last2=Hollins|first2=R. A.|last3=Bush|first3=Ben F.|last4=Logowski|first4=J. J.|last5=Miles|first5=R. E.|ref=MilesEtAl1993<!-- ref= needed because double "Miles" -->|title=Correlation of excess power and helium production during D<sub>2</sub>O and H<sub>2</sub>0 electrolysis using Palladium cathodes|journal=Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry|year=1993|volume=346|issue=1-2|pages=99–117}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Miley|first=George H.|last2=Shrestha|first2=P.|chapter=Review Of Transmutation Reactions In Solids|title=Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion|year=2003|location=Cambridge, MA|publisher=World Scientific Publishing Company|ISBN=978-9812565648}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Mizuno|first=Tadahiko|title=Analysis of Elements for Solid State Electrolyte in Deuterium Atmosphere during Applied Field|year=1996|journal=J. New Energy|issue=1(2)|pages=37}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Mizuno|first=Tadahiko|title=Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion|year=1998|location=Concord, NH: Infinite Energy Press}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Mizuno|first=Tadahiko|last2=Ohmori|first2=Tadayoshi|last3=Akimoto|first3=Tadashi|last4=Takahashi|first4=Akito | |||
| |title=Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis in Liquid|journal=Japanese Journal of Applied Physics|volume=39|issue=10|year=2000|pages=6055-6061}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Mosier-Boss|first=Pamela A.|last2=Szpak|first2=Stanislaw|last3=Gordon|first3=Frank E.|title=Production of High Energy Particles Using the Pd/D Co-Deposition Process|journal=Proceedings of the 2007 APS March Meeting, March 5–9, 2007 in Denver|location=College Park, MD|publisher=American Physical Society|year=2007|url=http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2007.MAR.A31.2| accessdate = 2008-05-25}}. retrieved on ], 2008 | |||
| *{{citation|last=Mosier-Boss|first=Pamela A.|last2=Szpak|first2=Stanislaw|last3=Gordon|first3=Frank E.|last4=Forsley|first4=L. P. G.|title=Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments|journal=European Physical Journal Applied Physics|issue=40|pages=293–303|year=2007|doi=10.1051/epjap:2007152}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Oriani|first=Richard A.|first2=John C.|last2=Nelson|first3=Sung-Kyu|last3=Lee|first4=J. H.|last4=Broadhurst|title=Calorimetric Measurements of Excess Power Output During the Cathodic Charging of Deuterium into Palladium|title=Fusion Technology|volume=18|year=1990|pages=652-662}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Park|first=Robert|authorlink=Robert L. Park|title=Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud|location=New York|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2000|ISBN=0-19-513515-6}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Platt|first=Charles|title=What If Cold Fusion Is Real?|journal=Wired Magazine|year=1989|issue=6.11|url=http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set= | accessdate = 2008-05-25}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Pollack|first=A.|title=Japan, Long a Holdout, Is Ending Its Quest for Cold Fusion|periodical=New York Times|issue=August 26, 1997|year=1997|page=C4}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Prow|first=Tina M.|title=George Miley: Harnessing fusion as an energy source|journal=Engineering Outlook|volume=41|issue=2|year=2001|url=http://www.engr.uiuc.edu/publications/outlook/Text,%2041-2/miley.htm| accessdate = 2008-05-25}} | |||
| *{{citation|editor-last=Rusbringer|editor-first=Alan|title=In from the cold|journal=The Guardian|year=2005|issue=March 24, 2005|url=http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1444306,00.html| accessdate = 2008-05-25}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Schwinger|first=Julian|authorlink=Julian Schwinger|chapter=Cold fusion—Does it have a future?|title=Evolutionary Trends in the Physical Sciences: Proceedings of the Yoshio Nishina Centennial Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, December 5-7, 1990|editor-last=Suzuki|editor-first=Masuo|editor2-last=Kubo|editor2-first=Ryogo|series=Springer Proceedings in Physics, vol. 57|location=Berlin|publisher=Springer Verlag|year=1991|pages=171–175|isbn=3-540-54568-9}}. <!-- repr. (1994) ''Cold Fusion'' '''1''' (1): 14-17. --> | |||
| *{{citation|last=Shanahan|first=Kirk|title=A systematic error in mass flow calorimetry demonstrated|journal=Thermochimica Acta|volume=382|issue=2|year=2002|pages=95-101}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Shanahan|first=Kirk|title=Comments on "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition"|journal=Thermochimica Acta|volume=428|year=2005|pages=207-212}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Shanahan|first=Kirk|title=Reply to “Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion”, E. Storms, Thermochim. Acta, 2006|journal=Thermochimica Acta|volume=441|issue=2|year=2006|pages=210-214}}. | |||
| *{{citation|ref=Shkedi1995|last=Shkedi|first=Zvi|first2=R.C.|last2=McDonald|first3=J.J.|last3=Breen|first4=S.J.|last4=Maguire|first5=J.|last5=Veranth | |||
| |title=Calorimetry, Excess Heat, and Faraday Efficiency in Ni-H<sub>2</sub>O Electrolytic Cells.|journal=Fusion Technology|volume=28|issue=4|year=1995|pages=1720-1731}}. | |||
| *{{citation|ref=Shkedi1996|last=Shkedi|first=Zvi|title=Response to Comments on 'Calorimetry, Excess Heat, and Faraday Efficiency in Ni-H<sub>2</sub>O Electrolytic Cells'|journal=Fusion Technology|volume=30|issue=???|year=1996|page=133}}. <!-- only one page? --> | |||
| *{{citation|last=Srinivasan|first=M.|title=Energy concepts for the 21st century|url=http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/apr102008/842.pdf| accessdate = 2008-07-19|journal=Current Science|volume=94|issue=7|year=2008|pages=842-843}} | |||
| *{{citation|last=Storms|first=Edmund|title=Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion|journal=Thermochimica Acta|volume=441|issue=2|year=2006|pages=207}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Storms|first=Edmund|title=Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations|location=Singapore|publisher=World Scientific|year=2007|ISBN=9-8127062-0-8}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Szpak|first=Stanislaw|last2=Mosier-Boss|first2=Pamela A.|last3=Young|first3=Charles|last4=Gordon|first4=Frank E.|title= Evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd lattice|journal=Naturwissenschaften|volume=92|issue=8|year=2005|pages=394-397|doi=10.1007/s00114-005-0008-7}}. | |||
| *{{citation|editor-last=Szpak|editor-first=Stanislaw|editor2-last=Mosier-Boss|editor2-first=Pamela A.|title= Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system - Volume 1:A decade of research at Navy laboratories|series=Technical report 1862|year=2002a|url=http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf| accessdate = 2008-05-25|location=San Diego|publisher=Office of Naval Research/Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center}}. | |||
| *{{citation|editor-last=Szpak|editor-first=Stanislaw|editor2-last=Mosier-Boss|editor2-first=Pamela A.|title= Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system - Volume 2:Simulation of the electrochemical cell (ICARUS) calorimetry||series=Technical report 1862|year=2002b|url=http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol2.pdf| accessdate = 2008-05-25|location=San Diego|publisher=Office of Naval Research/Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Tate|first=N.|title=MIT bombshell knocks fusion ‘breakthrough’ cold|periodical=Boston Herald|issue=May 1, 1989|year=1989|page=1|url= }}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Taubes|first=Gary|authorlink=Gary Taubes|title=Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion|location=New York|publisher=Random House|year=1993|ISBN=0-394-58456-2}}. | |||
| *{{citation|author=U.S. Department of Energy|ref=DOE1989|title=A Report of the Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy|year=1989|publisher=US DOE|location=Washington|url=http://www.ncas.org/erab/| accessdate = 2008-05-25}}. | |||
| *{{citation|author=U.S. Department of Energy|ref=DOE2004r|year=2004 | |||
| |title=Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions | |||
| |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070114122346/http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf | |||
| | accessdate = 2008-07-19|year=2004|location=Washington, DC|publisher=doe.gov}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Van Noorden|first= R.|title=Cold fusion back on the menu|journal=Chemistry World|year=2007|issue=April 2007|url=http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/March/22030701.asp| accessdate = 2008-05-25}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Voss|first=David|title=What Ever Happened to Cold Fusion|journal=Physics World|issue=March 1|year=1999|url=http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1258| accessdate=2008-05-01}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Will|first=F. G.|title=Hydrogen + oxygen recombination and related heat generation in undivided electrolysis cells|journal=Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry|volume=426|issue=1|year=1997|pages=177–184}}. | |||
| *{{citation|ref=Williams1989|last=Williams|first=D. E.|first2=D. J. S.|last2=Findlay|first3=D. H.|last3=Craston|first4=M. R.|last4=Sené|first5=M.|last5=Bailey|first6=S.|last6=Croft|first7=B. W.|last7=Hooton | |||
