World Library  
My Account |  Register |  Help  
  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Cold fusion

Article Id: WHEBN0000007463
Reproduction Date:

Title: Cold fusion  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 74, Pathological science, Voodoo Science, Energy Catalyzer, Nuclear fusion
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Cold fusion

%E2%80%93Phillips_process" id="whe_lnki_182" title="Oppenheimer–Phillips process">Oppenheimer–Phillips process at low energies, but its magnitude was too small to explain the altered ratios.[157]

Setup of experiments

Cold fusion setups utilize an input power source (to ostensibly provide activation energy), a platinum group electrode, a deuterium or hydrogen source, a calorimeter, and, at times, detectors to look for byproducts such as helium or neutrons. Critics have variously taken issue with each of these aspects and further assert that there has not yet been a consistent reproduction of claimed cold fusion results in either energy output or byproducts. Some cold fusion researchers who claim that they can consistently measure an excess heat effect have argued that the apparent lack of reproducibility might be attributable to a lack of quality control in the electrode metal or the amount of hydrogen or deuterium loaded in the system. Skeptics have further criticized what they describe as mistakes or errors of interpretation that cold fusion researchers have made in certain calorimetry analyses and energy budgets.

Reproducibility

In 1989, after Fleischmann and Pons had made their claims, many research groups tried to reproduce the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, without success. A few other research groups however reported successful reproductions of cold fusion during this time. In July 1989 an Indian group of BARC (P. K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan) and in October 1989 a team from USA (Bockris et al.) reported on creation of tritium. In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat.[158][notes 4]

Groups that did report successes found that some of their cells were producing the effect where other cells that were built exactly the same and used the same materials were not producing the effect.[159] Researchers that continued to work on the topic have claimed that over the years many successful replications have been made, but still have problems getting reliable replications.[160] Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and its lack led most physicists to believe that the few positive reports could be attributed to experimental error.[159][text 12] The DOE 2004 report said among its conclusions and recommendations:

"Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. (...) Internal inconsistencies and lack of predictability and reproducibility remain serious concerns. (...) The Panel recommends that the cold fusion research efforts in the area of heat production focus primarily on confirming or disproving reports of excess heat."[88]

As David Goodstein explains,[31] proponents say that the positive results with excess heat and neutron emission are enough to prove that the phenomenon was real, that negative results didn't count because they could be caused by flaws in the setup, and that you can't prove an idea false by simply having a negative replication. This is a reversal of Karl Popper's falsifiability, which says that you can't prove ideas true, never mind how many times your experiment is successful, and that a single negative experiment can prove your idea wrong.[31] Most scientists follow Popper's idea of falsifiability and discarded cold fusion as soon as they weren't able to replicate the effect in their own laboratory. Goodstein notes that he was impressed by a "particularly elegant, well designed experiment" and warns that by ignoring such results "science is not functioning normally." [31]

Loading ratio
Michael McKubre working on deuterium gas-based cold fusion cell used by SRI International.

Cold fusion researchers (McKubre since 1994,[160] ENEA in 2011[86]) have posited that a cell that was loaded with a deuterium/palladium ratio lower than 100% (or 1:1) would never produce excess heat.[160] Storms added in 1996 that the load ratio has to be maintained during many hours of electrolysis before the effects appear.[160] Since most of the negative replications in 1989–1990 didn't report their ratios, this has been proposed as an explanation for failed replications.[160] This loading ratio is tricky to obtain, and some batches of palladium never reach it because the pressure causes cracks in the palladium, allowing the deuterium to escape.[160] Unfortunately, Fleischmann and Pons never disclosed the deuterium/palladium ratio achieved in their cells,[161] there are no longer any batches of the palladium used by Fleischmann and Pons (because the supplier uses now a different manufacturing process),[160] and researchers still have problems finding batches of palladium that achieve heat production reliably.[160]

Misinterpretation of data

Some research groups initially reported that they had replicated the Fleischmann and Pons results but later retracted their reports and offered an alternative explanation for their original positive results. A group at Texas A&M discovered bad wiring in their thermometers.[162] These retractions, combined with negative results from some famous laboratories,[6] led most scientists to conclude, as early as 1989, that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion.[162][163]

Calorimetry errors

The calculation of excess heat in electrochemical cells involves certain assumptions.[164] 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.[25] This assumption gives the amount of energy expended converting liquid D2O into gaseous D2 and O2.[165] The efficiency of electrolysis is 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.[166][167][168]

