Cold fusion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Aqm2241 (talk | contribs)
138 edits
Aqm2241 (talk | contribs)
138 edits
→‎Nuclear fusion and subsequent proponent proposals: Attempting to straighten out the action of the various proponents actions. The prior version gave an incorrect impression. There may be problems in the citation-to-reference links in the new.
Line 163: Line 163:
The initial cold fusion explanation was motivated by the high relative amounts of energy claimed to have been observed in cold fusion experiments along with the insistence by the initial reviewer, Stephen E. Jones, that a nuclear fusion explanation was viable. Additionally, the fact that hydrogen and its isotopes can dissolve in certain solids at high densities so that the separation of the nuclei can be relatively small (albeit larger than the separation of nuclei in the D<sub>2</sub> deuterium molecule), and that electron charge inside metals can [[electron shielding|shield]] the repulsion between nuclei inspired the possibility of higher cold fusion rates than those expected from a simple application of [[Coulomb's law]]. However, theoretical calculations show that these effects are too small to cause significant fusion rates.<ref name="ReferenceB"/> Other research groups that initially claimed that they were able to verify Fleischmann and Pons' results came to report alternative explanations for their original positive results. A group at [[Georgia Tech]] found problems in their neutron detector and [[Texas A&M]] discovered bad wiring in their thermometers.<ref name="Bird 1998 261–262">{{harvnb|Bird|1998|pp=261–262}}</ref> These reports, combined with negative results from some famous laboratories,<ref name="Browne_1989"/> led most scientists to conclude that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion, at least not on a significant scale.<ref name="Bird 1998 261–262"/><ref>{{harvnb|Heeter|1999|ref=CITEREFSaeta1999|p=5}}</ref> Physicist Gregory Neil Derry described the cold fusion explanation as being an ad hoc one that cannot coherently explain the experimental results.<ref name="derry">{{harvnb|Derry|2002|pp=179,180}}</ref>
The initial cold fusion explanation was motivated by the high relative amounts of energy claimed to have been observed in cold fusion experiments along with the insistence by the initial reviewer, Stephen E. Jones, that a nuclear fusion explanation was viable. Additionally, the fact that hydrogen and its isotopes can dissolve in certain solids at high densities so that the separation of the nuclei can be relatively small (albeit larger than the separation of nuclei in the D<sub>2</sub> deuterium molecule), and that electron charge inside metals can [[electron shielding|shield]] the repulsion between nuclei inspired the possibility of higher cold fusion rates than those expected from a simple application of [[Coulomb's law]]. However, theoretical calculations show that these effects are too small to cause significant fusion rates.<ref name="ReferenceB"/> Other research groups that initially claimed that they were able to verify Fleischmann and Pons' results came to report alternative explanations for their original positive results. A group at [[Georgia Tech]] found problems in their neutron detector and [[Texas A&M]] discovered bad wiring in their thermometers.<ref name="Bird 1998 261–262">{{harvnb|Bird|1998|pp=261–262}}</ref> These reports, combined with negative results from some famous laboratories,<ref name="Browne_1989"/> led most scientists to conclude that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion, at least not on a significant scale.<ref name="Bird 1998 261–262"/><ref>{{harvnb|Heeter|1999|ref=CITEREFSaeta1999|p=5}}</ref> Physicist Gregory Neil Derry described the cold fusion explanation as being an ad hoc one that cannot coherently explain the experimental results.<ref name="derry">{{harvnb|Derry|2002|pp=179,180}}</ref>


Up to today, cold fusion proponents continue to offer and promote these and other theoretical explanations including relatively new proposals involving [[Bose–Einstein condensate]]s, special effects happening only in the surface of the electrode, and [[Free electron model|electron lattice responses]]. Proponents' attempts at theoretical explanation have either been explicitly rejected by mainstream physicists or lack independent review.<ref name="ns march 2009" /> Supporters of cold fusion point to experiments where bombarding metals with deuteron beams increased reaction rates,<ref>{{harvnb|Sinha|2006}} "Inclusion of effective-charge reduction from electron screening raises the cross section by another 7-10 orders of magnitude."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Czerski|2008}}</ref> and they suggested to the DOE commission in 2004 that electron screening could be one explanation for this enhanced reaction rate.<ref>{{harvnb|Hagelstein et al.|2004|ref=CITEREFDOE2004}}{{rp|14-15}}</ref> The DOE found the theoretical explanations to be the weakest part of cold fusion claims.<ref name="US DOE 2004 ref=CITEREFDOE2004r"/>
Up to today, cold fusion proponents continue to offer and promote these and other theoretical explanations including relatively new proposals involving [[Bose–Einstein condensate]]s, special effects happening only in the surface of the electrode, and [[Free electron model|electron lattice responses]]. Proponents' attempts at theoretical explanation have either been explicitly rejected by mainstream physicists or lack independent review.<ref name="ns march 2009" /> Supporters of cold fusion <ref>{{harvnb|Sinha|2006}}</ref> point to astro-physics experiments where bombarding metals with multi-keV deuteron beams greatly increased reaction rates over those predicted by the accepted models. "Inclusion of effective-charge reduction from electron screening raises the cross section by another 7-10 orders of magnitude." <ref>{{harvnb|Czerski|2008}}</ref> It was suggested to the DOE commission in 2004 that electron screening could be one explanation for the enhanced reaction rate observed in LENR.<ref>{{harvnb|Hagelstein et al.|2004|ref=CITEREFDOE2004}}{{rp|14-15}}</ref> The DOE found the theoretical explanations to be the weakest part of cold fusion claims.<ref name="US DOE 2004 ref=CITEREFDOE2004r"/>


===Unlikelihood of fusion===
===Unlikelihood of fusion===

Revision as of 20:15, 14 May 2011

This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature using only a tabletop setup, and its related experiments. For the original use of the term 'cold fusion', see Muon-catalyzed fusion. For all other definitions, see Cold fusion (disambiguation).
Diagram of an open type calorimeter used at the New Hydrogen Energy Institute in Japan

