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.""

38 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. Can't be more appropriate by fembots · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally, a news that is "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.".

  2. ColdFusion? by ponds · · Score: 5, Funny

    Only old koreans use cold fusion. Everyone else has moved to J2EE and then LAMP

  3. Slashdot story summary gets it right by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

    How about the Department of Fish and Game releasing their report on Bigfoot? That coming soon?

  4. Long live the true scientist! by SlashdotMirrorer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it is commendable that so much effort is being put into a field of research that there has been little result in in the past 20 years. The results simply are not important, as we have seen in the race to defeat The NP Problem, it is the struggle to further the scientific knowledge. Even bearded terminal hackers should bow to the (surely bearded) physics hackers who thanklessly work on this day and night

    We salute you!

    1. Re:Long live the true scientist! by Jace+Harker · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

      So it seems like the final opinion is that the field should be taken out of the scientific "dog house" and allowed back into the mainstream of peer-reviewed research. Admirable. The true test of a theory should not be how crazy it sounds, or how ridiculed it is in the popular press. Rather, we should consider all research with care and reason, and allow the evidence to be the judge.

      This evidence is uncertain, and I'm pleased to see them treating it with a good spirit of scientific inquiry.

  5. Not so fast by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lots of people felt the same way about nuclear energy in the 40s (both for war and peacetime use). Just because we can't make it work now doesn't mean that will be the case in the future. Nor does it mean we should abandon all avenues of research pertaining to it.

    1. Re:Not so fast by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So long as the research based on scientific merit rather than the desire for media stardom, and is peer-reviewed before going to the popular media, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

    2. Re:Not so fast by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Informative
      Lots of people felt the same way about nuclear energy in the 40s (both for war and peacetime use).

      Ummm... once fission was discovered, it was only a couple of years before the first working nuclear reactor was assembled. During that time, there really wasn't much doubt about what was going on or how much energy could potentially be released. Experiments showed clear evidence of fission reactions, and theoretical calculations matched the experimental data.

      OTOH it's been well over a decade since this cold fusion story surfaced, and since then nobody has definitively demonstrated that anything at all is going on, nor is there any theory to back it up.

    3. Re:Not so fast by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I agree with this in principle, unfortunately not even the peer-reviewed scientific community is always correct in deciding whether certain research is based on scientific merit.

      An old school example of this from my field (Aerospace):

      In the early 40s many Aerospace scientists and engineers believed that we would never be able to break the speed of sound because one of the equations that was used to calculate drag predicted that it would approach infinity as the speed approached Mach 1. To oppose an infinite drag would require an infinite thrust, clearly impossible. As it turned out, that particular equation was not valid for airflows in the sonic region.

    4. Re:Not so fast by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's ridiculous; it sounds like an urban legend to me.

      Nope, not an urban legend. In fact that's how the term "sound barrier" first came into use. Some felt it was a barrier that could not be surpassed.

      Bullets and other objects were well known to travel supersonically; they clearly didn't experience any "infinite drag" when passing through the sound barrier. Why, then, should a much more aerodynamic aircraft?

      It's a different type of drag. There is more than one type. The predicted infinite drag was wave drag (this becomes significant for airfoils at supersonic speeds). A bullet experiences mostly pressure drag as it is a blunt object. Pressure drag and wave drag are not governed by the same equations.

    5. Re:Not so fast by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

    6. Re:Not so fast by pfdietz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fermi conducted neutron capture tests on various materials. He bombarded uranium with neutrons, among other elements, but did not interpret the results as fission.

      Once fission itself was discovered, a critical nuclear reactor was constructed only three years later, and nuclear bombs only six years later.

      The analogy between fission and cold fusion is very poor. Fission was a a clear cut, easily demonstrated physical phenomenon. It had an intuitive explanation (using the liquid drop model of the nucleus) that violated no known physical laws. Once the news got out physicists all over the place were confirming it within days. The application to large scale release of energy was immediately obvious. Cold fusion is murky, quirky, irreplicable, and almost certainly some combination of experimental errors, incompetence, and outright fraud.

  6. I'm sorry by k4_pacific · · Score: 4, Funny

    DOE!
    Oh dear!
    Cold fusion here! /ducks

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  7. Bah by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You want real progress? An X-Prive for cold fusion or something. Offer a million bucks and suddenly everyone's falling over themselves to spend 2 million in order to win.

    --
    Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
  8. Re:This is a real shame by Stevyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about all those environmentalists who respond with "What about Chernobyl?" every time someone mentions nuclear fission?

    While the theory of fusion seems great, fission is possible now and should be explored further. If we are ever to move to a hydrogen economy, we'll have to start soon and we can't wait for fusion.

  9. Surprise! by WisconsinFusion · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, that was the second draft. I believe the first draft read: "Despite committing some of the best minds in Physics to the task, we seem to have been one-uped by a bunch of chemists who clearly know more about energy than the er, Department formerly known as 'Energy.' We apologize for wasting tax payer money." "Ok guys, shut those experiments down. Steve got cold fusion. Turns out that the reaction only occurs in people's basements." Damn. Time for a career change. -WF

  10. Titanium foil hats by Psionicist · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... to provide evidence for low energy nuclear reactions. These experiments involved low energy deuterium beams impinging on deuterium loaded metal foils such as titanium.