Another assumption is that heat loss from the calorimeter maintains the same relationship with measured temperature as found when calibrating the calorimeter.[25] 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.[169] This can happen, for example, if fluid circulation within the cell becomes significantly altered.[170][171] Recombination of hydrogen and oxygen within the calorimeter would also alter the heat distribution and invalidate the calibration.[168][172][173]

According to John R. Huizenga, who co-chaired the DOE 1989 panel, if unexplained excess heat is not accompanied by a commensurate amount of nuclear products, then it must not be interpreted as nuclear in origin, but as a measuring error.[174]

Initial lack of control experiments

Control experiments are part of the scientific method to prove that the measured effects do not happen by chance, but are direct results of the experiment. One of the points of criticism of Fleischmann and Pons was the lack of control experiments.[31]

Patents

Although details have not surfaced, it appears that the University of Utah forced the 23 March 1989 Fleischmann and Pons announcement to establish priority over the discovery and its patents before the joint publication with Jones.[28] 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.[175] 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,[176] and on March 1998 it said that it would no longer defend its patents.[72]

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion.[85] 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.[85] Patent applications are required to show that the invention is "useful", and this utility is dependent on the invention's ability to function.[177] 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",[177] 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.[177][notes 5]

A U.S. patent might still be granted when given a different name to disassociate it from cold fusion,[178] though this strategy has had little success in the US: the 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.[178] 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.[179] 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.[179][180] 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.[179] 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.[181]

At least one patent related to cold fusion has been granted by the European Patent Office.[182]

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.[179]

Cultural references

In Undead Science, sociologist Bart Simon gives some examples of cold fusion in popular culture, saying that some scientists use cold fusion as a synonym for outrageous claims made with no supporting proof,[183] and courses of ethics in science give it as an example of pathological science.[183] It has appeared as a joke in Murphy Brown and The Simpsons.[183] It was adopted as a product name by software Coldfusion and a brand of protein bars (Cold Fusion Foods).[183] It has also appeared in advertising as a synonym for impossible science, for example a 1995 advertisement for Pepsi Max.[183]

The plot of The Saint, a 1997 action-adventure film, parallels the story of Fleischmann and Pons, although with a different ending.[183] The film might have affected the public perception of cold fusion, pushing it further into the science fiction realm.[183]

"Final Exam", the 16th episode of season 4 of The Outer Limits, depicts a student named Todtman who has invented a cold fusion weapon, and attempts to use it as a tool for revenge on people who have wronged him over the years. Despite the secret being lost with his death at the end of the episode, it is implied that another student elsewhere is on a similar track, and may well repeat Todtman's efforts.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. 228–229, 255 "(...) there are indeed chemical differences between heavy and light water, especially once lithium is added, as it was in the Pons-Fleischmann electrolyte. This had been in the scientific literature since 1958. It seems that the electrical conductivity of heavy water with lithium is considerably less than that of light water with lithium. And this difference is more than enough to account for the heavy water cell running hotter (...) (quoting a member of the A&M group) 'they're making the same mistake we did'"
  2. ^ E.g.:
  3. ^ Sixth criterion of Langmuir: "During the course of the controversy the ratio of supporters to critics rises to near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion. (Langmuir, 1989, pp. 43–44)", quoted in Simon p. 104, paraphrased in Ball p. 308. It has also been applied to the number of published results, in Huizenga 1993, pp. xi, 207–209 "The ratio of the worldwide positive results on cold fusion to negative results peaked at approximately 50% (...) qualitatively in agreement with Langmuir's sixth criteria."
  4. ^ In January 26, 1990, journal Nature rejected Oriani's paper, citing the lack of nuclear ash and the general difficulty that others had in replication.Beaudette 2002, p. 183 It was later published in Fusion Technology.Oriani et al. 1990, pp. 652–662
  5. ^ Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703, (Fed. Cir. 2000). decision. Sources:
    • "2164.07 Relationship of Enablement Requirement to Utility Requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 – 2100 Patentability. B. Burden on the Examiner. Examiner Has Initial Burden To Show That One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Reasonably Doubt the Asserted Utility", U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, in reference to 35 U.S.C. § 101
    • Alan L. Durham (2004), "Patent law essentials: a concise guide" (2, illustrated ed.),  
    • Jeffrey G. Sheldon (1992), "How to write a patent application" (illustrated ed.),  

