Skip to main content

Cold fusion is impossible, so why do serious scientists continue to study it? There are the typical psych answers, but they don't cut it. Clearly there is a real reaction these scientists are studying. Just as clearly, it's not nuclear. The problem is how to explain this to the public. If they tell the truth, that it's real but it's not fusion, almost nobody will believe them. It'd sound like a typical coverup line.

I looked at the LENR website, and it's hard to believe physics researchers can be that crazy. And I don't believe it -- The craziness is just an act. Since everyone would call them crazy anyway, they might as well be crazy with style.

Now that NASA has endorsed cold fusion, the question is imminent what they're actually selling us. Perhaps it's something you might never have expected ... air filtration.

The more precisely the experiments are done, the fewer results they show. To many that's a sign that the results are spurious. But there's another explanation -- Something about the lack of precision is causing the anomalous heat, specifically a failure to isolate the experiment from the air. So the way to reproduce the heat result is to leave the experiment open to the air, the dustier the better. However, this is so unlike any reasonable definition of an experimental setup that they don't even bother trying to explain. It's easier to pretend not to know any better.

The clue was probably helium. Originally, it was thought the helium came from fusion of hydrogen. However, there's something else important about helium; it's chemically inert.

Atoms and molecules from the air get trapped between the fibers of the terminals. Some of them combine chemically (ONLY chemically) to fit into the small spaces, and this releases heat. As the accretion builds up, atoms that can't combine, such as helium, get pushed to the surface and drift into the water.

The reason NASA is interested in this has nothing to do with "cheap energy" -- that's just a story to soothe the public. The real goal is to get the accretion to accumulate steadily by attracting impurities out of the air. Besides the obvious health improvement, it will be a cheap and efficient way to keep their lab rooms tidy for whatever it is they tinker with in there.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  ? (4+ / 0-)

    "The President is trying to make it tough on members of Congress. It's just sick." -- John Boehner (R-WATB)

    by OldSoldier99 on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 10:45:52 AM PDT

  •  Hmm... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, onanthebarbarian

    ...a way to get helium out of the air?

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 10:50:07 AM PDT

  •  There's a hole in the bucket . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, wilderness voice

    Bucket

    Singing the song?

    •  I'll believe it when I see it. n/t (4+ / 0-)

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:17:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Legit tech, but.... (4+ / 0-)

      not the fastest, and they are a long ways from building an initial test reactor, let alone proof of concept at a commercial scale. Private Money, so Dr Lerner has to do a lot of PR. Which these guys below wont and dont do.

      EMC2 (polywell) and Tri Alpha are funded by the Navy and further long. Polywell is modifying its 3rd reactor, and hopefully will switch from deuterium fuel to the proton Boron 11 fuel soon. Proof of P-B11 fusion in a device that small would make some ripples thru out the fusion community.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:47:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Polywell (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mookins, Calamity Jean

        doesn't scale. It's no better than accelerator-driven fusion.

        •  And you know this from what? (0+ / 0-)

          Wb-8 is twice the size of Wb-7, and is claimed to scale.

          .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 04:45:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I know this (0+ / 0-)

            from studying the physics. The regime it operates in is heavily dominated by background, ion-neutral reactions instead of ion-ion reactions that are predicted to scale with the square of the current (or higher according to 'magic' multiple-well predictions).

            Instead, the ions react with the background gas in nothing more than beam-target interactions, same as shooting a beam of accelerated ions at a target.

            It just doesn't scale up to a reactor from an energy balance perspective.

            If you have access, this work lays it out pretty well:

            Fusion Reactivity Characterization of a Spherically Convergent Ion Focus, T.A. Thorson, R.D. Durst, R.J. Fonck, A.C. Sontag, Nuclear Fusion, Vol. 38, No. 4. p. 495, April 1998

            Let's put it this way, the basic physics behind the Polywell is simple. The technology behind the Polywell is simple. If the Polywell was a feasible reactor concept, you would see net energy producing versions already.

            •  Thorsons paper is about wire grid fusors..... (0+ / 0-)

              From D Tibbets

              Again I'm not sure why you assume there are alot of neutrals present in a Polywell. It is a given that neutrals above ~10^19 neutrals per cubic meter ( ~ 1 micron) will shut down the machine due to arcing. That taken with the target of ~ 10^22 ions per cubic meter needed for net power production mandates that there has to be a thousand ions per neutral within the machine. I believe this means that there would be 1 million ion- ion collisions per ion neutral collision. If these ion to neutral proportions cannot be maintained the whole system is a failure from the start and presumably the physicists involved (including the reviewers) would abandon the effort. I believe Bussard's work has shown this gradient (~100-1000) is possible, and Nebel's work has confirmed it ( internal densities vs external densities). This is a presumptive argument about neutrals not contributing significantly to the fusion output in the Polywell. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to directy measure this in the current low output machines, though I again assume that the review panel was satisfied that it was not a show stoper due to my above arguments, other arguments, or actual measurements.

              One reference by Univ. Wisconsin used in another thread that did some measurements of localized neutron production in a gridded fusor showed ~10% coming from the core. This means the rest was outside the grid and was probably dominated by ion- neutral collisions, but looking at it another way: 10% of the fusions were occurring in the small core volume (assume 10 cc) and 90% was occurring in the volume outside the grid ( assume 200 cc). This means that fusions per unit area was dominate in the core. While these could still be in part ion- neutral collisions I argue that the nature of the experiment suggests otherwise. In the experiment the detector saw either the core area, the grid area or a modest area outside the core (not the entire fusor volume). In the D-D fusion experiments the rate was higher in the core than in the volume around the grids, or immediately outside the grid. If the increased fusion rate was due only to the ions reaching their maximal velocity at or near the grid, then striking a neutral I would expect the counts from the unmasked tests would dominate (maximum rate and observed volume - again remember that this observed volume included the core, grid and near grid volumes. Also, the detector was seeing increasing reaction volumes as you moved out from the center. Once inside the grid the ions would be coasting or decelerating due to virtual anode formation so the fusion rate from ion- neutrals should be lower due to smaller volume and same or decreased ion velocities.

              I believe there are two ways to look at this.
              There were significant ion- ion fusion collisions in this area due to convergence (increased density) combined with increased collision speeds (head on ion- ion collisions ~ twice as fast as ion - neutral collisions with resultant larger fusion crossections).
              Or, the increased rates were only due to the convergence of ions effectively increasing the total energetic collisions weather ion- ion or ion - neutrals. The D-He3 tests also showed probable ion- target collisions presumably from He3 embedded in the grid, but this was not seen (as much) in the D-D tests. And ion-beam collisions are is irrelivant with a virtual cathode.
              The convoluted conclusions are that even in this non ion injected gridded glow discharge fusor in which there would have been a dominance of neutrals to intercept the ions and impede their confluence and direct collisions, there was evidence of significant core convergence and possibly significantly increasing core ion- ion fusion collisions. In a hand waving way, I claim that this supports my belief that ion- neutral collisions as a contribution to the fusion rate quickly becomes insignificant as the ratio of neutrals/ions drops, both because of probabilities of collisions and the magnifying (increasing only the effective ion density in the core region, while the neutrals density is not effected) benefits of any ion convergence .

              In a clean fusor that is pumped down to a good vacuum and then filled with ions from an ion gun , any residual neutrals should be in a minority, perhaps by a factor of several hundred (eg: pump down to ~0.1 micron, the turn on the ion guns on and operate at ~10 microns). Any neutrals added would be from recombinations (a two way street), out gassing (that is why I stipulated a 'clean' fusor) or neutrals knocked off the walls or grid. Unless these were neutral deuterons that had been loaded/ embedded in the metal, these sputtered ions and neutrals would not be contributing to any fusion, but be poisoning the system.

              Your claim that Bussard was ignorant of neutrals contributions to the system, while convenient for your position, is not supported by facts. Bussard has discussed neutrals in several contexts in the papers which I have read.

              .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 08:53:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This is standard scaling, no? (0+ / 0-)
              the scaling of power with size goes as the seventh power of the machine radius, while the gain scales as the fifth power
              It applies to Tokamaks and IEC devices.
              “A generalized scaling law for the ignition energy of inertial confinement fusion capsules.”  M. C. Herrmann, M. Tabak, and J. D. Lindl, Nuclear Fusion 41, 99 (2001).

              Cheng, Baolian. “Thermonuclear Ignition Criterion and Scaling Laws for ICF Capsules.”  Invited Talk. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore California. Mar. 2013. Lecture.

              BTW Thorson got his PHD at U of Wis under Kulsinkski. Thorsons fusor severly underperformed Bussards fusor by a hundred fold. Kusinkskis recent work using ion injectors designed by Andrew Seltzman has confirmed Hirsch and Bussards work, not Thorsons.

              Bussard, Robert W. "The Advent of Clean Nuclear Fusion: Superperformance Space Power and Propulsion." 57th International Astronautical Congress (2006).

              And even Thorsons work showed Fusors work in 3 separate modes.

              .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 09:09:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course they 'work' (0+ / 0-)

                in the sense of producing fusion reactions. Thorson showed how, with the power losses, they will never be able to scale to net power producing facilities.

                You never answered my question though. Since the physics and technology behind the fusor and polywell are so simple, where are the working, power-producing reactors? Do you honestly think that, if the technlogy and physics 'worked' that some bored millionaire, a power company, wouldn't have had their engineers put one together over a weekend?

                All we get are future promises and hidden work. Stories about classified research, and a dearth of peer-reviewed articles.

                Seltzman described an active grid cooling system to improve IEC performance, yet didn't explain how this could possibly work in a reactor, and the pressures he operated at were in the same regime as Thorson, thus still subject to the issue with background reactions.

                Also, one of the issues rarely addressed is the impact of the transverse velocity imparting a finite angular momentum to the ions, necessarily causing the central point to 'defocus' and smearing out any potential well structures.

                Listen, I understand the attraction of the fusor and related devices. They are simple to understand, simple to construct, and relatively inexpensive. They produce real neutrons and nifty pictures with a tantalizing promise of clean energy.

                But this is also their weakness, to some extent. They are so simple that to not have a working reactor, decades after the idea was formed, kinda tells you that there is some fundamental difficulty that physics doesn't let you overcome.

                •  Why, you do know the the Navy has a publishing (0+ / 0-)

                  embargo on EMC2........

                  So you are asking me to speculate.

                  Okay, Wb-8 is twice the size of Wb-7. They didnt pay for a 3 meter P-b11 polywell, they paid for a 60cm Wb-8, but Wb-8 running D-D did scale according to statements from DR Park.

                  SO how does Thorsons fusor paper apply to a polywell?

                  .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                  by Roger Fox on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 11:09:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The base pressure (0+ / 0-)

                    operating regimes studied by Thorson are in the same range as what little there has been published by the polywell experiments. Therefore, the ion-neutral collisions and charge exchange losses would be comparable between the fusor and the polywell.

                    This is even before you start considering the extremely short electron confinement time due to the losses from the cusp fields and the enormous amount of power needed to maintain your electron population.

                    Yes, I realize there is a publication embargo, one might ask why this research is being funded by the Navy instead of the Department of Energy. Short answer, you can make high energy neutrons which have various uses, but you won't make energy.

                    It's easy to make whatever claims you might want if you're not publishing your results. This should, in and of itself, generate skepticism.

      •  Wish I'd read your comment before I posted above (0+ / 0-)

        it-  anyway thanks for the feedback, you guys haz being the smart cookies!

    •  interesting (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mookins

      but in the very early phase, remains to be demonstrated.  Been around since 1964.No funding since 2001. Need $2MM funding for next step.  Wish they would get it.

  •  smoking much? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, wilderness voice
  •  Um the day after 4-20? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

    by dopper0189 on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:21:37 AM PDT

  •  E-cat = snake oil (0+ / 0-)

    .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:49:19 AM PDT

  •  This diary is best read on helium. (5+ / 0-)

    Nitrogen and Helium walk into a bar.  Bartender says, "We don't take kindly to noble gasses here."  
    Helium doesn't react.

  •  Sigh. (4+ / 0-)

    LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) is not cold fusion.  What it is, at this time, is an attempt to wrap a coherent theory around a whole bunch of anomalous results. Like heat and other energy produced at times and places where current theory doesn't account for it.

    Anomalous results are the interesting part of science, imho, and one of the general areas that tend to produce real advances, usually after a lot of stumbling and thrashing around trying out a variety of theses.

    If you're interested, check out this article for what I think is a balanced take on the current work.

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 01:58:47 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the link. (0+ / 0-)

      I have an open mind, and I'm willing to accept that LENR is real, provided that it's explained on any reputable website that isn't part of the LENR culture. I don't care whether it's pro-or-anti money, pro-or-anti church, pro-or-anti America, or anything, except it must be independent.

      Bushnell doesn't sound like he's fooling anyone. If he said there was evidence for LENR, I'd accept the possibility. The problem is when he mentioned exploding labs and broken windows. This appears to be something he added as sarcasm. It doesn't mean LENR is wrong, but it means that Bushnell, who I assume is an expert in these matters, has shown his own personal opinion that it's wrong.

      Another clue is his use of the phrase "heavy electron". I haven't seen that phrase in decades. Every modern text I've read calls it a muon. Bushnell gives no indication of how the muons are produced, probably because the people he interviewed for the article didn't tell him. His use of the obsolete name suggests that he doubts muons could be produced and collected in such a significant amount. Again, I defer to his expertise.

      •  You don't have to accept that LENR is 'real' - (0+ / 0-)

        all it is at this point is a theory with maybe a little better grounding than cold fusion had.

        The point is not so much what reactions are happening, at least for now, as that there is a bunch of strange stuff that happened, that's never been adequately accounted for by current accepted theory.  It may turn out to have been, in fact, a series of lab accidents that can be explained within current theory. It may be something else. The fact that it's being funded suggests that there's evidence it might not all have been lab accidents. If it wasn't, then things could get interesting.

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 12:16:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Lithium Fusion BFission (0+ / 0-)

    one Isotope of Lithium7 when hit with Hydrogen/Deuterium will fuse into Beryllium that splits into two Alpha(Helium)particles releasing energy and the other isotope of Lithium6 when it captures a Neutron will also an this is what some think happens in the Cold Fusion solutions but I would like to see the other way looked into where a stream of H or D is used,I got an idea of how it might be made first start with a H/D Accelerator it doesn't need to be big it'll fit inside a small room it fires down a tube with a vacuum into a well it would look like a TV Picture Tube setting on it's face it would be designed to use the heat and the Alpha Particles to make Electricity now on the inside at the bottom is sheet/pool of Lithium and as the energized H/D Protons goes into the TV-tube-like Chamber they are made to scan across the Lithium just like the Electron Beam in a TV Set is done that's to increase the surface area and increase the chance of reactions and there is a Vacuum Pump system that keeps a high Vacuum inside the Chamber as it removes the Hydrogen/Deuterium and hopefully lots of Helium.Also I thought that one of the Plasma Fusion Experiment Projects could replace the H/D and try primarily mostly Plasma Lithium mixed with enough Plasma Deuterium to react into Alpha Particles or somethings like that.And if they don't work well that's why stuff is built and tested to see for sure that it does or doesn't work and for sure the Lithium Fusion Fission does work http://en.wikipedia.org/... I don't really know much about Nuclear Reactions like a Scientist would but it seems that to make usable amounts of energy the problem isn't the Lithium Fission reaction it's making enough reactions to produce the necessary amount of energy that can then be used  that why I thought of the Scanning Proton Beam in the TV-Tube-Like Design and the Suggestion to the Plasma Fusion Programs if someone in those programs should read this .

    •  Ignor the "B" I was going to rewrite the line to (0+ / 0-)

      "Lithium Fusion Beryllium Fission" but just as I started to I got afraid the whole comment was about to disappear cause my gets funny sometimes and will jump back to a previous page thus wiping out what I was writing so I hit Post before that might have happened an so "Bfission" resulted.

    •  Li6 is more powerful than many fusion fuels (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      defluxion10

      Robert Bussard envisioned many fusion powered space ships. His work on Li6 suggested a 10 year round trip to 550 AU, to drop off a telescope that uses our sun as a grav lens.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 04:50:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site