Slashdot Mirror
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.
What do you think powers my flying car?
"The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected." (Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd ed.; june 1972)
This is from the good ole' fortune file. It really has an answer to everything!
- "Yo, Mike!"
- "Yeah, Gabe?"
- "We got a problem down on Earth. In Utah."
- "I thought you fixed that last century!"
- "No, no, not that. Someone's found a security problem in the physics program. They're getting energy out of nowhere."
- "Blessit! Lemme look... Hey, it's there all right! OK, just a sec... There, that ought to patch it. Dist it out, wouldja?"
-- Cold Fusion, 1989
Scientists for the International Society of Alchemy held their 284th annual conference next door to the cold fusion conference. Still under debate is: did Gaythorpe the Great really turn lead into gold?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
My neighbor had a cold fusion plant working like a charm, but he hasn't done much with it since the time he decided to connect to the electricity grid and give all his fellow Ohians free juice.
The whole situation was handled poorly by all parties involved. The politics doesn't mean there wasn't a phenomenon worthy of investigation.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
I know the popular thing to do is bash psuedo-sciences, and cold fusion because of its shaky introduction into popular thought quickly falls into this quagmire. But, let the human race dream before summarily dismissing the entire concept. I for one dont believe that all I have to look forward to as i grow older is a greater dependence on big oil, old money, and the like. Many groups (and by that I mean countries, companies, and current presidents) would love to convince us that there is no better way to live than under our present conditions. Not giving cold fusion and other radical departures from our current system an honest chance is not far from why were are stuck with Windows as the dominant platform in computers and oil as the backbone of our way of life.
Im not saying that cold fusion itself is the future, but what we are presently using is certainly not the platform for all future generations. Hell, if Bush gets his way there might not even be enough sun left for solar energy so there has to be soemthing to fill the void.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
by grabbing the www.iccf11.org domain before the 11th conference ;)
"It has been 14 years"
It been at least that long since we were promised Hydrogen fuel cells. Where's my fuel cell powered truck?
I think consumers have been patient enough. Now it is time for companies to deliver something.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Did you RTFA or anything else on cold fusion in the last few years??? There IS something, though whether it is caused by cold fusion or not is the question. In fact, the article is specifically about people like you who deny things before they investigate them.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
No win situation for their critics really. They are going to have a tough time getting any support.
Just a Fleisch in the Pons
This was always my favorite re-telling of the story... From David Goodstein at Caltech...
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html
[disclaimer: from memory]
The Pons and Fleischmann "cold fusion" experiment was thoroughly discredited shortly after the press conference (in which they grossly overstated their results). Apparently they were spooked by another researcher working in a similar area. They had signed an agreement with him not to release any results, but got paranoid that he was going to "claim the credit", and went ahead and announced - kind of an "announce and hope the results back you up" gamble. Well, the results *didn't* back them up, although it is interesting that many reputable teams who sought to replicate the results initially did so, but one by one retracted their findings when they discovered various flaws in their methodologies.
I think the basic problem with the original Pons and Fleischmann experiment was that their calorimeter (which they used to get their "excess heat" measurements) was either faulty, or inappropriate for the experiement they were performing, and they didn't control for it.
grib.
maybe
Using the techniques published in the paper, I've been developing a method a quantum communication over great distances. The possibilities of these innovations to the original deuterium breakdown system are staggering; among these breakthroughs are advances in communication.
We all know the typical objection to unlimited data compression. One needs only to Google for "counting argument" to realize that further compression of essentially random (e.g., binary) data is impossible. Searches for better compression algorithms at best have minimal returns (1-2% reductions are considered remarkable) or at worst ineffective or outright hoaxes.
