Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Diodor
Cold Fusion is theoretically impossible, therefore impossible, in the sense that it might happen because the theory might be wrong, but won't because isn't.\

Maybe something is going astray in translation, but any Scientist that KNOWS he is right is no scientist at all, and knows nothing about what science really is.

I'm not a scientist. My definition of is is common sensical not scientific.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The scientists then used a special plastic, CR-39, to capture and track any high-energy particles that may have been emitted during reactions, including any neutrons emitted during the fusion of deuterium atoms.
At the end of the experiment, they examined the plastic with a microscope and discovered patterns of "triple tracks," tiny-clusters of three adjacent pits that appear to split apart from a single point. The researchers say that the track marks were made by subatomic particles released when neutrons smashed into the plastic.

I don't understand how such tripple tracks could appear at all.In deuterium T-nuclear reaction may appear high-energy proton or neutron.They talk about neutrons,all right.If they've registered a neutron scattering on protons in plastic,must be one track,or several tracks but not from common point.If they've used a special kind of plastic containing isotopes which can capture neutrons with extremely high probability (Li-6 etc.)-must be two tracks.The neutron itself can't make additional (third) track in plastic,because it hasn't electric charge.That's all what I can say[smile]

well, when 10..20 MeV neutron hits carbon 12 nucleus, you may conceivably get 3 alpha particles if carbon nucleus splits in 3. Or, a cosmic ray may hit something and you can get 3 nearby tracks.

I don't see though why rely on such an indirect measurement...
Even if power output is 1 milliwatt, radioactivity near the cell would be on order of ten to hundred thousand times above background (see my estimate earlier). Even if we suppose that some unknown mechanism suppresses emission of gamma rays from reaction itself, the neutrons hitting the liquid and material all around are going to give you very measurable radiation, perhaps thousand times background. You can study some science and arrive at those figures yourself.
That is why nobody with a slightest sense believes "cold fusion" reports, especially those with some watt level power output. Even for milliwatt output, you need a *lot* of fusions per second. For watts level, that whole thing needs several tons of shielding to be safe, and neutron irradiation make this shielding quite radioactive.
(note on safety: background is about 0.27 microsievert per hour, lethal dose is about 5 sievert, or 10 million times background for 2 hours. It is trivial exercise to show that with few watt fusion power output, you're walking dead after experimenting with this thing for just a hour or two. The very lack of precautions indicates that experimenters are either suicidally insane or not expecting any fusion)

Quote: Original post by Dmytry
well, when 10..20 MeV neutron hits carbon 12 nucleus, you may conceivably get 3 alpha particles if carbon nucleus splits in 3.

Author,burn further[smile]
-------
There is simple explanation,but I don't know experiment details.Radon (Rn-222) is radioactive gas(decay product of radium Ra-226) having half-life time ~4 days and always exist in basements and ground floor rooms.Radon and their decay products emits 3 alpha-particles in summary,then this chain breaks at isotope with half-life time ~22 years.As I remember,track detectors usually consist from thin layers of film,and radon can diffuse between them during exposure.Daughter atoms can stay at the same place,in this case 3 tracks can appear.As I understand, the estimated intensity of neutrons was very little,that's why they used a track detectors,and perhaps authors could confuse radon tracks and T-reaction products.

[Edited by - Krokhin on April 2, 2009 3:24:08 PM]

Update:

A completely different researcher report advances in a cold fusion (aka "low energy nuclear reaction"): Cold Fusion Is Hot Again

Quote:
...
McKubre says he has seen that energy more than 50 times in cold fusion experiments he's doing at SRI International, a respected California lab that does extensive work for the government.
...
He showed 60 Minutes just how simple the experiment looks; there are only three main ingredients. First, there is palladium, a metal in the platinum family. Second, one needs a kind of hydrogen called deuterium which is found in seawater.

"Deuterium is essentially unlimited. There is ten times as much energy in a gallon of sea water, from the deuterium contained within it, than there is in a gallon of gasoline," he explained.