Cold fusion refers to a proposed nuclear fusion process of unknown mechanism offered to explain a group of disputed experimental results first reported by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. It is sometimes termed "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" (LENR) or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reaction (CANR) to avoid the negative connotations associated with the original name.[1][2] The field originates with reports of an experiment by Martin Fleischmann, then one of the world's leading electrochemists,[3] and Stanley Pons in March 1989 where they reported anomalous heat production ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[4] The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.[5]

The media reported that nuclear fusion was happening inside the electrolysis cells,[5] and these reports raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.[6] Hopes fell when replication failures were weighed in view of several reasons cold fusion is not likely to occur, the discovery of possible sources of experimental error, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[7] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[8] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[9] However, a small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion[8][10][11][12] claiming to replicate Fleishmann and Pons' results including nuclear reaction byproducts.[13][14] These claims are largely disbelieved in the mainstream scientific community.[15] In 1989, the majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive. A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first.[16]

History

Before the Fleischmann–Pons experiment

The ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized as early as the nineteenth century by Thomas Graham.[17] In the late 1920s, two Austrian born scientists, Friedrich Paneth and Kurt Peters, originally reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen was absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. However, the authors later retracted that report, acknowledging that the helium they measured was due to background from the air.[17][18]

In 1927, Swedish scientist J. Tandberg stated that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes.[17] On the basis of his work, he applied for a Swedish patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy". After deuterium was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with heavy water. Due to Paneth and Peters' retraction, Tandberg's patent application was eventually denied.[17] His application for a patent in 1927 was denied as he could not explain the physical process.[19]

The term "cold fusion" was used as early as 1956 in a New York Times article about Luis W. Alvarez' work on muon-catalyzed fusion.[20] E. Paul Palmer of Brigham Young University also used the term "cold fusion" in 1986 in an investigation of "geo-fusion", the possible existence of fusion in a planetary core.[21]

Fleischmann–Pons experiment

Events preceding announcement

Electrolysis cell schematic

Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah hypothesized that the high compression ratio and mobility of deuterium that could be achieved within palladium metal using electrolysis might result in nuclear fusion.[22] To investigate, they conducted electrolysis experiments using a palladium cathode and heavy water within a calorimeter, an insulated vessel designed to measure process heat. Current was applied continuously for many weeks, with the heavy water being renewed at intervals.[22] Some deuterium was thought to be accumulating within the cathode, but most was allowed to bubble out of the cell, joining oxygen produced at the anode.[23] For most of the time, the power input to the cell was equal to the calculated power leaving the cell within measurement accuracy, and the cell temperature was stable at around 30 °C. But then, at some point (in some of the experiments), the temperature rose suddenly to about 50 °C without changes in the input power. These high temperature phases would last for two days or more and would repeat several times in any given experiment once they had occurred. The calculated power leaving the cell was significantly higher than the input power during these high temperature phases. Eventually the high temperature phases would no longer occur within a particular cell.[23]

In 1988, Fleischmann and Pons applied to the United States Department of Energy for funding towards a larger series of experiments. Up to this point they had been funding their experiments using a small device built with $100,000 out-of-pocket.[24] The grant proposal was turned over for peer review, and one of the reviewers was Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University.[24] Jones had worked for some time on muon-catalyzed fusion, a known method of inducing nuclear fusion without high temperatures, and had written an article on the topic entitled "Cold nuclear fusion" that had been published in Scientific American in July 1987. Fleischmann and Pons and co-workers met with Jones and co-workers on occasion in Utah to share research and techniques. During this time, Fleischmann and Pons described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", in the sense that it could not be explained by chemical reactions alone.[23] They felt that such a discovery could bear significant commercial value and would be entitled to patent protection. Jones, however, was measuring neutron flux, which was not of commercial interest.[24] In order to avoid problems in the future, the teams appeared to agree to simultaneously publish their results, although their accounts of their March 6 meeting differ.[25]

Announcement

In mid-March 1989, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on March 24 to send their papers to Nature via FedEx.[25] Fleischmann and Pons, however, pressured by the University of Utah which wanted to establish priority on the discovery,[26] broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on March 11, and disclosing their work via a press conference on March 23.[24] Jones, upset, faxed in his paper to Nature after the press conference.[25]

Fleischmann and Pons' announcement drew wide media attention.[27] The 1986 discovery of high-temperature superconductivity had caused the scientific community to be more open to revelations of unexpected scientific results that could have huge economic repercussions and that could be replicated reliably even if they had not been predicted by current theory.[28] Cold fusion was proposing the counter-intuitive idea that a nuclear reaction could be caused to occur inside a crystal structure, and many scientists immediately thought of the Mössbauer effect, since it was an example of this happening. Its discovery 30 years earlier had also been unexpected though quickly replicated and explained within the existing physics framework.[29]

The announcement of a new clean source of energy came at a crucial time: everyone still remembered the 1973 oil crisis and the problems caused by oil dependence, anthropomorphic global warming was starting to become notorious, the anti-nuclear movement was labeling nuclear power plants as dangerous and getting them closed, people had in mind the consequences of strip mining, acid rain and the greenhouse effect, and, to top it all, the Exxon Valdez oil spill happened the day after the announcement.[30] In the press conference, Peterson, Fleischmann and Pons, backed by the solidity of their scientific credentials, repeatedly assured the journalists that cold fusion would solve all of these problems, and would provide a limitless inexhaustible source of clean energy, using only seawater as fuel.[31] They said the results had been confirmed dozens of times and they had no doubts about them.[32]

Response and fallout

Several laboratories in several countries attempted to repeat the experiments. A few initially reported success, but most failed to validate the results; Nathan Lewis, professor of Chemistry at the California Institute of Technology, led one of the most ambitious validation efforts, trying many variations on the experiment without success, while CERN physicist Douglas R. O. Morrison said that "essentially all" attempts in Western Europe had failed.[8] Even those reporting success had difficulty reproducing Fleischmann and Pons' results.[33] On April 10, a group at Texas A&M University published results of excess heat and later that day a group at the Georgia Institute of Technology announced neutron production.[34] Both groups later retracted their announcement and explained their results as being due to mistakes in experimental design and implementation.[35] Another attempt at independent replication, headed by Robert Huggins at Stanford University also reported early success,[36] but it was called into question by a colleague who reviewed his work.[8] For the next six weeks, competing claims, counterclaims and suggested explanations kept what was referred to as "cold fusion" or "fusion confusion" in the news.[37][38]