My new technology builds upon quantum duality -- influence at a distance. From first year quantum physics we know that observation of a particle can fix its state. Should a particle and anti-particle be released, we can *at a distance* fix the identity of the opposite particle merely by observation. What does this mean? Well, for one, by sending a stream of anti-particles to a remote observer then observing its opposite, we can then fix the identity of the remote particles *no matter how much distance*. This means we can instantaneously send as a stream of quantum particles. Schroedinger's and Heisenbergs body of work more than amply addresses the mechanics of this remote communication so I won't bore you with the technical details here.
How does my method overcome the inherent randomness of quantum identity? It doesn't. I rely upon a remote lookup table. The receiver will only need to be sent a key of several bits. The remote receiver can then index the key to a table of longer values. For example, a key code of 001 would correspond to a larger sequence such as 00100111. By performing a lookup on this table the receiver can then expand the key to arbitrarily large bit sequences. How are the keys transferred? Our new technology -- Extended Schroedinger Particle (ESP) -- bases itself upon the aforementioned work by Mr. Schroedinger. Of course, trade secrets and corporate lawyers prevent me from revealing the exact method.
Anyhow, please send me money so that I can continue my research. It has the potential to obviate and obsolete all current telecommunications networks.
KLL
Whatever "it" is, it is NOT fusion.
So call it something else already, and maybe those who study whatever "it" is may have a shot at being taken seriously.
Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
Stuff on the US Navy and Cold Fusion
s /t r/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pub
we will use it to boil water
(you have to know how a nukular power plant works to get this joke)
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
Some quick facts:
Science by press release is almost never ever good science.
Big physics has been getting more money than big chemistry. Many chemists jumped on the bandwagon in the hopes of getting research grants in their discipline.
The nature of fusion makes the whole idea of "cold fussion" an oxymoron.
A lot of ameteur's have been getting closer to fusion in their homes than the cold fusion people have ever gotten.
See sig for final thoughts on this subject.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
> It was investigated by all the best labs in the world. Result: they have no theory; they have no data.
Never stopped other varieties of kook from sticking to their story.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
.....adding to my own post:
They have been studying "it" for 14 years now, and they are STILL at the "we suspect that something is there, but we don't really have a clue as to what it might be, nor do we even have any real evidence that anything is really there at all" stage.
Nonetheless, cold fusion conspiracy theorists like to point out that a "major Japanese corporation" has a working model that is due to be demonstrated Real Soon Now.....
and has been so due for 14 years so far.
Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
There are two things that could be at work here. First, scientists may hate everything to do with cold fusion and not want to see it go anywhere. And/Or, Two, the media may be fueling the perception that scientists don't want anything to do with it.
I spoke with a nobel laureate physicist about cold fusion. I found that while he didn't think there was much to cold fusion (it isn't his primary area of research, but if he can't comment on it, who can?), I didn't get the feeling he held the anomosity usually attributed to the scientific community at large. (I frankly don't either) I think that the media plays a significant role in blackening the field. Kind of like the kid on the playground who eggs on fights, but never participates in them.
Scientists believe in publication, in particular good ones. If cold fusion-ites publish interesting/good research on the subject, they will be recognized. As pointed out in the above link, there was a seemingly cold fusion-like experiment that was published in science quite recently (it isn't quite cold fusion, because the events themselves are hot and very small).
Most scientists deal with skeptical peers regularly, this isn't just a property of the cold fusion community. That said, just because there is a conference on it doesn't make it real or even interesting. I personally find it interesting, but I wouldn't bet on seeing commercial applications of this in our lifetimes.
-Sean
SCO has announced they sueing Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann.. "SCO owns all rights to bullshit from the state of UTAH. Cold fusion therefore meets our criteria for deritive works." Chris Sontag, VP of SCO..
Seems there were a lot of complex things interacting, electrical, chemical, thermal and *mechanical*. The palladium electode absorbing hydrogen gets visibly larger as it pulls the ions in - there was speculation that a lot of energy was being stored this way via a spring-loading effect, but nobody on the forum knew or cared to calculate how much. Spontaneous collapse of many microscopic internal structures in the electrode could account for episodes of heat release IF enough energy is stored this way.