The palladium is placed in water containing deuterium and the third ingredient is an electric current.

The experiment is wrapped in insulation and instruments. They're looking for what they call "excess heat." In other words, is more energy coming out than the electric current puts in?

No one knows exactly how excess heat would be generated, but McKubre showed 60 Minutes what he thinks is happening.

At the atomic level, palladium looks like a lattice and the electricity drives the deuterium to the palladium. "They sit on the surface and they pop inside the lattice," he explained, using an artist's rendition of the lattice.

McKubre believes there is a nuclear reaction - possibly a fusion process like what happens in the sun, but occurring inside the metal, at a slower rate, and without dangerous radiation.

Scientists today like to call it a nuclear effect rather than cold fusion. At least 20 labs working independently have published reports of excess heat - heat up to 25 times greater than the electricity going in.
...
No one's sure why the experiments can't be consistently reproduced. McKubre thinks it has something to do with how the palladium is prepared. He's working with an Italian government lab called ENEA where some of the most reliable palladium is made.

With so many open questions, 60 Minutes wanted to find out whether cold fusion is more than a tempest in a teapot. So 60 Minutes asked the American Physical Society, the top physics organization in America, to recommend an independent scientist. They gave us Rob Duncan, vice chancellor of research at the University of Missouri and an expert in measuring energy.

"When we first called you and said 'We'd like you to look into cold fusion for 60 Minutes,' what did you think when you hung up the phone?" Pelley asked Duncan.

"I think my first reaction was something like, 'Well, hasn't that been debunked?'" he replied.

We asked Duncan to go with 60 Minutes to Israel, where a lab called Energetics Technologies has reported some of the biggest energy gains yet.

Duncan spent two days examining cold fusion experiments and investigating whether the measurements were accurate.

Asked what he thought when he left the Israeli lab, Duncan told Pelley, "I thought, 'Wow. They've done something very interesting here.'"

He crunched the numbers himself and searched for an explanation other than a nuclear effect. "I found that the work done was carefully done, and that the excess heat, as I see it now, is quite real," Duncan said.

Asked if was surprised that he'd hear himself saying that, Duncan told Pelley, "Very much. I never thought I'd say that."

And we've found that the Pentagon is saying it too. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA, did its own analysis and 60 Minutes obtained an internal memo that concludes there is "no doubt that anomalous excess heat is produced in these experiments."
...
Now the Pentagon is funding more experiments at the naval research lab in Washington, D.C. and at McKubre's lab in California.
...
"If you ask me, is this going to have any impact on our energy policy, it’s impossible to say, because we don't fundamentally understand the process yet. But to say, because we don't fundamentally understand the process and that's why we're not going to study it, is like saying, 'I'm too sick to go to the doctor,'" Duncan argued.

"You know, I wonder how you feel about going public endorsing this phenomenon on 60 Minutes when maybe 90 percent, I'm guessing, of your colleagues think that it's crackpot science?" Pelley asked.

"I certainly was among those 90 percent before I looked at the data. And I can see where they’ll be very concerned when they see this piece. All I have to say is: read the published results. Talk to the scientists. Never let anyone do your thinking for you," he replied.
...

I cut out a bunch of the hype, some of the skepticism (it was generic), and the parts at the end with Martin Fleischmann.

The closest thing to a paper by McKubre that I could find was this patent application: Modified electrodes for low energy nuclear reaction power generators.

Quote:
Abstract:

A low energy nuclear reaction power generator in which hydrogenous atoms are driven to increase atom-packing in a lattice and to increase the flux of hydrogenous atoms. An electrolytic cell is provided containing an anode-cathode electrode pair and an electrically-conductive electrolyte. Modifying substances, such as diamond, diamond-like, boron, beryllium, and/or carbon-based constituents, may be grown in and/or on the electrodes for enhancing the nuclear reactions. Applied across these electrodes may be a train of electrical packets, each comprised of a cluster of pulses. The amplitude and duration of each pulse, the duration of intervals between pulses, and the duration of intervals between successive packets in the train are in a predetermined pattern in accordance with superwaving waves in which each wave is modulated by waves of different frequency.
...
Claims:

1. An apparatus for generating a low energy nuclear reaction involving a material and hydrogenous atoms, the apparatus comprising: a low energy nuclear reaction cell containing an electrically conductive electrolyte having enveloped therein an anode-cathode electrode pair, said cathode electrode being formed of said material; a power supply that is adapted to apply an electrical output across said electrode pair to cause a corresponding current to flow between said electrode pair, thereby causing said electrolyte to dissociate, whereby oxygen is released at said anode electrode while said hydrogenous atoms migrate into said cathode electrode, wherein at least one modifying substance is grown at least one of into and on said material of said cathode electrode for enhancing the interaction between said material and said hydrogenous atoms.
...

Quote: Original post by caffiene

Quote:
The Second Set of Problems with Cold Fusion
1. As the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer predicted for any new truth, cold fusion was met with violent opposition and outright hostility

Im given to be a little suspicious of anyone claiming "Its the truth, but scientists just cant handle it" or "we know the truth, but they are out to get us". Particularly when ask to believe their testimony as to how reliable a procedure was.

I wrote a lengthy paper for an English assignment at BYU about the cold fusion debacle. One of the principal scientists behind the original "discovery" of cold fusion, Steven Jones, was teaching a freshman-level physics course I was in, so I interviewed him myself. He's a really congenial guy, but basically a complete nutter. He was forced into retirement by the university after helping spearhead the 9/11-as-controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.

Jones's main competitors were Pons & Fleischmann, who were doing parallel research at the University of Utah at the same time. These two were worse than nutters. They were heinously unethical at best and criminal at worst. When Jones was going to publish his findings in peer-reviewed journals, Pons and Fleischmann asked him to wait and publish simultaneously with them the following month when they'd finished some more experimentation. Then the day before they were both to publish, Pons and Fleischmann went directly to the popular media (read: network TV) loudly declaring they'd discovered cold fusion.

A great book summarizing all the shenanigans in the first go-round of cold fusion is titled Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion. If you're interested in this kind of scientific history, it's a great read.

Im not even going to click any of those links; i dont care how many people will get hyped up over nothing. I already know the answer: most of them.

Dmytry pretty much sums it up. Their experiments make homeopathy look like science. Where is the control experiment?

If there is fusion going on here involving detectable excess heat, it would be easy to tell with equipment you could find at any university. More likely, there is no detectable heat (temperature measurements are a science in itself), and there is a perfectly good explanation for whatever it is they are seeing in their plastic. No, i dont have said explanation, and no, that proves nothing at all.

As I see in article,people talk about deuterium.
There are two reactions:
Deuterium+Deuterium-> Helium(3) + neutron(~3 Mev)
Deuterium+Deuteriun-> Tritium + proton(~4 Mev)
Like this scientists says,additional heat energy much more than electric current energy.Let's suppose,that we have ~100 watt of such "radiation" energy,in reality this is an energy of protons and neutrons.Protons give "braking" emission(X-rays and gamma quantums,neutrons just leave reaction volume and "activate" everything around,creating radioactive isotopes.I begin to worry about health of those scientists...though they says in the article that reaction goes without dangerous emissions [smile]

Quote: Original post by Krokhin
As I see in article,people talk about deuterium.
There are two reactions:
Deuterium+Deuterium-> Helium(3) + neutron(~3 Mev)
Deuterium+Deuteriun-> Tritium + proton(~4 Mev)
Like this scientists says,additional heat energy much more than electric current energy.Let's suppose,that we have ~100 watt of such "radiation" energy,in reality this is an energy of protons and neutrons.Protons give "braking" emission(X-rays and gamma quantums,neutrons just leave reaction volume and "activate" everything around,creating radioactive isotopes.I begin to worry about health of those scientists...though they says in the article that reaction goes without dangerous emissions [smile]

Yea... actually just 1 watt in any form of ionizing or neutron radiation is extremely dangerous.
I wrote about it some while ago