In April 1989, Fleischmann and Pons published a "preliminary note" in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry.[22] This paper notably showed a gamma peak without its corresponding Compton edge, which indicated they had made a mistake in claiming evidence of fusion byproducts.[39] Fleischmann and Pons replied to this critique.[40] The preliminary note was followed up a year later with a much longer paper that went into details of calorimetry but did not include any nuclear measurements.[23]

Nevertheless, Fleischmann and Pons and a number of other researchers who found positive results remained convinced of their findings.[8] The University of Utah asked Congress to provide $25 million to pursue the research, and Pons was scheduled to meet with representatives of President Bush in early May.[8]

In May 1989, the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion, at which were heard many reports of experiments that failed to produce evidence of cold fusion. At the end of the session, eight of the nine leading speakers stated they considered the initial Fleischmann and Pons claim dead with the ninth, Johann Rafelski, abstaining.[8] Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann" which was met with applause. Douglas R. O. Morrison, a physicist representing CERN, was the first to call the episode an example of pathological science.[8][41]

In July and November 1989, Nature published papers critical of cold fusion claims.[42][43] Negative results were also published in several scientific journals including Science, Physical Review Letters, and Physical Review C (nuclear physics).[notes 1] In spite of this trend, in August 1989, the state of Utah invested $4.5 million to create the National Cold Fusion Institute.[44]

The United States Department of Energy organized a special panel to review cold fusion theory and research.[45]: 39  The panel issued its report in November 1989, concluding that results as of that date did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from phenomena attributed to cold fusion.[45]: 36  The panel noted the inconsistency of reports of excess heat and the greater inconsistency of reports of nuclear reaction byproducts. Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and, if verified, would require theory to be extended in an unexpected way. The panel was against special funding for cold fusion research, but supported modest funding of "focused experiments within the general funding system."[45]: 37  Cold fusion supporters continued to argue that the evidence was strong, and in September 1990 the National Cold Fusion Institute listed 92 groups of researchers from 10 different countries that had reported corroborating evidence.[46] However, by this point, academic consensus had moved decidedly toward labeling cold fusion as a kind of "pathological science".[9][47]

The Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger declared himself a supporter of cold fusion after much of the response to the initial reports had turned negative. He tried to publish theoretical papers supporting the possibility of cold fusion in Physical Review Letters, but was deeply insulted by their rejection, and resigned from the American Physical Society (publisher of Letters) in protest.[48]

In the ensuing years, several books came out critical of cold fusion research methods and the conduct of cold fusion researchers.[49] Up to today, the scientific community continues to maintain a skeptical consensus with regards to the subject due to the seeming lack of experimental reproducibility[50] and cold fusion's theoretical implausibility.[51] New experimental claims are routinely dismissed or ignored by mainstream scientists and journals.[52]

Ongoing work

A small but committed group of cold fusion researchers has continued to this day to conduct experiments using Fleischmann and Pons electrolysis set-ups in spite of the rejection by the mainstream community.[1] In 1992, Fleischmann and Pons themselves relocated their laboratory to France under a grant from the Toyota Motor Corporation. The laboratory, IMRA, was closed in 1998 after spending £12 million on cold fusion work.[53] Between 1992 and 1997, Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry sponsored a "New Hydrogen Energy Program" of US$20 million to research cold fusion. Announcing the end of the program in 1997, the director and one-time proponent of cold fusion research Hideo Ikegami[54] stated "We couldn't achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion." He added, "We can't find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future."[55] Also in the 1990s, India stopped its research in cold fusion because of the lack of consensus among mainstream scientists and the US denunciation of it.[56]

In February 2002, the U.S. Navy revealed that researchers at their Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California had been quietly studying cold fusion continually since 1989, by releasing a two-volume report, entitled "Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system," with a plea for funding.[57][58]

A 2008 demonstration in Bangalore by Japanese researcher Yoshiaki Arata[59] revived some interest for cold fusion research in India. Projects have commenced at several centers such as the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and the National Institute of Advanced Studies has also recommended the Indian government to revive this research.[56]

As recently as January, 2011, researchers from the University of Bologna, Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi, claimed to have successfully demonstrated commercially viable cold fusion using an apparatus, built by themselves, which they call an Energy Catalyzer. In March, 2011, two swedish physicists evaluated the Energy Catalyzer, under the control of Rossi.[60][61] As the target is immediate commercialization, the inventors say that details of the invention will not be published yet. Moreover, the patent application contained insufficient details for replication, and was therefore partially rejected.[62] Due to this secrecy, the Swedish evaluators were not allowed to examine the inside of the reactor, and there is still uncertainty about the viability of the invention.[63]

Publications

The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers in 1989, of all scientific disciplines; but the number of papers then went into sharp decline as scientists abandoned the controversy and journal editors declined to even review the papers.[64] After 1990, publication of cold fusion papers declined sharply, and it fell off the ISI charts.[64] The publication in mainstream journals has kept going down but it has never gone down to zero; this can be interpreted variously as the work of aging proponents who refuse to abandon a dying field, or as the normal publication rate in a small field that has found its natural niche.[64]

In the 1990s, the groups that continued to research cold fusion and their supporters established periodicals such as Fusion Facts, Cold Fusion Magazine, Infinite Energy Magazine and New Energy Times to cover the developments in cold fusion and other radical claims in energy production that were being excluded from the mainstream journals and the scientific press. In 2007 they published their own peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. The Internet has also become a major means of communication and self-publication for CF researchers, allowing for revival of the research.[65]

The Journal of Fusion Technology (FT) established in 1990 a permanent feature for cold fusion papers, publishing over a dozen papers per year, giving a mainstream outlet for cold fusion researchers at a time when other journals were unwilling to review cold fusion papers. When editor-in-chief George Miley retired in 2001, the journal stopped accepting new cold fusion papers.[64] This is an example of how cold fusion survives in certain journals only thanks to the work of individual persons who are sympathetic to the field.[64]

Cold fusion reports have been published over the years in a small cluster of specialized journals like Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Il Nuovo Cimento. Some papers also appeared in Journal of Physical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, and a number of Japanese and Russian journals of physics, chemistry and engineering.[64] Since 2005, Naturwissenschaften has published CF papers and, in 2009, named a cold fusion researcher to its editorial board.