References

  1. ^ "60 Minutes: Once Considered Junk Science, Cold Fusion Gets A Second Look By Researchers",  
  2. ^ 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...")
  3. ^ a b c Voss 1999
  4. ^ Browne 1989, para. 1
  5. ^ Browne 1989, Close 1992, Huizenga 1993, Taubes 1993
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i Browne 1989
  7. ^ a b Taubes 1993, pp. 262, 265–266, 269–270, 273, 285, 289, 293, 313, 326, 340–344, 364, 366, 404–406, Goodstein 1994, Van Noorden 2007, Kean 2010
  8. ^ a b Chang, Kenneth (2004-03-25), "US will give cold fusion a second look", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-02-08. 
  9. ^ Ouellette, Jennifer (2011-12-23), "Could Starships Use Cold Fusion Propulsion?", Discovery News. 
  10. ^ US DOE 2004, Choi 2005, Feder 2005
  11. ^ a b Daley 2004
  12. ^ a b c Broad 1989b, Goodstein 1994, Platt 1998, Voss 1999, Beaudette 2002, Feder 2005, 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", Kruglinksi 2006, Van Noorden 2007, Alfred 2009. [11] calculates between 100 and 200 researchers, with damage to the their careers.
  13. ^ a b Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source"'",  
  14. ^ a b Hagelstein et al. 2004
  15. ^ Goodstein 1994,Labinger & Weininger 2005, p. 1919
  16. ^ a b c d e f US DOE 1989, p. 7
  17. ^ Paneth & Peters 1926
  18. ^ Kall fusion redan på 1920-talet, Ny Teknik, Kaianders Sempler, 9 February 2011
  19. ^ a b Pool 1989, Wilner 1989, Close 1992, pp. 19–21 Huizenga 1993, pp. 13–14, 271, Taubes 1993, p. 214
  20. ^ Huizenga 1993, pp. 13–14
  21. ^ Laurence 1956
  22. ^ a b Kowalski 2004, II.A2
  23. ^ C. DeW. Van Siclen and S. E. Jones, "Piezonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen molecules," J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 12: 213-221 (March 1986).
  24. ^ a b c Fleischmann & Pons 1989, p. 301
  25. ^ a b c d e f g Fleischmann et al. 1990
  26. ^ a b c d Crease & Samios 1989, p. V1
  27. ^ a b c d Lewenstein 1994, pp. 8–9
  28. ^ a b Shamoo & Resnik 2003, p. 86, Simon 2002, pp. 28–36
  29. ^ a b University of Utah, Simple experiment' results in sustained n-fusion at room temperature for first time"'", retrieved 28 July 2011. 
  30. ^ 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,  
  31. ^ a b c d e f g Goodstein 1994
  32. ^ Simon 2002, pp. 57–60, Goodstein 1994
  33. ^ Petit 2009, Park 2000, p. 16
  34. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. xviii–xx, Park 2000, p. 16
  35. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. xx–xxi
  36. ^ Beaudette 2002, pp. 183, 313
  37. ^ Interview by Heidi Aspaturian (13 & 26 June 1989). "Interview with Charles A. Barnes on cold fusion". The Caltech Institute Archives. Retrieved 22 August 2014. 
  38. ^ a b c d e Schaffer 1999, p. 2
  39. ^ a b Broad 1989a
  40. ^ Broad 1989a, Wilford 1989
  41. ^ Broad, William J. 19 April 1989. Stanford Reports Success, The New York Times.
  42. ^ Close 1992, pp. 184, Huizenga 1993, p. 56
  43. ^ Browne 1989, Taubes 1993, pp. 253–255, 339–340, 250
  44. ^ Bowen 1989, Crease & Samios 1989
  45. ^ Tate 1989, p. 1, Platt 1998, Close 1992, pp. 277–288, 362–363, Taubes 1993, pp. 141, 147, 167–171, 243–248, 271–272, 288, Huizenga 1993, pp. 63, 138–139
  46. ^ "Measurement of gamma-rays from cold fusion (letter by Fleischmann et al. and reply by Petrasso et al.)", Nature 339, 29 June 1989,  
  47. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. 310–314, Close 1992, pp. 286–287, Huizenga 1993, pp. 63, 138–139
  48. ^ Taubes 1993, p. 242 (Boston Herald's is Tate 1989).
  49. ^ Taubes 1993, p. 266
  50. ^ APS Special Session on Cold Fusion, May 1–2, 1989
  51. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. 267–268
  52. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. 275, 326
  53. ^ Gai et al. 1989, pp. 29–34
  54. ^ Williams et al. 1989, pp. 375–384
  55. ^ Joyce 1990
  56. ^ US DOE 1989, p. 39