| |first8=C. P.|last8=Jones|first9=A. R. J.|last9=Kucernak|first10=J. A.|last10=Mason|first11=R. I.|last11=Taylor|title=Upper bounds on 'cold fusion' in electrolytic cells|journal=Nature|volume=342|pages=375-384|year=1989|doi=10.1038/342375a0}}. | |||
| *{{citation|last=Wilson|first=R. H.|title=Analysis of experiments on the calorimetry of LiOD-D2O electrochemical cells|journal=Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry|year=1992|volume=332|pages=1–31}}. | |||
| {{refend}} | |||
| ==Further reading== | |||
| {{refbegin}} | |||
| * , a website dedicated to cold-fusion research, has compiled lists of and about cold fusion. | |||
| * : An extensive overview and review of almost all available publications on the subject of cold nuclear fusion. | |||
| * ISIS Report. | |||
| {{refend}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 10:23, 24 July 2008
Cold fusion is the name for a nuclear fusion reaction that occurs well below the temperature required for thermonuclear reactions (millions of degrees Celsius). Such reactions may occur near room temperature and atmospheric pressure, and even in a relatively small (table top) experiment. In a narrower sense, "cold fusion" also refers to a particular type of fusion supposedly occurring in electrolytic cells.
The term "cold fusion" was coined by Dr Paul Palmer of Brigham Young University in 1986 in an investigation of "geo-fusion", or the possible existence of fusion in a planetary core. It was brought into popular consciousness by the controversy surrounding the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in March of 1989. A number of other scientists have reported replication of their experimental observation of anomalous heat generation in electrolytic cells, but in a non-predictable way, and most scientists believe that there is no proof of cold fusion in these experiments. A majority of scientists consider this research to be pseudoscience, while proponents argue that they are conducting valid experiments in a protoscience that challenges mainstream thinking.
The subject has been of scientific interest since nuclear fusion was first understood. Hot nuclear fusion using deuterium yields large amounts of energy, uses an abundant fuel source, and produces only small amounts of manageable waste; thus a cheap and simple process of nuclear fusion would have great economic impact. Unfortunately, no "cold" fusion experiments that gave an otherwise unexplainable net release of energy have so far been reproducible.
History of cold fusion by electrolysis
Early work
The idea that palladium or titanium might catalyze fusion stems from the special ability of these metals to absorb large quantities of hydrogen (including its deuterium isotope), the hope being that deuterium atoms would be close enough together to induce fusion at ordinary temperatures. The special ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized in the nineteenth century. In the late nineteen-twenties, two German scientists, F. Paneth and K. Peters, reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen is absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. These authors later acknowledged that the helium they measured was due to background from the air.
In 1927, Swedish scientist J. Tandberg said that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes. On the basis of his work he applied for a Swedish patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy". After deuterium was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with heavy water. Due to Paneth and Peters' retraction, Tandberg's patent application was eventually denied.
Pons and Fleischmann's experiment
On March 23, 1989, the chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann ("P and F") at the University of Utah held a press conference and reported the production of excess heat that could only be explained by a nuclear process. The report was particularly astounding given the simplicity of the equipment, just a pair of electrodes connected to a battery and immersed in a jar of heavy water (dideuterium oxide). The press reported on the experiments widely, and it was one of the front-page items on most newspapers around the world. The immense beneficial implications of the Utah experiments, if they were correct, and the ready availability of the required equipment, led scientists around the world to attempt to repeat the experiments within hours of the announcement.
The press conference followed about a year of work of increasing tempo by Pons and Fleischmann, who had been working on their basic experiments since 1984. In 1988 they applied to the US Department of Energy for funding for a larger series of experiments: up to this point they had been running their experiments "out of pocket".
The grant proposal was turned over to several people for peer review, including Steven Jones of Brigham Young University. Jones had worked on muon-catalyzed fusion for some time, and had written an article on the topic entitled Cold Nuclear Fusion that had been published in Scientific American in July 1987. He had since turned his attention to the problem of fusion in high-pressure environments, believing it could explain the fact that the interior temperature of the Earth was hotter than could be explained without nuclear reactions, and by unusually high concentrations of helium-3 around volcanoes that implied some sort of nuclear reaction within. At first he worked with diamond anvils, but had since moved to electrolytic cells similar to those being worked on by Pons and Fleischmann, which he referred to as piezonuclear fusion. In order to characterize the reactions, Jones had spent considerable time designing and building a neutron counter, one able to accurately measure the tiny numbers of neutrons being produced in his experiments.
Both teams were in Utah, and met on several occasions to discuss sharing work and techniques. During this time Pons and Fleischmann described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", excess in that it could not be explained by chemical reactions alone. If this were true, their device would have considerable commercial value, and should be protected by patents. Jones was measuring neutron flux instead, and seems to have considered it primarily of scientific interest, not commercial. In order to avoid problems in the future, the teams apparently agreed to simultaneously publish their results, although their accounts of their March 6th meeting differ.
In mid-March both teams were ready to publish, and Fleischmann and Jones were to meet at the airport on the 24th to both hand in their papers at the exact same time. However Pons and Fleischmann then "jumped the gun", and held their press conference the day before. Jones, apparently furious at being "scooped", faxed in his paper to Nature as soon as he saw the press announcements. Thus the teams both rushed to publish, which has perhaps muddied the field more than any scientific aspects.
Within days scientists around the world had started work on duplications of the experiments. On April 10th a team at Texas A&M University published results of excess heat, and later that day a team at the Georgia Institute of Technology announced neutron production. Both results were widely reported on in the press. Not so well reported was the fact that both teams soon withdrew their results for lack of evidence. For the next six weeks competing claims, counterclaims, and suggested explanations kept the topic on the front pages, and led to what writers have referred to as "fusion confusion."
In mid-May Pons received a huge standing ovation during a presentation at the American Chemical Society. The same month the president of the University of Utah, who had already secured a $5 million commitment from his state legislature, asked for $25 million from the federal government to set up a "National Cold Fusion Institute". On May 1st a meeting of the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion that ran past midnight; a string of failed experiments were reported. A second session started the next evening and continued in much the same manner. The field appeared split between the "chemists" and the "physicists".
At the end of May the Energy Research Advisory Board (under a charge of the US Department of Energy) formed a special panel to investigate cold fusion. The scientists in the panel found the evidence for cold fusion to be unconvincing. Nevertheless, the panel was "sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system".
Both critics and those attempting replications were frustrated by what they said was incomplete information released by the University of Utah. With the initial reports suggesting successful duplication of their experiments there was not much public criticism, but a growing body of failed experiments started a "buzz" of their own. Pons and Fleischmann later apparently claimed that there was a "secret" to the experiment, a statement that infuriated the majority of scientists to the point of dismissing the experiment out of hand.
By the end of May much of the media attention had faded. This was due not only to the competing results and counterclaims, but also to the limited attention span of modern media. However, while the research effort also cooled to some degree, projects continued around the world.
Experimental set-up and observations
In their original set-up, Fleischmann and Pons used a Dewar flask (a double-walled vacuum flask) for the electrolysis, so that heat conduction would be minimal on the side and the bottom of the cell (only 5 % of the heat loss in this experiment). The cell flask was then submerged in a bath maintained at constant temperature to eliminate the effect of external heat sources. They used an open cell, thus allowing the gaseous deuterium and oxygen resulting from the electrolysis reaction to leave the cell (with some heat too). It was necessary to replenish the cell with heavy water at regular intervals. The cell was tall and narrow, so that the bubbling action of the gas kept the electrolyte well mixed and of a uniform temperature. Special attention was paid to the purity of the palladium cathode and electrolyte to prevent the build-up of material on its surface, especially after long periods of operation.
The cell was also instrumented with a thermistor to measure the temperature of the electrolyte, and an electrical heater to generate pulses of heat and calibrate the heat loss due to the gas outlet. After calibration, it was possible to compute the heat generated by the reaction.
A constant current was applied to the cell continuously for many weeks, and heavy water was added as necessary. For most of the time, the power input to the cell was equal to the power that went out of the cell within measuring accuracy, and the cell temperature was stable at around 30 °C. But then, at some point (and in some of the experiments), the temperature rose suddenly to about 50 °C without changes in the input power, for durations of 2 days or more. The generated power was calculated to be about 20 times the input power during the power bursts. Eventually the power bursts in any one cell would no longer occur and the cell was turned off.
