Slashdot Mirror
DOE Report on Cold Fusion
thhamm writes "The DOE Report on Cold Fusion (mentioned here too) is out. Take a look at it on the DOE Website. Well, looks like there is nothing really new since Pons & Fleischmann in 1989, because "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 "conclusion" is in this PDF document: Looks like it's a mixed bag. Apparently 1/3rd of the reviewers were very intrigued by the new results [and at least one reviewer was convinced].
Funding recommendations are similarly indecisive:
Charge Element 1: Examine and evaluate the experimental evidence for the occurrences of nuclear reactions in condensed matter at low energies (less that a few electron volts).
Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced. Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented.
Charge Element 2: Determine whether the evidence is sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that such nuclear reactions occur.
The preponderance of the reviewers' evaluations indicated that Charge Element 2, the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions, is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented. One reviewer believed that the occurrence was demonstrated, and several reviewers did not address the question.
Charge Element 3: Determine whether there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies and, if so, to identify the most promising areas to be pursued.
The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers 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 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.
Proven reserves of uranium ore (consisting of U3O8 in combination with varying other elements) are in the millions, possibly billions, of metric tons worldwide. Even at relatively low grades (~2% seems to be a common level), a billion tons of ore would result in some 20 million tons of U3O8, which could be separated and enriched enough to provide power for centuries, especially when combined with breeder reactors that allow existing low-grade material to be enriched which could extend the fuel's useful life to thousands of years. Uranium mining operations are at work at least in the US, China, Australia, and Canada, and I imagine in a number of other nations around the world.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Even Pons admitted it. A few months into cold fusion's hayday in the 1989s, a scientist asked them to use regular water instead of heavy water, as a control. They did--and got the *exact same results*. Hydrogen will NOT fuse with hydrogen except under extreme circumstances--deuterium might. Of course Pons covered it up and cold fusion went from foolishness to fraud.
With all due respect, that's my field too and I say horse hockey. Ernst Mach was measuring supersonic drag in 1877, and supersonic rifle ammunition was a consumer product before that century was out. The X-1 aircraft's fuselage, in fact, was modeled on the ogival shape of the .50 caliber Browning machine gun bullet because of its demonstrated ability to sustain supersonic flight for a long way downrange. Supersonic airplane flight was a stability and control problem.
That tale is one of those "Aren't we smarter than those self-important authorities" homilies that are as persistent as herpes. It's on a par with "19th century scientists opposed railroad development because they believed you couldn't breathe at 20 mph"...which is very popular among folks who've never been outside in a gale or ridden the animal I alluded to in the first sentence above.
rj