This decline of publications in cold fusion has been described as a characteristic of pathological science[66][67] and of a "failed information epidemics".[68] Cold fusion researchers occasionally succeed in publishing papers in prestigious journals; the 1993 paper in Physics Letters A is an important example because it was the last paper published by Fleischmann, and "one of the last reports to be formally challenged on technical grounds by a cold fusion skeptic".[67]: 1919 

Conferences

Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted in scientific meetings, and had to put up their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990 and has been held every 12 to 18 months in various countries around the world since then. By 1994, attendants made no internal criticism of papers for fear of giving ammunition to external critics, and this, according to physicist David Goldstein, allowed for the proliferation of crackpots and prevented the normal process of serious science,[29] By 2002, critics and skeptics had stopped attending the conferences.[69] With the founding in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science–an example of the approach the cold fusion community has adopted in avoiding cold fusion as a term due to its negative connotations.[1][2] Cold fusion research is often referenced today under the name of "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR,[70] but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.[1]

Since 2006, the American Physical Society (APS) has included cold fusion sessions in their meetings, clarifying that this did not imply a softening of skepticism.[71][72] Since 2007, the American Chemical Society (ACS) meetings also include "invited symposium(s)" on cold fusion.[73] An ACS program chair said that without a proper forum the matter would never be discussed and, "with the world facing an energy crisis, it is worth exploring all possibilities."[72] On 22–25 March 2009, the American Chemical Society meeting included a four-day symposium in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion. Researchers working at the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons in a standard cold fusion cell design[74] using CR-39,[13] a result previously published in Die Naturwissenschaften.[75] The authors claim that these neutrons are indicative of nuclear reactions,[76] although skeptics indicated that, to have their claims accepted by the scientific community, the authors have to make a quantitative analysis and they have to exclude other possible sources for those neutrons.[75][77]

Further reviews and funding issues

Around 1998 the University of Utah had already dropped its research after spending over $1 million, and in the summer of 1997 Japan cut off research and closed its own lab after spending $20 million.[78] Cold fusion researchers have complained there has been virtually no possibility of obtaining funding for cold fusion research in the United States, and no possibility of getting published.[79] University researchers, it has been claimed, are unwilling to investigate cold fusion because they would be ridiculed by their colleagues.[80] In 1994, David Goodstein described cold fusion as:

"a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between cold fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here."[29]

Particle physicist Frank Close has gone even further, stating that the problems that plagued the original cold fusion announcement are still happening (as of 2009): results from studies are still not being independently verified and inexplicable phenomena encountered are being labelled as "cold fusion" even if they are not, in order to attract the attention of journalists.[70]

Cold fusion researchers themselves acknowledge that the flaws in the original announcement still cause their field to be marginalized and to suffer a chronic lack of funding,[70] but a small number of old and new researchers have remained interested in investigating cold fusion.[1][12][81]

In August 2003, responding to a April 2003 letter from MIT's Peter L. Hagelstein,[82]: 3  the energy secretary Spencer Abraham ordered the DOE to organize a second review of the field.[83] Cold fusion researchers were asked to present a review document of all the evidence since the 1989 review. The report was released in 2004. The reviewers were "split approximately evenly" on whether the experiments had produced energy in the form of heat, but they all complained about the lack of proof and the poor documentation of the experiments.[83] In summary, the reviewers were not convinced and they didn't recommend a federal research program, but they did recommend individual well-thought studies.[83] They summarized its conclusions thus:

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 current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in

resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. 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.

— Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, US Department of Energy, December 2004

The mainstream and popular scientific press presented this as a setback for cold fusion researchers, with headlines such as "cold fusion gets chilly encore", but cold fusion researchers placed a "rosier spin"[15] on the report, noting that it also recommended specific areas where research could resolve the controversies in the field.[84] In 2005, Physics Today reported that new reports of excess heat and other cold fusion effects were still no more convincing than 15 years previous.[15]

Experiments and reported results

A cold fusion experiment usually includes:

Electrolysis cells can be either open cell or closed cell. In open cell systems, the electrolysis products, which are gaseous, are allowed to leave the cell. In closed cell experiments, the products are captured, for example by catalytically recombining the products in a separate part of the experimental system. These experiments generally strive for a steady state condition, with the electrolyte being replaced periodically. There are also "heat after death" experiments, where the evolution of heat is monitored after the electric current is turned off.

The most basic setup of a cold fusion cell consists of two electrodes submerged in a solution of palladium and heavy water. The electrodes are then connected to a power source to transmit electricity from one electrode to the other through the solution.[74] Even when anomalous heat is reported, it can take weeks for it to begin to appear - this is known as the "loading time."

The Fleischmann and Pons early findings regarding helium, neutron radiation and tritium were later discredited.[86][87] However, neutron radiation has been reported in cold fusion experiments at very low levels using different kinds of detectors, but levels were too low, close to background, and found too infrequently to provide useful information about possible nuclear processes.[88][89]

Excess heat and energy production

An excess heat observation is based on an energy balance. Various sources of energy input and output are continuously measured. Under normal condition, the energy input can be matched to the energy output to within experimental error. In experiments such as those run by Fleischmann and Pons, a cell operating steadily at one temperature transitions to operating at a higher temperature with no increase in applied current.[23] In other experiments, however, no excess heat was discovered, and, in fact, even the heat from successful experiments was unreliable and could not be replicated independently.[90] If higher temperatures were real, and not experimental artifact, the energy balance would show an unaccounted term. In the Fleischmann and Pons experiments, the rate of inferred excess heat generation was in the range of 10-20% of total input. The high temperature condition would last for an extended period, making the total excess heat appear to be disproportionate to what might be obtained by ordinary chemical reaction of the material contained within the cell at any one time, though this could not be reliably replicated.[84]: 3 [91] Subsequent researchers who advocate for cold fusion report similar results.[92][93][94][95][96][97] Nevertheless, as early as 1997, at least one research group was reporting that, with the proper procedure, "...5 samples out of 6 that had undergone the whole procedure showed very clear excess heat production."[98]

One of the main criticisms of cold fusion was that the predictions from deuteron-deuteron fusion into helium should have resulted in the production of gamma rays which were not observed and have never been observed in any subsequent cold fusion experiments.[90][99] Cold fusion researchers have since claimed to find X-rays, helium, neutrons and even nuclear transmutations.[100] Some of them even claim to have found them using only light water and nickel cathodes.[100]

In 1993, after the initial discrediting, Fleischmann reported "heat-after-death" experiments: where excess heat was measured after the electric current supplied to the electrolytic cell was turned off.[101] This type of report also became part of subsequent cold fusion claims.[102][103]

Helium, heavy elements, and neutrons

"Triple tracks" in a CR-39 plastic radiation detector claimed as evidence for neutron emission from palladium deuteride.

Known instances of nuclear reactions, aside from producing energy, also produce nucleons and particles on ballistic trajectories which are readily observable. In support of their claim that nuclear reactions took place in their electrolytic cells, Fleischmann and Pons reported a neutron flux of 4,000 neutrons per second, as well as detections of tritium. The classical branching ratio for previously known fusion reactions that produce tritium would predict, with 1 watt of power, the production of 1012 neutrons per second, levels that would have been fatal to the researchers.[104] In 2009, Mosier-Boss et al. reported what they called the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons, using CR-39 plastic radiation detectors,[105][106] but the claims can not be validated without a quantitative analysis of neutrons.[75][77]

Several medium and heavy elements like calcium, titanium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, copper and zinc have been reported as detected by several researchers, like Tadahiko Mizuno or George Miley; these elemental transmutations are totally unexpected products of nuclear fusion processes and won't be believed by the scientific community until iron-clad reproducible proof has been presented.[90] The report presented to the DOE in 2004 indicated that deuterium loaded foils could be used to detect fusion reaction products and, although the reviewers found the evidence presented to them as inconclusive, they indicated that those experiments didn't use state of the art techniques.[84]: 3, 4, 5 

In response to skepticism about the lack of nuclear products, cold fusion researchers have tried to capture and measure nuclear products correlated with excess heat.[107][108] Considerable attention has been given to measuring 4He production.[14] However, the reported levels are very near to the background, so contamination by trace amounts of helium which are normally present in the air cannot be ruled out. The lack of detection of gamma radiation seen in the fusion of hydrogen or deuterium to 4He has further strengthened the explanation that the helium detections are due to experimental error.[90] In the report presented to the DOE in 2004, the reviewers' opinion was divided on the evidence for 4He; with the most negative reviews concluding that although the amounts detected were above background levels, they were very close to them and therefore could be caused by contamination from air. The panel also expressed concerns about the poor-quality of the theoretical framework cold fusion proponents presented to account for the lack of gamma rays.[84]: 3, 4 

Explanations

Skepticism about the cold fusion explanation for the reports of Fleishmann and Pons' began even before reports about failure to replicate their experimental claims were published, and the reported null results only further encouraged the repudiation.[109] In part a reaction to these theoretical difficulties, subsequent cold fusion proponents have proposed various novel scenarios and theories to explain positive experimental results, but they have also been unable to convince mainstream scientists to accept such explanations.[108] Skeptics claim that cold fusion explanations are "ad hoc" and lack rigor.[110][111]

Nuclear fusion and subsequent proponent proposals

The initial cold fusion explanation was motivated by the high relative amounts of energy claimed to have been observed in cold fusion experiments along with the insistence by the initial reviewer, Stephen E. Jones, that a nuclear fusion explanation was viable. Additionally, the fact that hydrogen and its isotopes can dissolve in certain solids at high densities so that the separation of the nuclei can be relatively small (albeit larger than the separation of nuclei in the D2 deuterium molecule), and that electron charge inside metals can shield the repulsion between nuclei inspired the possibility of higher cold fusion rates than those expected from a simple application of Coulomb's law. However, theoretical calculations show that these effects are too small to cause significant fusion rates.[33] Other research groups that initially claimed that they were able to verify Fleischmann and Pons' results came to report alternative explanations for their original positive results. A group at Georgia Tech found problems in their neutron detector and Texas A&M discovered bad wiring in their thermometers.[112] These reports, combined with negative results from some famous laboratories,[8] led most scientists to conclude that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion, at least not on a significant scale.[112][113] Physicist Gregory Neil Derry described the cold fusion explanation as being an ad hoc one that cannot coherently explain the experimental results.[110]

Up to today, cold fusion proponents continue to offer and promote these and other theoretical explanations including relatively new proposals involving Bose–Einstein condensates, special effects happening only in the surface of the electrode, and electron lattice responses. Proponents' attempts at theoretical explanation have either been explicitly rejected by mainstream physicists or lack independent review.[75] Supporters of cold fusion [114] point to astro-physics experiments where bombarding metals with multi-keV deuteron beams greatly increased reaction rates over those predicted by the accepted models. "Inclusion of effective-charge reduction from electron screening raises the cross section by another 7-10 orders of magnitude." [115] It was suggested to the DOE commission in 2004 that electron screening could be one explanation for the enhanced reaction rate observed in LENR.[116] The DOE found the theoretical explanations to be the weakest part of cold fusion claims.[111]

Unlikelihood of fusion

There are many reasons fusion is an unlikely explanation for the experimental results described above.[117] Because nuclei are all positively charged, they strongly repel one another.[33] Normally, in the absence of a catalyst such as a muon, very high kinetic energies are required to overcome this repulsion.[118] Extrapolating from known rates at high energies down to energies available in cold fusion experiments, the rate for uncatalyzed fusion at room-temperature energy would be 50 orders of magnitude lower than needed to account for the reported excess heat.[119][120]

