14 Years Later, Cold Fusion Still Gets The Cold Shoulder

segment writes "It has been 14 years since two little-known electrochemists announced what sounded like the biggest physics breakthrough since Enrico Fermi produced a nuclear chain reaction on a squash court in Chicago. Using a tabletop setup, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, of the University of Utah, said they had induced deuterium nuclei to fuse inside metal electrodes, producing measurable quantities of heat. That was the opening bell for one of the craziest periods in science. Cold fusion, if real, promised to solve the world's energy problems forever. Scientists around the world dropped what they were doing to try to replicate the astounding claim." The linked AP story (carried on SFGate.com) is about the Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, which took place in the last week of August.

Comments

Re:If real?

[91degrees]

I thought just powers the time circuits.

Here's a good article...

[RichardtheSmith]

This was always my favorite re-telling of the story... From David Goodstein at Caltech...

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html

Re:So you could say the trail has grown cold?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chill. We're working on it. This is a tenth of what we do, the site is under construction yet:
Argonne National Laboratory Hydrogen Research
Give us 0.1% of the money we spent on Iraq and we'll give you a hydrogen economy. The question is, do you really want a change, or will you ride your SUV into oblivion?

Crackpot Index...

[ewithrow]

THE CRACKPOT INDEX by John Baez A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics. -5 point starting credit. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary". 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy". 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.) 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence). 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. Appendage: 100 points for anything involving cold fusion, tabletop fusion, or super fusion.

Re:Simple rule of thumb:

[aagha]

I've already mentioned this book in response to the parent, but another mention might not hurt.

The Scientist, the Madman, the Thief and Their Lightbulb: The Biggest Scandal in the History of Science

The book is a good, fun read. Even if you don't believe everything in the book, there's great coverage of the science behind "cold fusion" (and other technologies). If you are sceptical and don't have "any cause to reconsider [your] position", read the book--You won't be dissapointed.

Full Disclosure: I have absolutely no association with the book, author, publisher, etc... -- Just a great book which I finished reading a month ago and have reccomended to a ton of my friends, all who have enjoyed it very much and made them ask questions they hadn't thought about asking before.

Muon fusion catalysis

[rjh]

Muon-catalyzed fusion is real and comes within a factor of 15 of being commercially viable--muon-catalyzed reactions became self-sustaining in a theoretical sense in the 1980s (generating more energy out than was put in), but there's a long way between theoretical and practical self-sufficiency.

They hit the theoretical; they're within a factor of 15 of practical. This makes muon-catalyzed fusion the closest to viability of any fusion method so far. On the other hand, people have been throwing themselves at it for 20 years now trying to close that factor-of-15 gap and haven't gotten anywhere. Nowadays it's thought that there are some physical limitations on muon fusion which will prevent it from closing that factor-of-15 gap, and muon catalysis is no longer considered to be the most promising light on the horizon.

Muons are not 300,000 times the mass of an electron; they're 207 times the mass of an electron (or appreciably close to the mass of a proton).

Re:Cold fusion it's impossible

[LauraW]

>So here comes the Second Law of Thermodynamics: in real conditions, any process will generate less energy than it takes.

Sort of. That version of the 2nd law is true in classical thermodynamics. But when you throw relativity and nuclear reactions into the mix, it breaks down. Instead, you have talk about both mass and energy, which are equivalent in the good old ratio E=mc^2. This is why atomic fission (nuclear reactors and fission bombs) and "hot" fusion (hydrogen bombs) work. A small fraction of the mass is converted into energy. The classical versions of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are being violated, but if you take the equivalence of mass and energy into account then it all works again. (It's been ages since I studied this stuff, but I think I have that basically right.)

Not the University research, but independant.

[Frobnicator]

The headline is misleading, saying they were "of the University of Utah". It was originally independant research being done on the Campus, not work for the University. Only after the announcement did the University adopt it in exchange for further resources.

Stanly Pons and Martin Fleischmann were both separately employeed by the University, but the research was not sponsored by the school. They were using some of the school's facilities with permission, basically because of the high cost of the equipment.

See http://www.chem.utah.edu/depthistory/ChemDept_Hist ory.pdf for some of this:

"Stan Pons did his doctoral dissertation research at Southampton University, where he developed a scientific collaboration with Professor Martin Fleischmann. In the 1980's Martin was a frequent visitor to Utah and had been given a courtesy visiting professorship at the University of Utah. On March 23, 1989, a press conference was convened at the University of Utah ... to announce the discovery by Stan and Martin of cold fusion. The euphoria and disillusionment that followed that event have been told in many subsequent newspaper articles and books. A recent 365 page book [Charles G. Beaudette, Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, Oak Grove Press, South Bristol, Maine, 2000] does a balanced job of recounting the story." (emphasis added)

Because the original press conference was conveniend at the University, and because both professors were affiliated with the U of U, and that further research was taken up by the University at the time of the press conference, many journalists jumped to the conclusion that it was the University's project.

Other than the /. error, the article iteself is rather interesting, including this answer from a professor: "The question I get more than any other is, 'Are you still doing this?', " says Prof. Jones. "The answer is yes, and what we are seeing is very difficult to explain outside of cold fusion. The repeatability of these experiments now approaches 80 percent." [Insert comparison to Microsoft here.]

frob

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[Kenneth]

Certainly their results have been duplicated by many, but for every duplication that produced excess heat, their has been two that fail to do so. An experiment that can only be replicated by believers isn't science, it's charlatanism.

Not quite what's happening here. It's obvious that most people here haven't read anything about what's going on with those studying 'cold fusion'. Most of those who do study it agree that whatever is happening, it isn't fusion. It retains the name for historical reasons.

What IS happening doesn't seem to conform to what anyone understands about physics. People performing (as far as they can tell) the exact same expierment will get different results. Even the same person doing the same expierment multiple times gets different results.

Often there is a significant amount of heat generated, often not. Somtimes there are neutrons, sometimes not. Most of those who are looking into it will freely say that it isn't fusion, and that most likely it isn't going to be too useful. The fact that there are some anomolous results happening, that aren't easily accounted for, indicates that it's at least worth studying.