Continuing efforts
There are still a number of people researching the possibilities of generating power with cold fusion. Scientists in several countries continue the research, and meet at the International Conference on Cold Fusion (see Proceedings at www.lenr-can.org).
The generation of excess heat has been reported by
- Michael McKubre, director of the Energy Research Center at Stanford Research International,
- Richard A. Oriani (University of Minnesota, in December 1990),
- Robert A. Huggins (at Stanford University in March 1990),
- Y. Arata (Osaka University, Japan),
among others. In the best experimental set-up, excess heat was observed in 50% of the experiment reproductions. Various fusion ashes and transmutations were observed by some scientists.
Dr. Michael McKubre thinks a working cold fusion reactor is possible. Dr. Edmund Storms, a former scientist with The Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, maintains an international database of research into cold fusion.
In March, 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) decided to review all previous research of cold fusion in order to see whether further research was warranted by any new results.
On May 14, 2004, a foremost cold fusion champion, Dr. Eugene Mallove, was brutally murdered in a yet unresolved case. His death has both saddened and inspired the cold fusion and free energy community in general and has drawn international attention to the status of cold fusion today.
Arguments in the controversy
A majority of scientists consider current cold fusion research to be pseudoscience, while proponents argue that they are conducting valid experiments that challenge mainstream science. (see history of science and technology). Here are the main arguments in the controversy.
Reproducibility of the result
While some scientists have reported to have reproduced the excess heat with similar or different set-ups, they could not do it with predictable results, and many others failed. Some see this as a proof that the experiment is pseudoscience.
Yet, it is not uncommon for a new phenomenon to be difficult to control, and to bring erratic results. For example attempts to repeat electrostatic experiments (similar to those performed by Benjamin Franklin) often fail due to excessive air humidity. That does not mean that electrostatic phenomena are fictitious, or that experimental data are fraudulent. On the contrary, occasional observations of new events, by qualified experimentalists, can in some cases be the preliminary steps leading to recognized discoveries.
The reproducibility of the result will remain the main issue in the Cold Fusion controversy until a scientist designs an experiment that is fully reproducible by simply following a recipe, or that generates power continuously rather than sporadically.
Current understanding of nuclear process
The DOE panel says: "Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process".
However, this argument only says that the experiment has unexplained results, not that the experiment is wrong. As an analogy, superconductivity was observed in 1911, and explained theoretically only in 1957.
Current understanding of hot nuclear fusion shows that the following explanations are not adequate:
- Nuclear reaction in general: The average density of deuterium in the palladium rod seems vastly insufficient to force pairs of nuclei close enough for fusion to occur according to mechanisms known to mainstream theories. The average distance is approximately 0.17 nanometers, a distance at which the attractive strong nuclear force cannot overcome the Coulomb repulsion. Actually, deuterium atoms are closer together in D2 gas molecules, which do not exhibit fusion.
- Absence of standard nuclear fusion products: if the excess heat were generated by the fusion of 2 deuterium atoms, the most probable outcome would be the generation of either a tritium atom and a proton, or a He and a neutron. The level of neutrons, tritium and He actually observed in Fleischmann-Pons experiment have been well below the level expected in view of the heat generated, implying that these fusion reactions cannot explain it.
- Fusion of deuterium into helium 4: if the excess heat were generated by the hot fusion of 2 deuterium atoms into He, a reaction which is normally extremely rare, gamma rays and helium would be generated. Again, insufficient levels of helium and gamma rays have been observed to explain the excess heat, and there is no known mechanism to explain how gamma rays could be converted into heat.
Energy source vs power store
While the output power is higher than the input power during the power burst, the power balance over the whole experiment does not show significant imbalances. Since the mechanism under the power burst is not known, one cannot say whether energy is really produced, or simply stored during the early stages of the experiment (loading of deuterium in the Palladium cathode) for later release during the power burst.
A "power store" discovery would have much less value than an "energy source" one, especially if the stored power can only be released in the form of heat.
Other kinds of fusion
This article focuses on fusion in electrolytic cells. Other forms of fusion have been studied by scientists. Some are "cold" in the sense that no part of the reaction is actually hot (except for the reaction products), some are "cold" in the sense that the energies required are low and the bulk of the material is at a relatively low temperature, and some are "hot", involving reactions which create macroscopic regions of very high temperature and pressure.