The CFers also claimed elevated radiation near the experiments once. It turned out they were measuring radon levels in the basement where the experiment was being conducted.
Wish I'd saved my Compuserve logs of this stuff, but I couldn't afford the floppies, $5 each at the time. :-)
Anyway, once it became apparent the experiments had many possible flaws and were failing to produce any clear positive results, researchers who valued their career would have been crazy to waste the time.
Anybody here participate in the Science & Math forum back then? I've always wondered what happened to the moderator, Emory Kimbrough.
"A worthy cause has never been harmed by the truth" - Gandhi
It would be a lot simpler to rate an idea by how it's formatted. You, know, like if it's presented all in one big paragraph.
Anyone who presents their data to the popular press prior to being peer reviewed should be heavily criticized. Even the most senior and brightest scientist make mistakes, become too enthusiastic, or may fail to run the proper controls. Furthermore, given that their data changed over time (from one Watt in, four out to one Watt in, ten out) with no reasoning, backing or explanation, one has to question the accuracy of their data.
Great scientists sometimes make big mistakes, such as with Dr. Atassi and his experiment with pepzymes. Unlike the cold fusion scientists, Dr. Atassi went through the peer review process and later didn't play the ego game. Personally, I think Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann were greatly mislead by their enthusiasm (I wouldn't go nearly so far as to call them frauds). Just as the mistakes of these two scientists don't invalidate the field of cold fusion, the successes of the field don't make their claims any more accurate.
Carl Sagan addressed this issue in his essay, "The Burden of Skepticism." (See also lecture version).
Sagan explained:
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
I'm an electrical engineer; a chemist could give a better explanation of what's happening.
. htm
Source of reactor info:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/html/cfrtiny2
Experimental setup:
Place tungsten welding rods in a corrosive solution of NaHCO3. Use a AC/DC rectifier to convert wall current to a high DC potential across the rods. Measure the input energy using a power meter. Calculate the output energy by measuring the evaporated water and increase in heat (like you would with a cheapo calorimeter). Compare.
Test and analysis:
Run the system for approximately 3 minutes. Note that, as the rods corrode, their conductance goes down, bringing down the Wattage as well.
This is easily predicted. Resistance (R) is roughly proportional to the rod corrosion. Current (I) equals the applied voltage (V) divided by the resistance; I=V/R. Power (P) is P=I^2*R; for our system, P=(V/R)^2*R=V^2/R. Therefore, as R goes up, the input power goes down. This agrees with the experiment.
The "researcher" then makes several obvious mistakes in calculating the output energy. First, he ignores the effect of the NaHCO3, and pretends the rods were dipped in pure water. Second, he forgets to subtract the 6mL of evaporated water from the 150mL of water that rose in temperature. He also ignores the chemical effect of eating away at the tungsten rods.
His experiment does show more energy output than input, and I believe his numbers are roughly accurate (barring the mistakes outlined above).
My analysis:
This experiment shows that exothermic chemical reactions exist. Other famous examples of exothermic chemical reactions which corrode metal are Energizer and Duracell batteries. Burning a match is also characteristically similar.
His experiment has nothing to do with nuclear reactions. Just chemical ones.
Not true--cold fusion is possible, just not like Pons and Fleischmann described. (Nothing like it, in fact.) The quantum mechanical description of the energy states of a hydrogen atom are identical whether you use electrons or muons; use either, the hydrogen atom doesn't care. (Now, when you ask the very important question "yeah, genius, now how do you create quintillions of muon-replaced hydrogen atoms?", I'll resort to the classic physicist's dodge: "that's an engineering issue; go ask an engineer.")
:)
QMech says that if you've got hydrogens with muon shells instead of electron shells, you'll see spontaneous fusion reactions at very low temperatures. The reasons why are hard to explain without going into a lot of math, but it's quite possible according to the Standard Model.
Of course, there's a world of difference between possible and feasible. But physicists are only concerned with the possible. Feasible is for engineers.
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.
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
" It's a travesty for a scientist to say cold fusion is wrong because of his faith... Since when does peer review mean you only test things that fit into your view of the universe? "
It's always been this way. Theres a big difference between the scientific method, and Science, Inc. And while you're at it, realize that Science Inc is as much a religion as any other faiths. It has its orthodoxies just like anything else. The Atkins Diet has always had its detractors. It took them, what, over two decades to admit that you can lose weight with it? And even now some doctors refuse to acknowledge that it can work. It violated the dogma of low fat/high carbs. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, science has its dogmas. Stephen Hawking is considered a genius now, but back when he was starting his career, the Steady State theory was the reigning dogma of physics. Some scientists simply refused to acknowledge any other possibilities.
Revolutionary ideas in science are often met with skepticism at first.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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).
While I attended Texas A&M, I spent 2 (93-94) years as a personal assistant (gofer, typist, etc) to James Bockris (Distinguished Professor of Electro-Chemestry - the first scientist to "confirm" Pons & Fleischmann). As such, I had full access to his corespondance (I had to open it all, sort it by subject, & reply to some of the simplier inquiries) & was able to learn quite a bit.
Although it's now been 10 years since I've done any serious research on the subject (every now & then I read the symposium notes), I can give you my opinions of the whole Cold Fusion uproar:
-There is something strange & new going on in these experiments
-This something strange & new has been very difficult to reproduce consistently (much of the research focuses on certain types of atomic level imperfections in the cathodes)
-Pons & Fleischmann screwed the pooch by announcing their results before they could reproduce them. This basically had the effect of turning 95% of the scientific community against them. This has led to many people assuming the entire field of study as bogus.
-Many scientist around the world have reported "good results" - ranging from melted cathodes (excess heat) to extra helium (fusion of hydrogen atoms?).
My guess is that there is some new type of reaction occuring in these experiments. It may or may not be able to produce excess heat. Regardless, I'd bet in 10-20 years, a paper will be published that will explain it all.
As a side note, Dr. Bockris was a very "interesting" fellow to work with - he was the epitomy of the absent minded professor; one day he came in to work with his button down dress shirt on INSIDE OUT (think about how much effort it would take you to button a dress shirt in such a fashion); he frequently would put a MARKER in his front pocket without the cap on - leading to a HUGE ink stain on many of his dress shirts. And yes, I know he's done some weird stuff in his life (alchemy, anyone?! - http://www.spectrometer.org/path/free.html).
No, in the opinion of the vast majority of scientists the 'evidence' (such as it is, being most self-contradictory) is the result of misinterpretation, error, or outright fraud.
Nonsense like this breaks out periodically in physics. Remember polywater? The '14 KeV neutrino'? The 'fifth force'? The 'Allison Effect'? 'N rays'? All of these were big in their day, but died away because there turned out not to be anything there.
Why do I get the feeling that this fusion project has the codename "Duke Nukem Forever"
Nobody uses Cold Fusion anymore, now that Macromedia bought it. Everyone has switched to PHP.
Software Wars
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:
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
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Lots of interesting things happen with electrons in crystals, especially in stretched crystals. I'm not claiming that I know that cold fusion works, I just object to folks saying that "it goes against physics" as thought physics were a religion or something. If cold fusion were a fact, physics could accomodate it easily in the existing framework of things. No need to change quantum mechanics or anything, just some previously unknown nano-scale effects. We've already seen some things like this that did pan out, the light microscope that uses a metalized glass fiber with an aperature smaller than 1 wavelength of light to illuminate the specimen.
One of my jobs was sysadmin for a departmental computer lab that was in a big glass-fishbowl room (remember when computers were big?) I was heading off for a week to see a customer on another project, but I took a few minutes to print out a line-printer banner about "Cold Fusion Research Laboratory" and cobble together some random parts and wires and 5-gallon jars of liquid and set them up in the window before I left. They were gone by the time I got back :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks