Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cold Fusion Back From The Dead

Posted by michael on from the warmed-over dept.

misterfusion writes "Looks like the IEEE is warming up to cold fusion with the latest story "Cold Fusion Back from the Dead". This has been a good year for this field with several leading science journals (Physics Today, MIT Technology Review, etc) contributing stories. Things are warming up and if science Research & Development funding can be stimulated with a positive DoE report (due soon), it might be an interesting rebirth."

18 of 635 comments (clear)

  1. Almost had a heart attack! by skrysakj · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought the article was referring to Macromedia Coldfusion!
    Phew!

  2. Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You guys could've fit at least ONE MORE "warming up" pun in the summary. It's like you weren't even trying!

  3. Article Summary for lazy people by PatrickThomson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Waffle waffle

    Cold fusion regarded as a joke for ages

    waffle waffle

    "THE FIRST HINT that the tide may be changing came in February 2002, when the U.S. Navy revealed that its researchers had been studying cold fusion on the quiet more or less continuously since the debacle began. "

    waffle waffle

    "At San Diego and other research centers, scientists built up an impressive body of evidence that something strange happened when a current passed through palladium electrodes placed in heavy water. "

    waffle waffle

    "Other researchers are finally beginning to explain why the Pons-Fleischmann effect has been difficult to reproduce. Mike McKubre from SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., a respected researcher who is influential among those pursuing cold fusion, says that the effect can be reliably seen only once the palladium electrodes are packed with deuterium at ratios of 100 percent--one deuterium atom for every palladium atom. His work shows that if the ratio drops by as little as 10 points, to 90 percent, only 2 experimental runs in 12 produce excess heat, while all runs at a ratio of 100 percent produce excess heat. "

    Summary: Cold fusion wasn't reproducible because not all factors were accounted for, and millitary scientists think they nailed it.

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
  4. Perpetual motion ... by Dark$ide · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the next Slashdot story perpetual motion is shown to be possible.

    --

    Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

  5. Let science work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is good to finally see a fair balance in the study of this idea. It may not generate anything usable, but then agin, it might. I think that is the key... to get real science studying the situation, not having the ideas tested and approved through the media.

    With ITER in a political freeze, there is ample time to study cold fusion concepts further. I don't see how one can create fusion conditions at room temperature. But if we understand how to control the collisions of the atoms better, then we may lower ignition temperatures. If the temperatures required were only several tens of thousands of degrees, then we do away with the complex containment systems and have a very viable energy source without multi billion dollar energy stations.

    Bottom line: Let real science work. The worst case scenario is that we have a better understanding of the atomic interactions that will be used in whatever fusion reaction processes that we eventually use.

  6. How do they know it's fusion? by dspacemonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article it seems like Fleischmann saw more energy coming out than he put in (up to 250% apparently) and thought to himself:

    "Aha! This must be cold fusion."

    Is it just me, or does that seem to be a bit of a leap of faith? After all, if one sets light to petrol one gets more energy out than a match puts in. Surely there are other possibilities.

    Occam's razor anyone?

    I'm not sure about "strong evidence" from a single research laboratory either...

    1. Re:How do they know it's fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are very correct. This is why we publish results, and have peer review. We are in the infancy of this branch of science. Worst cast scenario: it doesn't work period. We have at least investigated another possiblity. We learn and apply to other endevours into fusion power.

      Will anything major pop out of this research? Maybe, maybe not. But we are learning. At the very least, this should train another generation of people to not buy into hype one way or another. First it was "COLD FUSION IS HERE!" then it was "COLD FUSION IS A TOTAL SCAM!". Neither is correct. But with the attention span of the media this is all you will get.

      Be patient. Let science work.

    2. Re:How do they know it's fusion? by radtea · · Score: 5, Interesting


      The thing that we know with certainty is that whatever is going on, it is not a nuclear effect.

      It goes like this: in any nuclear effect, you wind up with lots of energy being dumped into a single nucleus. That energy can come out in only a small number of ways, because no matter what process produced the energy, all energy is created equal. And the nucleus is a well understood system.

      So either you get gamma rays, neutrons, or nuclear recoil. The suggestion that you get lattice recoil, as occurs in the Mossbauer effect, does not hold water as it would require the lattice to behave in ways that are contrary to known physics, and again: all energy is created equal. Simply because an exotic process produces the energy does not allow us to suspend the rest of the laws of physics once that energy has been created.

      If you have gamma rays or neurtrons, particularly in the quantities implied by the rate of energy creation, they are easily detectable. If you have nuclear recoil, you also, necessarily have neutron creation, because given the energies involved you'll knock nuetrons off the recoiling nucleus or the lattice nuclei. Again, it does not matter what exotic unknown process makes the nucleus move: once it is in motion in the lattice we can predict quite accurately how many neutrons will be produced.

      Nothing like the expected numbers of neutrons or gamma rays are produced. Ergo, whatever is happening is not a nuclear process.

      For what it's worth, IAANP, I have heard Fleishmann speak, and was peripherally involved in some early experiments to (in)validate the 1989 results. I've not thought much about the subject in the past decade, and hope not to do so for another decade. There's too much real science to think about instead.

      --Tom

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  7. Should be looked at regardless by nizo · · Score: 5, Informative
    Thus spake the article:

    Over the years, a number of groups around the world have reproduced the original Pons-Fleischmann excess heat effect, yielding sometimes as much as 250 percent of the energy put in.

    (snip)

    Other researchers are finally beginning to explain why the Pons-Fleischmann effect has been difficult to reproduce. Mike McKubre from SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., a respected researcher who is influential among those pursuing cold fusion, says that the effect can be reliably seen only once the palladium electrodes are packed with deuterium at ratios of 100 percent--one deuterium atom for every palladium atom. His work shows that if the ratio drops by as little as 10 points, to 90 percent, only 2 experimental runs in 12 produce excess heat, while all runs at a ratio of 100 percent produce excess heat.

    Something is going on here that we don't understand, and it looks like it can be reproduced. Yeah I would say it would be worth looking into further. The 250% heat output sounds like a good thing (especially if no toxic by-products are produced) so how does that compare to other types of heat generation I wonder?

    --
    I Am My Own Worst Enemy
  8. Re:Would that rebirth include... by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Informative

    I haven't made any great study of what happened, but I'm not sure any apology is in order.

    As I understand it, they made an astonishing scientific claim. That claim, while it might be absolutely true, was not substantiated by the experiment they describe.

    There is more to good science than turning out to be right.

    -Peter

  9. Pseudoscience Warning Signs by Critter92 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) The research will only go forward with more funding 2) SRI International is involved ("No, really, Uri Geller *is* a psychic!") 3) "Mike McKubre from SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., a respected researcher who is influential among those pursuing cold fusion" is not the same as "Mike McKubre, a respected researched who is also working on cold fusion" 4) It's an election year and DOE, hardly a bastion of good science under Bush, is about to announce Cold Fusion is workable at a time of record world oil prices?

  10. Science working again? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here's an interesting article, written about 10 years ago, by David Goodstein of Caltech, pointing out that the scientific process was not working correctly with cold fusion. (Basically, almost all CF was junk, but there were a couple of results by careful and competent experimenters, that should have been examined more deeply, but were dismissed as part of the "it's all junk" reaction).

    The article is a good look at the whole CF phenomenon as of 1993.

  11. Re:Better title... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Imagine sticking it to oil companies with nuclear cars and planes.

    Oil companies would be richer than ever if this pans out. The oil won't stop being needed, it'll just stop being burned. And quite a few "oil companies" have figured out that they are in the energy business, not the oil business. And would probably be in the forefront of providing high-grade deuterium for your cold fusion units.

    "Mr. Fusion", anyone?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  12. Re:Bob Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess I need to bow down to Robert L. Park as God. If he says that "cold fusion" is impossible, then it must be. Physics, of course, knows all -- there's no more problems to solve, and the theories explain everything. If there's an effect observed in some experiment which seems to violate all the theories (that cannot be explained in any way), then the effect DOES NOT EXIST and those who observe it must be executed at dawn for their apostasy and unorthodoxy. Of course, no one will be allowed to reproduce the experiment, and those who attempt to do so will also stand against the wall.

    All hail Robert L. Park, the keeper of scientific orthodoxy!

    I think the article sums it up -- there is clearly *something* going on to produce the excess heat. Apparently the researchers have now figured out how to get more reproduceable results, so others may now verify the effect and thereby focus on studying the effect itself rather than just trying to reproduce it.

    Now what that *something* is, is another matter. Maybe it is a chemical reaction of some sort, or maybe some other energy-release mechanism based on the thermophysical or thermochemical properties of the palladium substrate. Or maybe it is some unusual type of catalyzed nuclear reaction ("cold fusion".) Or maybe it is something else heretofore unknown. Now that the effect appears to be more reliably reproducible, it will now be possible to study the effect itself and solve the mystery. Although I am skeptical it is "cold fusion", it nevertheless appears to be interesting enough to study it in earnest.

    Regarding "the Second Law" as Mr. paugq mentions, I suggest he brush up on his thermodynamics since I assume he is uttering it with respect to energy conservation, which comes under the First Law.

  13. Re:Bob Park by Havokmon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Cold fusion is impossible and Physics have long demostrated it.

    Nothing is impossible. If you think the limit of our knowledge is already in textbooks, you have quite a rude awakening coming.

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  14. Re:Bob Park by Proteus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nothing is impossible.

    Oh yeah!?! What about Cold Fusion! Hah!

    --
    We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
  15. Re:Would that rebirth include... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't describe the environment in which an experiment can be reproduced reliably, you don't understand the phenominon properly enough to be calling press conferences.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  16. Re:What if Slashdot was right... by Jason+Ford · · Score: 5, Informative

    Insightful? Would wondering if Val Kilmer might steal her research from her get me a '+1, Informative' moderation?

    --
    I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer