Cold Fusion Proven True by U.S. Navy Researchers

[chrismb]

Chris,

You presume the reactions in question produce neutrons.

What is preposterous is believing these reactions are anything like what we normally consider to be fusion. Whatever is happening is not at all like happens between deuterium nuclei colliding in a hot plasma.
...
What I rather strongly suspect is that you have not done these experiments yourself. First, you don't believe they are possible, and second, you think they are something other than what they are.

Tom,

I have a very high regard for all of your contributions, which is why I am pained by what you are implying.

You seem, to me, to be suggesting that I am just firing off a critique without a proper analysis, faith-based, so to speak.

I'm actually quite offended by that (in a way that would otherwise be water off a duck's back, were it not someone like you making such a commentary).

My analysis has nothing whatsoever to do with the process involved, but it has everything to do with E=mc^2 and you need to come to understand that this is the basis of my critique.

If two deuterium nucleii can be coaxed together into a helium-4 by whatever method then you will get a ~23MeV excess of energy. It matters not at all whether this is in a hot plasma, or whether this can be done by incantations at midnight with bat's ears between your toes. The process just doesn't matter. Not at all. Not in the slightest.

So what you will end up with is 23MeV to turn into heat, one way or the other. Again, it just doesn't matter what particle mediates that, it will be 'radiation' whatever it is. The only conceivable way that this isn't going to radiate [dangerously, at measurable heat levels] is if that 23MeV is somehow magically carried away by many thousands of lower energy particles. If you are suggesting a 4He fires off with 23MeV, then that *is* radiation and it will induce many follow-on nuclear reactions. I mean, Rutherford was transforming N to O with just pissy little alphas from another decay. Try hammering a 23MeV alpha into something! It has a small range because it gives up its energy so effectively to what it's hitting - not because it is a lesser radioactive hazard but because it is a greater one.

But this is STILL fairy stories - if you observe two deuterium nucleii in "their" inertial frame (viz, the one in which they have the least KE sum) then they will come together and just sit there, stationary, in that inertial frame. They CAN'T shoot off at 23MeV worth of KE, it defeats the laws of momentum conservation. In the real world, that means they have to give up the energy as hv.

So I repeat again, for very specific and damned good objective reasons, that there is no possible way that a claim for measurable heat *from an unguarded nuclear process*, from someone who is still alive, is not bogus.

But I repeat and call your attention to what I wrote - I have no complaint with the experiments and look upon them with interest. It is the claims that are utter rubbish.

Though I will also add this; let us say that there *is* excess heat and that there *is* evidence of some nuclear process at play. What is the presumption then that both are from the same cause? If someone were to come to me and say "hey, most of this heat is some complex chemistry we don't quite understand and, by the way, there are a very small number of nuclear reactions as well", well, maybe I could listen to that. But I absolutely stand by what I say, and I say it for objective reasons, there is no way an unguarded nuclear process of D+D->4He can be observed to generate heat by anyone alive. To say otherwise is as daft as saying the Sun burns coal. It is not at all a "faith based" observation, and I am very riled that you'd suggest it may be so. If you think I am wrong then just say "I think your objective analysis is wrong": THAT I can handle!

But to say my analysis is driven by some in-built anti-quack faith-based belief thing??... Of all people to say that to! You're throwing eggs at the wrong guy there.

[MSimon]

chris,

Just suppose I can coax two Ds to make one He at 23 MeV in the center of a 8 oz (what is that in metric?) cup of water. Say a minimum travel distance of 1.5 cm to air.

Just how far do you think it will travel before collisions reduce it to 1 eV?

Radiation wise what do you expect? 10% into ~1MeV gammas? 1%? etc.

No gammas (or X-Rays) just heat.

Now a days I know your hand waving has some thought behind it so how about a fuller expression rather than just dismissing the idea out of hand?

Suppose the fusion is coupled to the metal lattice.

Under what circumstance could that 23MeV be absorbed without copious radiation production?

I say it for objective reasons,

Care to give them or is it an official secret.

[chrismb]

chris,

Just suppose I can coax two Ds to make one He at 23 MeV in the center of a 8 oz (what is that in metric?) cup of water.

Just tell me, first of all, if an He flies off with 23MeV then into what (and by what mediation) is the equal-and-opposite momentum transferred?

[That is one of the objective reasons - already given.]

[Tom Ligon]

Simon ... about 250 mL. It is printed on the other side of the measuring cup.

Chris, sorry to seem offensive, but you were showing a highly dismissive attitude. I don't have a personal stake in CF, but the treatment Miley has gotten just for being willing to check it out offends me.

I think this calculates what I am talking about, but it will take me a while to learn how to use it.

I actually studied beta stopping power at one point, and this should be similar but probably faster.

This tool expects particle kinetic energy in MeV. I have not worked out why the "range" results are in g/cm^2, as I would expect meters or cm.

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Sta ... tents.html

I expect an alpha or other heavy charged particle produced in water to go smashing thru surrounding molecules shedding some energy per collision. I expect the alpha to lose all its kinetic energy after a very large number of collisions but very close to its source, probably some millimeters at the outside. If this process occurred in, say, a living cell I would expect the cell to be reduced to a dead and leaking mess of post-biotic goo. Which is why alpha emitters are so very bad to ingest. But on the scale of a liter container of water I would expect heat, and possibly a detectable flash of light.

A beta may travel a bit further, and will tend to lose energy very fast near the end of its path.

Neutrons, being neutral, don't interact as vigorously, but they do bounce around and moderate. The container of water needs to be larger and it really helps to include a neutron poison such as boron 10.

If gamma rays are emitted, those would be a problem, because they won't interact much with the water and will exit the container at high energy. If the high energy particle causes bremsstrahlung or something analogous during this bull-in-a-china-shop routine, x-ray emissions would be similarly hard to shield. Emissions of UV in an aqueous solution won't go far, and in any case we can handle modest UV exposure, and it is trivial to devise a shield for it.

[chrismb]

A powerful (that is to say, of order W) alpha emitter, like polonium 210, for example, dumps such a relatively huge concentration of ionising energy locally that, were cold fusion to do this, I cannot believe it wouldn't glow like a candle. I'm sure it would be obvious.

I cannot say what the actual range of energies of whatever may emanate from such an alpha-emitting setup, and will happily concede a pure alpha source could conceivably be safely confined in a small amount of water, but you'd not get me anywhere near something glowing like I think that would!! Just the very idea that there is that much nuclear activity going on that these experimenters do not appear to attend to their experiments with any dosimeters or counters - it just smacks of fakery if they're not really *expecting* and safely monitoring radiation.

[chrismb]

Chris, sorry to seem offensive, but you were showing a highly dismissive attitude. I don't have a personal stake in CF, but the treatment Miley has gotten just for being willing to check it out offends me.

Please note that I am dismissive to [any] unsupportable claims. I see no reason to add an objective well-argued rationale to a rejection when it is of something that itself is bereft of objective well-argued rationales, (though I did add such a rationale anyway).

To the experiments - I am not at all dismissive and await results with interest. If I was in a position to test, I would try it out aswell I am sure - but I wouldn't claim 'nuclear reactions' just because I get heat. I would *expect* significant radiation. Anyone should, who really thinks there may be nuclear reactions going on. It is simply a precautionary principle. It *should be* expected and if they really thought there were nuclear reactions going on and they understood what they were claiming, then the set-up would be in a remote well-shielded room.

[Tom Ligon]

Chris,

I don't hang around CF labs myself. I'm told they typically do have radiation monitors around and that they typically don't see much on either GM or neutron counters. I would think at least some electrode metals would tend to produce gammas.

The hazard they reportedly encounter is occasionally one of these cells runs away and they get a steam explosion. Consequently they typically cage them and don't come too close.

[chrismb]

Chris,

I don't hang around CF labs myself. I'm told they typically do have radiation monitors around and that they typically don't see much on either GM or neutron counters. I would think at least some electrode metals would tend to produce gammas.

The hazard they reportedly encounter is occasionally one of these cells runs away and they get a steam explosion. Consequently they typically cage them and don't come too close.

But the point isn't what they *have* or have not measured. If they don't know how it is happening then they *should* anticipate, just by precautionary assessment, that the kit might suddenly jump into a higher degree of operation and then irradiate them. If any nuclear mechanisms are going on, then they should really know not to be anywhere near it. I just don't accept they are 'skilled' researchers if they are both claiming nuclear reaction and aren't far far away from the apparatus itself.

[Tom Ligon]

Chris,

I've walked on and stood beside operating fission reactors. I'm sure Simon has as well. I've seen the WB-7 setup and evidently Dr. Park tended to be fairly close to it. He used shielding but it was as much to protect against exploding capacitors as neutrons.

The photos and lab descriptions of serious LENR labs I've seen described all do treat the things with at least the degree of caution EMC2 is showing. Some of the garage experimenters probably don't, but should. Many of the earlier experimenters acted as if they were running bench top chemistry experiments.

Some people are not comfortable in a lab at all. Dr. Krall could not be persuaded to enter our lab, but stayed in his office. Theories are much safer than experiments.

[Tom Ligon]

In 1965 I visited the New York World's Fair. I distinctly recall a fission exhibit, but I'm not finding it easily. They had what was supposed to be a operating core down in an open-topped swimming pool moderator, and the public actually walked over the bloody thing with it running. The water glowed a pretty blue. If real, Cherenkov radiation. Or maybe blue lights. I was about 12 at the time, old enough to be more than a little amazed that they would let the public so near a nuke. The power was probably not much.

GE supposedly had a working fusion demonstration. I don't recall seeing that one.

http://www.nywf64.com/genele08.shtml

At Virginia Tech, they had (probably still do) an American Standard reactor (only about 4 built). The core in it when I was there was capable of about 10 kW, but they typically ran it at 10 W. I was a little antsy around it, as well, but I'd signed up to study Health Physics, so I bravely took whatever survey instrument they assigned me and marched in there to take measurements. Evidently I survived. Shielding no doubt helped.

[chrismb]

Chris,

I've walked on and stood beside operating fission reactors. I'm sure Simon has as well.

I don't understand what your point is. You seem to be heading for non-sequitur arguments.

If the operation of a device is KNOWN and is duly and suitably shielded according to what is KNOWN, then I don't see an issue with that. I'd happily stand over a few metres of water shielding from a fission core.

If you're standing to something which you don't understand how it works and might, as far as you know, instantaneously nothch up or down a few orders of magnitude (how would you know if it can't) then I'd say you were a fool, and certainly no bona-fide scientist expecting some nuclear reactions.

Sorry, your anecdotes are cute, but irrelevant to this topic.

I've seen the WB-7 setup and evidently Dr. Park tended to be fairly close to it. He used shielding but it was as much to protect against exploding capacitors as neutrons.

I would have no fear of radiation there.... You've lost me, what would be the radiation risk?

[Tom Ligon]

Chris,

My point is, once people get a little experience with what they perceive is a dangerous technology, and find the danger is managable, they relax.

EMC2 was hoping for a dangerous dose of neutrons. If they knew exactly what the thing was going to do, they would not have been doing experiments.

If they've scaled up to WB8, maybe they got them. WB-7 was a DD machine, and the early work on WB8 would be as well.

I did some back of envelope calculations on WB6, and if the numbers are right it may have hit a large fraction of a milliwatt for a fraction of a millisecond. Sustained, that calls for shielding.

A 20 kV supply can produce x-rays if it arcs, so part of the EMC2 shielding was certainly against that relatively mundane possibiltiy.

And mostly, big capacitors at high voltage can go off like a hand grenade.

[Tom Ligon]

If I may address an experimental concern regarding heat measurements from LENR reactions, I'd personally be highly skeptical of any heat measurements taken in some glass vessel operating on a bench top, looking like a high-school science project. That would be a pretty good description of some of the early work thrown together in the excitement after the PF announcement.

My objection is that I know what it takes to do proper calorimetry. A styrofoam cup and a thermometer is not a calorimeter, and a lot of the early work was excreable. I was starting to wonder if anyone doing these studies had any experience in the subject.

I have now had the chance to look over some papers describing experimental setups. and have seen some that utilize proper calorimeters. You don't just wrap the cell in insulation, you enclose it in an outer "guard" shell which is actively controlled to match the temperature of the internal device being measured. The combination of insulation with zero temperature differential avoids unmeasured thermal leaks. A side-benefit is the cell is somewhat protected, and the lab protected from it. The downside is a piece of apparatus that is not especially pretty. So if you have been looking at pictures of CF apparatus made of shining glass operating open on a bench, you've probably seen a dog and pony show, not the real workaday apparatus.

As I have pointed out, the reports I have seen regarding the labs that have been getting what are said to be fairly high heat output do treat their equipment with caution. They look for radiation. But like the exploding capacitors, the larger hazard is apparently the occasional cell explosion. So the researchers with half a brain may pose next to the setup, but they stay away from it when doing serious experiments.

[MSimon]

This tool expects particle kinetic energy in MeV. I have not worked out why the "range" results are in g/cm^2, as I would expect meters or cm.

Compton. Which is to say density. Then you can know for air, water or lead without having to specify.

[BenTC]

From a layman's perspective, the followign seems like a balanced report.
http://research.missouri.edu/vcr_semina ... spawar.ppt