  57. ^ US DOE 1989, p. 36
  58. ^ US DOE 1989, p. 37
  59. ^ Huizenga 1993, p. 165
  60. ^ Mallove 1991, pp. 246–248
  61. ^ Rousseau 1992.
  62. ^ Broad, William J. (30 October 1990). "Cold Fusion Still Escapes Usual Checks Of Science". New York Times. Retrieved 27 November 2013. 
  63. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. 410–411, Close 1992, pp. 270, 322, Huizenga 1993, pp. 118–119, 121–122
  64. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. 410–411, 412, 420, the Science article was Taubes 1990, Huizenga 1993, pp. 122, 127–128.
  65. ^ Huizenga 1993, pp. 122–123
  66. ^ "National Cold Fusion Institute Records, 1988–1991". 
  67. ^ a b c Taubes 1993, p. 424
  68. ^ Huizenga 1993, p. 184
  69. ^ a b Taubes 1993, pp. 136–138
  70. ^ Close 1992, Taubes 1993, Huizenga 1993, and Park 2000
  71. ^ Mallove 1991, Beaudette 2002, Simon 2002, Kozima 2006, Storms 2007
  72. ^ a b Wired News Staff Email (24 March 1998), "Cold Fusion Patents Run Out of Steam",  
  73. ^ a b c d Mullins 2004
  74. ^ a b c d Simon 2002, pp. 131–133, 218
  75. ^ a b Seife 2008, pp. 154–155
  76. ^ Simon 2002, pp. 131, citing Collins & Pinch 1993, p. 77 in first edition
  77. ^ a b c Storms 2007
  78. ^ a b c "Cold fusion debate heats up again",  
  79. ^ Feder 2004, p. 27
  80. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. 292, 352, 358, Goodstein 1994, Adam 2005 (comment attributed to George Miley of the University of Illinois)
  81. ^ Huizenga 1993, pp. 210–211 citing Srinivisan, M., "Nuclear Fusion in an Atomic Lattice: An Update on the International Status of Cold Fusion Research", Current Science 60: 471. 
  82. ^ a b Mosier-Boss et al. 2009, Sampson 2009
  83. ^ O system2Szpak, Masier-Boss: Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D, Feb 2002. Reported by Mullins 2004
  84. ^ a b c d Brumfiel 2004
  85. ^ a b c Weinberger, Sharon (2004-11-21), "Warming Up to Cold Fusion",   (page 2 in online version)
  86. ^ a b c d "Effetto Fleischmann e Pons: il punto della situazione", Energia Ambiente e Innovazione (in Italian) (ENEA) (3), May–June 2011. 
  87. ^ a b c d e Feder 2005
  88. ^ a b c US DOE 2004
  89. ^ a b Janese Silvey, "Billionaire helps fund MU energy research", Columbia Daily Tribune, 10-Feb-2012
  90. ^ University of Missouri-Columbia "$5.5 million gift aids search for alternative energy. Gift given by Sidney Kimmel Foundation, created by founder of the Jones Group", 10-Feb-2012, (press release) alternative link
  91. ^ "Sidney Kimmel Foundation awards $5.5 million to MU scientists" Allison Pohle, Missourian, 10-Feb-2012
  92. ^ Christian Basi, Hubler Named Director of Nuclear Renaissance Institute at MU, (press release) Missouri University News Bureau, March 8, 2013
  93. ^ Professor revisits fusion work from two decades ago Columbia Daily Tribune, October 28, 2012
  94. ^ Mark A. Prelas, Eric Lukosi. Neutron Emission from Cryogenically Cooled Metals Under Thermal Shock (self published)
  95. ^  
  96. ^ a b COLD FUSION – The history of research in Italy (2009) PDF 8.7Mb In the foreword by the president of ENEA the belief is expressed that the cold fusion phenomenon is proved.
  97. ^ a b Pollack 1992, Pollack 1997, p. C4
  98. ^ Japan C-F Research Society site
  99. ^ Japan CF research society meeting Dec 2011
  100. ^ Kitamura et al. 2009
  101. ^ Storms 2010, pp. 8–9
  102. ^ a b Jayaraman 2008
  103. ^ "Our dream is a small fusion power generator in each house", Times of India, 4 February 2011. 
  104. ^ Simon 2002, pp. 180–183, 209
  105. ^ Jagdish Mehra, K. A. Milton, Julian Seymour Schwinger (2000),  , Also Close 1992, pp. 197–198
  106. ^ a b Simon 2002, pp. 180–183, 209
  107. ^ a b c d Simon 2002, pp. 180–183
  108. ^ Huizenga 1993, pp. 208
  109. ^ Bettencourt 2009
  110. ^ Simon 2002, pp. 183–187
  111. ^ Park 2000, pp. 12–13
  112. ^ Goodstein 1994, the first three conferences are commented in detail in Huizenga 1993, pp. 237–247, 274–285, specially 240, 275–277
  113. ^ Huizenga 1993, pp. 276, Park 2000, pp. 12–13, Simon 2002, p. 108
  114. ^ ISCMNS founding
  115. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. 378, 427 anomalous effects in deuterated metals, which was the new, preferred, politically palatable nom de science for cold fusion [back in October 1989]."
  116. ^ http://www.iscmns.org/iccf14/ProcICCF14b.pdf
  117. ^ 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)
  118. ^ a b Van Noorden 2007
  119. ^ Van Noorden 2007, para. 2
  120. ^ a b Mark Anderson (March 2009), "New Cold Fusion Evidence Reignites Hot Debate",  
  121. ^ a b c Barras 2009
  122. ^ "Scientists in possible cold fusion breakthrough",  
  123. ^ a b Berger 2009
  124. ^ Storms 2007, pp. 144–150
  125. ^ US DOE 1989, p. 29, Taubes 1993
  126. ^ Storms 2007, p. 151, Hoffman 1995, pp. 111–112
  127. ^ US DOE 2004, p. 3
  128. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. 256–259
  129. ^ Huizenga 1993, pp. x, 22–40, 70–72, 75–78, 97, 222–223, Close 1992, pp. 211–214, 230–232, 254–271, Taubes 1993, pp. 264–266, 270–271 Choi 2005
  130. ^ Fleischmann & Pons 1993
  131. ^ Mengoli et al. 1998, Szpak et al. 2004
  132. ^ Simon 2002, p. 49, Park 2000, pp. 17–18, Huizenga 1993, pp. 7, Close 1992, pp. 306–307
  133. ^ US DOE 2004, pp. 3, 4, 5
  134. ^ Hagelstein 2010
  135. ^ a b US DOE 2004, pp. 3,4
  136. ^ Rogers & Sandquist 1990
  137. ^ a b Simon 2002, p. 215
  138. ^ Simon 2002, pp. 150–153, 162
  139. ^ Simon 2002, pp. 153, 214–216
  140. ^ a b US DOE 1989, pp. 7–8, 33, 53–58 (appendix 4.A), Close 1992, pp. 257–258, Huizenga 1993, p. 112, Taubes 1993, pp. 253–254 quoting  
  141. ^ Hagelstein et al. 2004, pp. 14–15
  142. ^ Tate, N. (1989), "MIT bombshell knocks fusion 'breakthrough' cold", Boston Herald (May 1, 1989): 1,  
  143. ^ US DOE 2004, Derry 2002, pp. 179, 180, Simon 2002, p. 153
  144. ^ Close 1992, pp. 257–258, 308–309, Huizenga 1993, pp. xi, 203, 207–209, 217–218, 268–270 citing Langmuir's criteria of pathological science "(5) Criticism are met by ad hoc excuses thought up in the spur of the moment." in page 203, Ball 2001, pp. 308, 329, Simon 2002, pp. 79, 104–105
  145. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 1, Saeta 1999, (pages 3-5; "Assessment"; Morrison, Douglas R.O.)
  146. ^ Huizenga 1993, p. 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.", Goodstein 1994, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4
  147. ^ Close 1992, pp. 32, 54, Huizenga 1993, p. 112
  148. ^ a b c d Close 1992, pp. 19–20
  149. ^ Close 1992, pp. 63–64
  150. ^ Close 1992, pp. 64–66
  151. ^ Close 1992, pp. 32–33
  152. ^ Huizenga 1993, pp. 33, 47
  153. ^ Huizenga 1993, pp. 7
  154. ^ Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4, Goodstein 1994, Huizenga 1993, pp. 207–208, 218
  155. ^ 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."
  156. ^ a b Close 1992, pp. 268, Huizenga 1993, pp. 112–113
  157. ^ Huizenga 1993, pp. 75–76, 113
  158. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. 364–365
  159. ^ a b Platt 1998
  160. ^ a b c d e f g h Simon 2002, pp. 145–148
  161. ^ Huizenga 1993, p. 82
  162. ^ a b Bird 1998, pp. 261–262
  163. ^ Saeta 1999, (pages 5-6; "Response"; Heeter, Robert F.)
  164. ^ 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")
  165. ^ Fleischmann et al. 1990, Appendix
  166. ^ Shkedi et al. 1995
  167. ^ Jones et al. 1995, p. 1
  168. ^ a b Shanahan 2002
  169. ^ Biberian 2007 – ("Almost all the heat is dissipated by radiation and follows the temperature fourth power law. The cell is calibrated . . .")
  170. ^ Browne 1989, para. 16
  171. ^ Wilson et al. 1992
  172. ^ Shanahan 2005
  173. ^ Shanahan 2006
  174. ^ Huizenga 1993, p. 285-287
  175. ^ Broad, William J. (1989-04-13), Cold Fusion' Patents Sought"'", New York Times. 
  176. ^ Lewenstein 1994, p. 43