Conventional deuteron fusion is a two-step process,[121] in which an unstable high energy intermediary is formed:

D + D → 4He* + 24 MeV

High energy experiments have observed only three decay pathways for this excited-state nucleus, with the branching ratio showing the probability that any given intermediate will follow a particular pathway.[122] The products formed via these decay pathways are:

4He* → n + 3He + 3.3 MeV (ratio=50%)
4He* → p + 3H + 4.0 MeV (ratio=50%)
4He* → 4He + γ + 24 MeV (ratio=10−6)

Only about one in one million of the intermediaries decay along the third pathway, making its products comparatively rare when compared to the other paths.[90] If one watt of nuclear power were produced from deuteron fusion consistent with known branching ratios, the resulting neutron and tritium (3H) production would be easily measured.[90] Some researchers reported detecting 4He but without the expected neutron or tritium production; such a result would require branching ratios strongly favouring the third pathway, with the actual rates of the first two pathways lower by at least five orders of magnitude than observations from other experiments, directly contradicting mainstream-accepted branching probabilities.[123] Those reports of 4He production did not include detection of gamma rays, which would require the third pathway to have been changed somehow so that gamma rays are no longer emitted.[90] Proponents have proposed that the 24 MeV excess energy is transferred in the form of heat into the host metal lattice prior to the intermediary's decay.[122] However, the known rate of the decay process together with the inter-atomic spacing in a metallic crystal makes such a transfer inexplicable in terms of conventional understandings of momentum and energy transfer,[124] and even then we would see measurable levels of radiations.[125]

Calorimetry errors

The calculation of excess heat in electrochemical cells involves certain assumptions.[126] Errors in these assumptions have been offered as non-nuclear explanations for excess heat.

One assumption made by Fleischmann and Pons is that the efficiency of electrolysis is nearly 100%, meaning nearly all the electricity applied to the cell resulted in electrolysis of water, with negligible resistive heating and substantially all the electrolysis product leaving the cell unchanged.[23] This assumption gives the amount of energy expended converting liquid D2O into gaseous D2 and O2.[127] The efficiency of electrolysis will be less than one if hydrogen and oxygen recombine to a significant extent within the calorimeter. Several researchers have described potential mechanisms by which this process could occur and thereby account for excess heat in electrolysis experiments.[128][129][130]

Another assumption is that heat loss from the calorimeter maintains the same relationship with measured temperature as found when calibrating the calorimeter.[23] This assumption ceases to be accurate if the temperature distribution within the cell becomes significantly altered from the condition under which calibration measurements were made.[131] This can happen, for example, if fluid circulation within the cell becomes significantly altered.[132][133] Recombination of hydrogen and oxygen within the calorimeter would also alter the heat distribution and invalidate the calibration.[130][134][135]

Patents

Although the details have not surfaced, it appears that the University of Utah forced the 23 March 1989 Fleischmann and Pons announcement in order to establish priority over the discovery and its patents before the joint publication with Jones.[26] The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced on 12 April 1989 that it had applied for its own patents based on theoretical work of one of its researchers, Peter L. Hagelstein, who had been sending papers to journals from the 5th to the 12th of April.[136] On 2 December 1993 the University of Utah licensed all its cold fusion patents to ENECO, a new company created to profit from cold fusion discoveries,[137] and on March 1998 it said that it would no longer defend its patents.[78]

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion.[82] Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, said that this was done using the same argument as with perpetual motion machines: that they do not work.[82] Patent applications are required to show that the invention is "useful", and this utility is dependent on the invention's ability to function.[138] In general USPTO rejections on the sole grounds of the invention's being "inoperative" are rare, since such rejections need to demonstrate "proof of total incapacity",[138] and cases where those rejections are upheld in a Federal Court are even rarer: nevertheless, in 2000, a rejection of a cold fusion patent was appealed in a Federal Court and it was upheld, in part on the grounds that the inventor was unable to establish the utility of the invention.[138][notes 2]

U.S. patents might still be granted when they are given a different name in order to disassociate it from cold fusion,[139] although this strategy has had little success in the US: the very same claims that need to be patented can identify it with cold fusion, and most of these patents cannot avoid mentioning Fleischmann and Pons' research due to legal constraints, thus alerting the patent reviewer that it is a cold-fusion-related patent.[139] David Voss said in 1999 that some patents that closely resemble cold fusion processes, and that use materials used in cold fusion, have been granted by the USPTO.[140] The inventor of three such patents had his applications initially rejected when they were reviewed by experts in nuclear science; but then he rewrote the patents to focus more in the electrochemical parts so they would be reviewed instead by experts in electrochemistry, who approved them.[140][141] When asked about the resemblance to cold fusion, the patent holder said that it used nuclear processes involving "new nuclear physics" unrelated to cold fusion.[140] Melvin Miles was granted in 2004 a patent for a cold fusion device, and in 2007 he described his efforts to remove all instances of "cold fusion" from the patent description to avoid having it rejected outright.[142]

At least one patent related to cold fusion has been granted by the European Patent Office.[143]

A patent only legally prevents others from using or benefiting from one's invention. However, the general public perceives a patent as a stamp of approval, and a holder of three cold fusion patents said the patents were very valuable and had helped in getting investments.[140]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ E.g.:
    • Miskelly, GM (1989), "Analysis of the Published Calorimetric Evidence for Electrochemical Fusion of Deuterium in Palladium", Science, 246 (4931): 793–796, Bibcode:1989Sci...246..793M, doi:10.1126/science.246.4931.793, PMID 17748706 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    • Aberdam, D (1990), "Limits on neutron emission following deuterium absorption into palladium and titanium", Phys. Rev. Lett., 65 (10): 1196–1199, Bibcode:1990PhRvL..65.1196A, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.1196 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    • Price, PB (1989), "Search for energetic-charged-particle emission from deuterated Ti and Pd foils", Phys. Rev. Lett., 63 (18): 1926, Bibcode:1989PhRvL..63.1926P, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.1926 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    • Roberts, DA (1990), "Energy and flux limits of cold-fusion neutrons using a deuterated liquid scintillator", Phys Rev C, 42 (5): R1809–R1812, Bibcode:1990PhRvC..42.1809R, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.42.R1809 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    • Lewis 1989
  2. ^ Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703, (Fed. Cir. 2000). decision. Sources:

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Simon 2002, pp. 132–133
  2. ^ a b Seife 2008, pp. 154–155
  3. ^ "60 Minutes: Once Considered Junk Science, Cold Fusion Gets A Second Look By Researchers". CBS. 2009-04-17.
  4. ^ Fleischmann & Pons 1989, p. 301 ("It is inconceivable that this [amount of heat] could be due to anything but nuclear processes... We realise that the results reported here raise more questions than they provide answers...")
  5. ^ a b Voss 1999
  6. ^ Browne 1989, para. 1
  7. ^ Browne 1989, Close 1992, Huizenga 1993, Taubes 1993
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i Browne 1989
  9. ^ a b Chang, Kenneth (2004-03-25). "US will give cold fusion a second look". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-02-08.
  10. ^ Voss 1999, Platt 1998, Goodstein 1994, Van Noorden 2007, Beaudette 2002, Feder 2005, Hutchinson 2006, Kruglinksi 2006, Adam 2005
  11. ^ William J. Broad (31 October 1989). "Despite Scorn, Team in Utah Still Seeks Cold-Fusion Clues". The New York Times. pp. C1.
  12. ^ a b Randy 2009
  13. ^ a b "'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source" (Press release). American Chemical Society.
  14. ^ a b Hagelstein et al. 2004
  15. ^ a b c Feder 2005
  16. ^ Choi 2005, Feder 2005, US DOE 2004
  17. ^ a b c d US DOE 1989, p. 7
  18. ^ Paneth and Peters 1926
  19. ^ Kall fusion redan på 1920-talet, Ny Teknik, Kaianders Sempler, 9 February 2011
  20. ^ Laurence 1956
  21. ^ Kowalski 2004, II.A2
  22. ^ a b c Fleischmann & Pons 1989, p. 301
  23. ^ a b c d e f g Fleischmann et al. 1990
  24. ^ a b c d Crease & Samios 1989, p. V1
  25. ^ a b c Lewenstein 1994, p. 8
  26. ^ a b Shamoo 2003, p. 86, Simon 2002, pp. 28–36
  27. ^ For example, in 1989, the Economist editorialized that the cold fusion "affair" was "exactly what science should be about." Footlick, JK (1997), Truth and Consequences: how colleges and universities meet public crises, Phoenix: Oryx Press, p. 51, ISBN 9780897749701 as cited in Brooks, M (2008), 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, New York: Doubleday, p. 67, ISBN 978-1-60751-666-8
  28. ^ Simon 2002, pp. 57–60, Goodstein 1994
  29. ^ a b c Goodstein 1994
  30. ^ Petit 2009, Park 2000, p. 16
  31. ^ Taubes 1993, p. xviii-xx, Park 2000, p. 16
  32. ^ Taubes 1993, p. xx-xxi
  33. ^ a b c Schaffer 1999, p. 1
  34. ^ Broad 1989
  35. ^ Wilford 1989
  36. ^ Broad, William J. 19 April 1989. Stanford Reports Success, The New York Times.
  37. ^ Bowen 1989
  38. ^ CBS Evening News, April 10, 1989
  39. ^ Tate 1989, p. 1 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFTate1989 (help), Platt 1998 Taubes, 1993 & 141,147,167-171
  40. ^ Measurement of gamma-rays from cold fusion
  41. ^ APS Special Session on Cold Fusion, May 1–2, 1989
  42. ^ Gai et al. 1989, pp. 29–34
  43. ^ Williams et al. 1989, pp. 375–384
  44. ^ Joyce 1990
  45. ^ a b c US DOE 1989
  46. ^ Mallove 1991, pp. 246–248
  47. ^ D. L. Rousseau (January–February 1992), "Case Studies in Pathological Science: How the Loss of Objectivity Led to False Conclusions in Studies of Polywater, Infinite Dilution and Cold Fusion", American Scientist, 80: 54–63, Bibcode:1992AmSci..80...54R.
  48. ^ Jagdish Mehra, K. A. Milton, Julian Seymour Schwinger (2000), Oxford University Press (ed.), Climbing the Mountain: The Scientific Biography of Julian Schwinger (illustrated ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, p. 550, ISBN 0198506589{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  49. ^ Taubes 1993, Close 1992, Huizenga 1993, Park 2000
  50. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 3
  51. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 3, Adam 2005 - ("Extraordinary claims . . . demand extraordinary proof")
  52. ^ Schaffer and Morrison 1999, p. 3 ("You mean it's not dead?" – recounting a typical reaction to hearing a cold fusion conference was held recently)
  53. ^ Voss 1999
  54. ^ Andrew J. Pollack (November 17, 1992), Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In Japan, The New York Times
  55. ^ Pollack 1997, p. C4
  56. ^ a b Jayaraman 2008
  57. ^ Mullins 2004
  58. ^ Szpak, Masier-Boss: Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system, Feb 2002
  59. ^ "Cold fusion success in Japan gets warm reception in India", Thaindian News, 2008-05-27
  60. ^ "Swedish Researchers confirm Rossi and Focardi Energy Catalyzer as a Nuclear Process", nextbigfuture.com, 2011-04-06
  61. ^ Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander (3 April 2011). "Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device at the Leonardocorp, Bologna 29 March 2011". Participants in the test: Giuseppe Levi, David Bianchini, Carlo Leonardi, Hanno Essén, Sven Kullander, Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi.
  62. ^ "Italian Scientists claim to have demonstrated cold fusion", Physorg.com, 2011-01-20
  63. ^ Lewan, Mats (February 7, 2011). "Cold Fusion: Here's the Greek company building 1 MW". Ny Teknik.
  64. ^ a b c d e f Simon 2002, pp. 180–183
  65. ^ Simon 2002, pp. 183–187
  66. ^ Bettencourt 2009
  67. ^ a b Labinger 2005
  68. ^ Ackermann 2006 "(p. 11) Both the Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion journal literatures exhibit episodes of epidemic growth and decline."