    In moments like these I'm glad I bought the tin foil hat and not the more luxurious titanium one.

  11. Got to wonder by Belseth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After all the years and all the hundreds of millions spent you have to wonder if fusion is a practical answer. It appears that a commercial reactor is fifty to a hundred years off. By all accounts we have maybe fifty years before our energy needs hit a critical point with things starting to go down hill in another twenty. No one has yet proven that a reactor can function at better than break even. Should the efforts be redirected at existing technologies? Solar, wind and methane solutions exist now. Isn't it better to solve our short term problems before counting on long term solutions that can't be implemented in time to avoid disaster. Won't this force us to resort to coal and nuclear when oil runs out or is that the plan?

  12. What a nothing document. by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 4, Informative

    The "conclusion" is in this PDF document:
    CF_Final_120104.pdf
    WARNING: PDF
    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:

    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.


  13. Some excerpts by SiliconEntity · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  14. Putting it in prospective by geneing · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Well, a search for philosopher's stone eventually lead to major progress in chemistry. An attempt to solve NP complete problems may one day lead to progress in quantum computing.

    Maybe one day this cold fusion nonsense would lead to progress in something - maybe calorimeters... I'm an optimist - so shoot me :)

  15. [critical subject] by Zarf · · Score: 4, Funny

    [comment on research]

    [faulty logic]

    [hope for future advancement]

    --
    [signature]
  16. Thank god for cold fusion by Striker770S · · Score: 3, Funny

    all i could think of was the wonderfully done cinimatic on Starcraft where they open up the case to the bomb, and they have a bunch of beer cans being kept cool by cold fusion. Of course the beers would be completely frozen, but a funny cinimatic nontheless...

    --
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
  17. One of the nice things by CodeWanker · · Score: 3, Informative

    for basement mad scientists is that the attachment to the doc finally has a clear diagram for building a cold fusion cell. I know that when this all splashed fifteen years ago, the biggest gripe other scientists had was the lack of a clear experiment plan to replicate. Well, now we've got the diagrams and the electrolysis Palladium loading protocol. So if you really wanna find out for yourself, you can.

    --


    "Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
  18. Re:This is a real shame by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  19. The Answer's Been Available for 12 Years by Baldrson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Twelve years ago fusion prize award legislation was proposed. It had the support not only of cold fusion researchers but of one of the three primary founders of the US fusion program supported the legislation. Prizes actually work. Let the DoE go ahead and do its skeptical measurements and the let private sector do what it does best -- take risks and compete -- peacefully -- while we still can compete peacefully.

  20. mad scientist by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Something over a year ago I came up with an alternative to the Pons-Fleischman testing apparatus that eliminated some of the problems with their design. (The biggest problem is that the operation of the cell pumps large amounts of heat into it, orders of magnitude larger than the amount being measured, making it difficult to detect the effect.) I was too lazy to set it up as an experiment so I made it available to the public. I also sent it to a few of labs doing research in cold fusion. Never heard back, so I guess they're deluged with ideas from other crackpots too. :-D

  21. Cold Fusion never happened, period. by Silverlancer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Cold Fusion never happened, period. by CoronalPendragon · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Give me a break. We have an example of new physics here - a new sort of reaction and you already have it all figured out, how it works?

      Remember, according to standard nuclear physics, the deuterium should not be doing anything either. So, what is there to forbid and H-H reaction? It would have to be something like,

      H + H = D+ positron

      OR

      H + H + electron = D + Energy

      Where the energy is released into the lattice as a whole, which is one of the better CF theories out there, imho. If we don't know how something works, we can't say much about how it works. H-H reaction is not forbidden.

    2. Re:Cold Fusion never happened, period. by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, read the appendix of the report, and specifically look at the graphs. They run perfectly parallel experiments with H2O and D2O and consistently get very different results. So if Pons "admitted" there's no extra effect from heavy water, he made a mistake. Why is that so hard to believe? We've now had 15 years to check it out, and the results are repeatable and the effect is pretty large. Of course, you might be right in your conclusion, but your reasons are either ignorant or stupid.

  22. excerpts since server overloaded by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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 two disappeared in a pair of 340 kiloton thermonuclear blasts"

  23. I saw some of this presented at APS last year by romer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    APS is the American Physical Society. They had a short session on cold fusion, and Chubb was the session chair. The skepticism surrounding this research is so great; my impression was that these people are driving themselves half mad with their efforts to get anyone to take them seriously. But addressing the data presented at that session alone, I would agree with the DOE's findings. I think it is good for the DOE to recommend funding for peer reviewed research. But, I cant imagine what clear eyed researcher with a sufficiently broad perspective would be tempted to invest their time and reputation in this research, given the attitude of the scientific community in general. Too risky.