Locally cold fusion :
- Muon-catalyzed fusion is a well-established and reproducible fusion process which occurs at low temperatures. It has been studied in detail by Steven Jones in the early 1980s. Because of the energy required to create muons, it is not able to produce net energy.
Generally cold, locally hot fusion :
- In Cluster impact fusion, microscopic droplets of heavy water (on the order of 100-1000 molecules) are accelerated to collide with a target, so that their temperature at impact reaches at most 10 kelvin, 10,000 times smaller than the temperature required for hot fusion. In 1989, Friedlander and his coworkers observed 10 more fusion events than expected with standard fusion theory. Recent research () suggests that the calculation of effective temperature may have failed to account for certain molecular effects which raise the effective collision temperature, so that this is a microscopic form of hot fusion.
- In sonoluminescence, acoustic shock waves create temporary bubbles that collapse shortly after creation, producing very high temperatures and pressures. In 2002, Rusi P. Taleyarkhan explored the possibility that bubble fusion occurs in those collapsing bubbles. If this is the case, it is because the temperature and pressure are sufficiently high to produce hot fusion.
- The Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor is a tabletop device in which fusion occurs. This fusion comes from high effective temperatures produced by electrostatic acceleration of ions. The device can be built inexpensively, but it too is unable to produce a net power output.
- Antimatter-catalyzed fusion uses small amounts of antimatter to trigger a tiny fusion explosion. This has been studied primarily in the context of making nuclear pulse propulsion feasible.
Hot fusion :
- "Standard" fusion, in which the fuel reaches tremendous temperature and pressure inside a fusion reactor, nuclear weapon, or star.
Several of these systems are "nonequilibrium systems", in which very high temperatures and pressures are produced in a relatively small region adjacent to material of much lower temperature. In his doctoral thesis for Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Todd Rider did a theoretical study of all non-equilibrium fusion systems. He demonstrated that all such systems will leak energy at a rapid rate due to Bremsstrahlung, radiation produced when electrons in the plasma hit other electrons or ions at a cooler temperature and suddenly decelerate. The problem is not as pronounced in a hot plasma because the range of temperatures, and thus the magnitude of the deceleration, is much lower.
References
- Robert L. Park (2000) gives a thorough account of cold fusion and its history which represents the perspective of the mainstream scientific community.
- Two other sceptical books from the scientific mainstream are those by Frank Close (1992) and John Huizenga (1992). Huizenga was co-chair of the DOE panel set up to investigate the Pons/Fleischmann experiment, and his book is perhaps the definitive account of the cold fusion affair.
- Eugene Mallove's Fire from Ice (1991) is an early account from the pro-cold-fusion perspective. Charles Beaudette's Excess heat (2000) is a more recent scientific account of why cold fusion research prevailed.
- Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud, by Robert L. Park; Oxford University Press, New York; ISBN 0195135156; May 2000.
- Too Hot To Handle, by Frank Close; Penguin Books; ISBN 0140159266; 1992.
- Cold Fusion: the scientific fiasco of the century, by John R Huizenga; Oxford Paperbacks; ISBN 0198558171; 1992.
- Fire from Ice, by Eugene Mallove; Infinite Energy Press; ISBN 1892925028; 1991.
- Excess Heat: why cold fusion research prevailed, by Charles Beaudette; Infinite Energy Press; ISBN 0967854814
See also
External links
Information:
- Energy Research Advisory Board, "Conclusions and recommendations"
- "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions - Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions". -- Information and links from pro-cold fusion research.
- L. Kowalski's web site: an overview of the current state of cold fusion research from a physics teacher
- Britz's cold nuclear fusion bibliography: An extentisve overview and review of almost all available publications about cold nuclear fusion.
News:
- "Sound waves size up sonoluminescence". PhysicsWeb. February 2002.
- "Whatever happened to cold fusion?". Physics World. March 1999.
- "Fusion experiment disappoints". BBC News. July 25, 2002
- "Cold Fusion Heats Up. CBC Science.
- DoE to review cold fusion Physics Today April 2004.
- Phys. Rev. E 69, 036109 (2004) "Additional evidence of nuclear emissions during acoustic cavitation", R. P. Taleyarkhan, J. S. Cho, C. D. West, R. T. Lahey, Jr., R. I. Nigmatulin, and R. C. Block.