  69. ^ Simon 2002, p. 108
  70. ^ a b c "Cold fusion debate heats up again", BBC, 2009-03-23
  71. ^ Chubb et al. 2006, Adam 2005 ("[Absolutely not]. Anyone can deliver a paper. We defend the openness of science" - Bob Park of APS, when asked if hosting the meeting showed a softening of scepticism)
  72. ^ a b Van Noorden 2007
  73. ^ Van Noorden 2007, para. 2
  74. ^ a b "New Cold Fusion Evidence Reignites Hot Debate", IEEE Spectrum
  75. ^ a b c d Barras 2009
  76. ^ Scientists in possible cold fusion breakthrough, AFP, retrieved 2009-03-24
  77. ^ a b Berger 2009
  78. ^ a b Wired News Staff Email (24 March 1998), Cold Fusion Patents Run Out of Steam, Wired
  79. ^ Feder 2004, p. 27
  80. ^ Adam 2005 (comment attributed to George Miley of the University of Illinois)
  81. ^ Adam 2005 - ("Advocates insist that there is just too much evidence of unusual effects in the thousands of experiments since Pons and Fleischmann to be ignored")
  82. ^ a b c Weinberger, Sharon (2004-11-21), "Warming Up to Cold Fusion", Washington Post, p. W22 (page 2 in online version)
  83. ^ a b c Brumfiel 2004
  84. ^ a b c d US DOE 2004
  85. ^ Storms 2007, pp. 144–150
  86. ^ US DOE 1989, p. 24
  87. ^ Taubes 1993
  88. ^ Storms 2007, p. 151
  89. ^ Hoffman 1994, pp. 111–112
  90. ^ a b c d e f g Schaffer 1999, p. 2
  91. ^ Hubler 2007
  92. ^ Oriani et al. 1990, pp. 652–662, cited by Storms 2007, p. 61
  93. ^ Bush et al. 1991, cited by Biberian 2007
  94. ^ e.g. Storms 1993[dead link], Hagelstein et al. 2004
  95. ^ Miles et al. 1993
  96. ^ e.g. Arata & Zhang 1998, Hagelstein et al. 2004
  97. ^ Gozzi 1998, cited by Biberian 2007
  98. ^ Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 9
  99. ^ Vern C. Rogers and Gary M. Sandquist Cold fusion reaction products and their measurement, Journal of Fusion Energy Volume 9, Number 4, 483-485, DOI: 10.1007/BF01588284 http://www.springerlink.com/content/k57225273v232p10/
  100. ^ a b Simon 2002, p. 215
  101. ^ Fleischmann 1993
  102. ^ Mengoli 1998
  103. ^ Szpak 2004
  104. ^ Simon 2002, p. 49, Park 2000, pp. 17–18, Close 1992, pp. 306–307
  105. ^ Mosier-Boss et al. 2009
  106. ^ Sampson 2009
  107. ^ Hagelstein 2010
  108. ^ a b Storms 2007
  109. ^ Tate, N. (1989), "MIT bombshell knocks fusion 'breakthrough' cold", Boston Herald, no. May 1, 1989, p. 1, ISSN 0738-5854
  110. ^ a b Derry 2002, pp. 179, 180
  111. ^ a b US DOE 2004
  112. ^ a b Bird 1998, pp. 261–262
  113. ^ Heeter 1999, p. 5
  114. ^ Sinha 2006
  115. ^ Czerski 2008
  116. ^ Hagelstein et al. 2004: 14–15 
  117. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 1, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4 ("It has been said . . . three 'miracles' are necessary")
  118. ^ Schaffer and Morrison 1999, p. 1,3
  119. ^ Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4, Goodstein 1994, Huizenga 1993 page viii "Enhancing the probability of a nuclear reaction by 50 orders of magnitude (...) via the chemical environment of a metallic lattice, contradicted the very foundation of nuclear science."
  120. ^ Czerski 2008
  121. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 1, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4, Goodstein 1994
  122. ^ a b Schaffer 1999, p. 2, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4
  123. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 2, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4 , Goodstein 1994 (explaining Pons and Fleischmann would both be dead if they had produced neutrons in proportion to their measurements of excess heat)
  124. ^ Goodstein 1994, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4
  125. ^ Close 1992, pp. 308–309 "Some radiation would emerge, either electrons ejected from atoms or X-rays as the atoms are disturbed, but none were seen."
  126. ^ Biberian 2007 - (Input power is calculated by multiplying current and voltage, and output power is deduced from the measurement of the temperature of the cell and that of the bath")
  127. ^ Fleischmann 1990, Appendix
  128. ^ Shkedi et al. 1995
  129. ^ Jones et al. 1995, p. 1
  130. ^ a b Shanahan 2002
  131. ^ Biberian 2007 - ("Almost all the heat is dissipated by radiation and follows the temperature fourth power law. The cell is calibrated . . .")
  132. ^ Browne 1989, para. 16
  133. ^ Wilson 1992
  134. ^ Shanahan 2005
  135. ^ Shanahan 2006
  136. ^ Broad, William J. (1989-04-13), 'Cold Fusion' Patents Sought, New York Times
  137. ^ Lewenstein 1994, p. 43
  138. ^ a b c 2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility Rejections (R-5) - 2100 Patentability. II. Wholly inoperative inventions; "incredible" utility, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
  139. ^ a b Simon 2002, pp. 193, 233
  140. ^ a b c d Voss 1999, in reference to US patents 5,616,219, 5,628,886 and 5,672,259
  141. ^ Daniel C. Rislove (2006), "A Case Study of Inoperable Inventions: Why Is the USPTO Patenting Pseudoscience?" (PDF), Wisconsin Law Review, 2006 (4): 1302–1304, footnote 269 in page 1307 {{citation}}: |chapter= ignored (help)
  142. ^ Sanderson 2007, in reference to US patent 6,764,561
  143. ^ Fox 1994 in reference to Canon's EP 568118 

Bibliography

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=429131873"