  177. ^ a b c "2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility Rejections (R-5) – 2100 Patentability. II. Wholly inoperative inventions; "incredible" utility",   Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
  178. ^ a b Simon 2002, pp. 193, 233
  179. ^ a b c d Voss 1999b, in reference to US patents US 5,616,219 , US 5,628,886  and US 5,672,259 
  180. ^ Daniel C. Rislove (2006), "A Case Study of Inoperable Inventions: Why Is the USPTO Patenting Pseudoscience?", Wisconsin Law Review 2006 (4): 1302–1304, footnote 269 in page 1307. 
  181. ^ Sanderson 2007, in reference to US patent US 6,764,561 
  182. ^ Fox 1994 in reference to Canon's EP 568118 
  183. ^ a b c d e f g Simon 2002, pp. 91–95, 116–118
References with quotations or other additional text
  1. ^ Taubes 1993, p. 214 says the similarity was discovered on April 13, 1991, by a computer scientist and disseminated via the Internet. Another computer scientist translated an old article in the Swedish technical journal Ny Teknika. Taubes says: "Ny Teknika seemed to believe that Tanderg had missed on the discovery of the century, done in by an ignorant patent bureau. When Pons heard the story, he agreed."
  2. ^ Brigham Young University discovered Tandberg's 1927 patent application, and showed it as proof that Utah University didn't have priority for the discovery of cold fusion, cited in Wilford, John Noble (24 April 1989), "Fusion Furor: Science's Human Face", New York Times. 
  3. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. 225–226, 229–231 "[p. 225] Like those of MIT or harvard or Caltech, and official Stanford University announcement is not something to be taken lightly. (...) [p. 230] With the news out of Stanford, the situation, as one Department of Energy official put it, 'had come to a head'. The department had had its laboratory administrators send emissaries to Washington immediately. (...) the secretary of energy, had made the pursuit of cold fusion the department's highest priority (...) The government laboratories had free reign [sic] to pursue their cold fusion research, Ianniello said, to use whatever resources they needed, and DOE would cover the expenses. (...) [p. 231] While Huggins may have appeared to be the savior of cold fusion, his results also made him, and Stanford, a prime competitor [of MIT] for patents and rights.", Close 1992, pp. 184, 250 "[p. 184] The only support for Fleischmann and Pons [at the 26 April US congress hearings] came from Robert Huggins (...) [p. 250] The British Embassy in Washington rushed news of the proceedings to the Cabinet Office and Department of Energy in London. (...) noting that Huggin's heat measurements lent some support but that he had not checked for radiation, and also emphasizing that none of the US government laboratories had yet managed to replicate the effect.", Huizenga 1993, p. 56 "Of the above speakers (in the US Congress hearings) only Huggins supported the Fleischmann-Pons claim of excess heat."
  4. ^ Taubes 1993, pp. 418–420 "While it is not possible for us to categorically exclude spiking as a possibility, it is our opinion, that possibility is much less probable than that of inadvertent contamination or other explained factors in the measurements.", Huizenga 1993, pp. 128–129
  5. ^ "Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion", Physorg.com, 2008-05-27. . The peer reviewed papers referenced at the end of the article are "The Establishment of Solid Nuclear Fusion Reactor" – Journal of High Temperature Society, Vol. 34 (2008), No. 2, pp.85–93 and "Atomic Structure Analysis of Pd Nano-Cluster in Nano-Composite Pd⁄ZrO2 Absorbing Deuterium" – Journal of High Temperature Society, Vol. 33 (2007), No. 3, pp.142–156
  6. ^ Labinger & Weininger 2005, p. 1919 Fleischmann's paper was challenged in Morrison, R.O. Douglas (28 February 1994). "Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil". Phys. Lett. A 185 (5–6): 498–502.  