  24. Re:U308? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

    Look more closely at what I wrote: U3O8 -- three uranium atoms and eight oxygen atoms, or uranium oxide. That's the most commonly-cited form I've found in terms of ores (though there are various other molecules, I'm sure.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  25. DOE would have no interest in CF by Gewis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They agreed to review it, and the composition of the reviewers was understandably nuclear physicists... many of whom are deeply in hot fusion research. That means they stand to lose a lot by CF's successes.

    Whether or not there is enough excess heat to be useful is one question. Whether there is nuclear transmutation is yet another. I've spent the past year doing research with Steven Jones at BYU, and in surveying the literature and conducting our own experiments, we've seen some very intriguing results. Sr + d -> Y, Zr, Mo. If you look at Japanese research, Iwamura has had Cs -> Pr, which is a rare earth and you DON'T get Cesium dropping in proportion to Pr's increase by any sort of environmental contamination. Especially not when it's in a sealed vacuum chamber with d2 gas permeation through the metal complex (Pa, CaO) the Cs is deposited on.

    There's data from a Japanese researcher (Ikegami) in Sweden (University of Uppsala) who has found that with deuterium ion beams at various target metals, the nuclear cross sectional area for capture increases dramatically at 10 keV and just gets larger the lower you get. He wasn't even doing CF research, but it's quite interesting to see that you don't require enormous energies in order to achieve d+Z transmutation.

    Perhaps at this point it would be smart to realize that foreign researcher are leaving us in the dust. Myself, I have real doubts about the usefulness of any supposed excess heat, but low energy nuclear transmutation has a lot of intriguing stuff. At the very least, we need to look at the effect of electronic structures in metal lattices on the coulomb barrier for d+Z reactions. In Iwamura's experiments, for example, he got null results when he did it without CaO, when he used H2 instead of D2, etc. What did the addition (in thin film deposition) of an impurity like CaO do to enable a reaction that straight palladium couldn't do?

    Anyway, yeah, there's SOMETHING going on.

  26. Ok here you go by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From this page-

    Sound barrier:
    "The term sound barrier is often associated with supersonic flight. In particular, "breaking the sound barrier" is the process of accelerating through Mach 1 and going from subsonic to supersonic speeds. The term originated in the 1940s when researchers discovered a large increase in drag that seemed to indicate that an infinite amount of thrust would be needed to fly at the speed of sound. In other words, some believed that a physical barrier existed that would prevent an aircraft from ever being able to travel at supersonic speeds. Since there obviously is no such barrier, the term sound barrier is outdated and really should not be used any more. Nevertheless, it has become a popular part of the human language, and continues in use."

    Obviously the people who believed this were using flawed methods of reasoning. However, claiming there were none who thought this way is simply denying history. The Wikipedia article has a good synopsis. Yes the fact that bullets were known to travel at supersonic velocities should have clued these people in as to the errors in their equations. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in another reply, scientists sometimes choose to ignore factual data that contradicts their preferred theories.

  27. There's Still Hope! by Shafe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, I guess we're out of luck for cold fusion, so now let's all throw our support to zero point energy! Come on, Tesla believed in it! And he invented the radio and alternating current!

  28. Half the reviewers found the studies convincing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    A break down for those who didn't read the article. . .

    There were no new experiments done. Scientists selected by the Department of Energy simply did a peer review of several experiments which had been done over the past ten years by various labs.

    18 scientists were selected to review the collected studies.

    According to the report. . .

    "Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic. Those reviewers who accepted the production of excess power typically suggest that the effect seen often, and under some understood conditions is compelling. The reviewers who did not find the production of excess power convincing cite a number of issues including: excess power in the short term is not the same as net energy production over the entire time of an experiment; all possible chemical and solid state causes of excess heat have not been investigated and eliminated as an explanation; and the production of power over a period of time is a few percent of the external power applied and hence calibration and systematic effects could account for the purported net effect."

    So basically, the jury is split. And if the DOE's sampling of experts is a fair yard stick, then it would seem that when the question is put forth, about half the scientific community would say that there is compelling evidence supporting Cold Fusion. --And given the massive bias and fear related with the subject, (where scientists do not want to be associated with unpopular theories for fear of losing their jobs and professional credibility), the results of this peer review are especially intriguing.

    In any case, this is a rather different picture than the one usually painted around here where most Slashdotters foam at the mouth and yell absurdities about it being impossible to get something from nothing, despite the fact that there was never once made any such claim regarding Cold Fusion.
  29. Re:Antigravity by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Bottom line: technologies like antigravity and cold fusion will continue to be ignored because their implications on the modern military-industrial complex. Can you imagine a world where anyone can fly anywhere in under an hour for FREE? I would love to see that world, but unfortunately the powers that be don't."

    Or they just don't work. Frankly if such a thing was possible in the 60s or 70s wouldn't you think that Russia or China would be using antigravity to get ahead of the US? or do you think they are in on it as well. There where lots of outlandish ideas in the 40s 50s and even 60s. I have some books that talk about atomic airliners that use iron vapor for a reaction mass. Underground cities to protect them from atomic bombs. And the atomic car that never need gas... Wow it must be hard to live in a world where you are sure that these marvels are being hidden from you...

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.