  7. ^ Ackermann 2006 "(p. 11) Both the Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion journal literatures exhibit episodes of epidemic growth and decline."
  8. ^ Close 1992, pp. 254–255, 329 "[paraphrasing Morrison] The usual cycle in such cases, he notes, is that interest suddenly erupts (...) The phenomenon then separates the scientists in two camps, believers and skeptics. Interest dies as only a small band of believers is able to 'produce the phenomenon' (...) even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the original practitioners may continue to believe in it for the rest of the careers.", Ball 2001, p. 308, Simon 2002, pp. 104, Bettencourt 2009
  9. ^ a b c d e US DOE 1989, p. 29, Schaffer 1999, pp. 1, 2, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4, Close 1992, pp. 265–268 "(...) the equality of the two channels is known to be preserved from high energy through 20 keV and down to about 5 keV. A reason that it is not as well known below this energy because the individual rates are so low. However, the rate is known at room temperature from muon catalysed fusion experiments. (...) theory can even accommodate the subtle variations in the ratio at these low temperatures [below 200 °C, where the first channel predominates due to 'molecular resonance excitation']", Huizenga 1993, pp. 6–7, 35–36, 75, 108–109, 112–114, 118–125, 130, 139, 173, 183, 217–218, 243–245 "[page 7] [the first two branches of the reaction] have been studied over a range of deuteron kinetic energies down to a few kiloelectron volts (keV). (...) [branching ratio] appear to be essentially constant at low energies. There is no reason to think that these branching ratios would be measurably altered for cold fusion. [page 108] The near equality of [the first two reaction branches] has been verified also for muon-catalyzed fusion. [in this case the ratio is 1.4 in favor of the first branch, due to 'the p-wave character of muon capture in muon-catalyzed fusion.']", Goodstein 1994 (explaining Pons and Fleischmann would both be dead if they had produced neutrons in proportion to their measurements of excess heat) ("It has been said . . . three 'miracles' are necessary [for D + D fusion to behave in a way consistent with the reported results of cold fusion experiments]")
  10. ^ Close 1992, pp. 257–258, Huizenga 1993, pp. 33, 47–48, 79, 99–100, 207, 216 "By comparing cathode charging of deuterium into palladium with gas charging for a D7Pd ratio of unity, one obtains an equivalent pressure of 1.5x104 atmospheres, a value more than 20 orders of magnitude (1020) less than the Fleischmann-Pons claimed pressure.", Huizenga also cites US DOE 2004, pp. 33–34 in chapter IV. Materials Characterization: D. 'Relevant' Materials Parameters: 2. Confinement Pressure, which has a similar explanation.
  11. ^ Huizenga 1993, pp. 6–7, 35–36 "[page 7] This well established experimental result is consistent with the Bohr model, which predicts that the compound nucleus decays predominantly by particle emission [first two branches], as opposed to radioactive capture [third branch], whenever it is energetically possible."
  12. ^ Reger, Goode & Ball 2009, pp. 814–815 "After several years and multiple experiments by numerous investigators, most of the scientific community now considers the original claims unsupported by the evidence. [from image caption] Virtually every experiment that tried to replicate their claims failed. Electrochemical cold fusion is widely considered to be discredited."

Bibliography

External links

  • Cold fusion at DMOZ
  • International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (iscmns.org), organizes the ICCF conferences and publishes the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. See: library.htm of published papers and proceedings.
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.