Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[Horatius]

Peer reviewed journals would expect the details of the device to be exposed and the inventor obviously does not want to do that.

Yes, except he's already applied for patents on these devices, and exposing all the details of the device is an absolute requirement to get a patent. For him to now turn around and complain that he doesn't want to tell us the details is a bit contradictory, don't you think?

As to others who are quick to condemn, wait for the data. Be skeptical but not dismissive as, at present, you have bases for the former but no bases for the latter. This will work itself out over the next year or so and all will learn something about science and human nature. Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan.

The problem with this whole, "He's an engineer, not a scientist! Wait for the data!" shtick is that, as shown in my post from page 1 (reproduced below), he's already explicitly said he hasn't looked for any of the data that we need to tell if he's really getting nuclear reactions or not. You don't need to be a "scientist" to stick a Geiger counter on your lab bench and report the results. Failing to do even this bare minimum of data collection is a huge red flag for those of us who've followed previous such claims.

If he hasn't done even this much yet, why should we assume he'll ever do it? Will he suddenly stop being "just an engineer" in six months or a year? If he'll do it eventually, why the wait?

His description does discuss his theory that the energy is generated by fusion (and he also mentions fission, at one point, that's pretty weird!), but one quirk of patent law is that an inventor cannot be denied a patent just because their theory of how it works is incorrect, so long as the device actually works. He even covers his butt a bit on this front:

The exothermal reaction thereon Applicant's invention is based differs from those adopted by prior searchers since the inventor has not tried to demonstrate an emission of elementary particles supporting a validity of a theory, but he has exclusively tried to provide an amount of energy larger than the consumed energy amount, to just achieve a practical method and apparatus for generating an energy amount larger than the consumed energy, and this by exploiting nuclear energy generating processes starting from electrochemical energy. Thus, the inventive apparatus has been specifically designed for producing the above mentioned energy in a reliable, easily controllable, safe, repeatable manner, for any desired applications.

...essentially saying, "I haven't even tried to prove it's fusion, I just want it to work!"

 

[ben m]

The problem with this whole, "He's an engineer, not a scientist! Wait for the data!" shtick is that, as shown in my post from page 1 (reproduced below), he's already explicitly said he hasn't looked for any of the data that we need to tell if he's really getting nuclear reactions or not. You don't need to be a "scientist" to stick a Geiger counter on your lab bench and report the results. Failing to do even this bare minimum of data collection is a huge red flag for those of us who've followed previous such claims.

What's that? Engineers don't deal with data?

"Mr. Aerospace Engineer, my plane's wings fell off when I hit Mach 2. Was that due to the Mach cone from the nose, or aeroelastic flutter, or something new? It would be easy to tell if we had strain gauges in the wings. If we knew we could prevent it from happening again."

"Dammit, Jim, I'm an engineer, not a scientist."

 

[Horatius]

What's that? Engineers don't deal with data?

"Mr. Aerospace Engineer, my plane's wings fell off when I hit Mach 2. Was that due to the Mach cone from the nose, or aeroelastic flutter, or something new? It would be easy to tell if we had strain gauges in the wings. If we knew we could prevent it from happening again."

"Dammit, Jim, I'm an engineer, not a scientist."

Well, that seems to be what pteridine would have us believe.

 

[BenBurch]

Tinkerers sometimes chance on important things they do not fully comprehend.

Lee De Forest and the Audion tube, for example.

But it's really rare since the mid-20th century.

 

[Mr.D]

Tinkerers sometimes chance on important things they do not fully comprehend.

Lee De Forest and the Audion tube, for example.

But it's really rare since the mid-20th century.

And there's nobody here that denies that really.

But here's the kicker; Can anyone think of any discovery/invention by a hobbyist/tinkerer based on a demonstratively failed experiment?

Point being: even if there is some anomalous nuclear process going on inside hydrogen loaded metals, Pons and Fleishmann did not discover it. Their neutron measurements were flawed at best, they never could reliably reproduce excess heat, they claimed the process did not happen without heavy water etc etc.

IF there's something to this, appealing to P&F is at best a non-sequiter and the researchers are much better off avoiding the phrase "cold fusion" and actually coming up with a viable theory of the mechanism before trying to score investment monies.

 

[Hindmost]

Again, hindmost, this is incorrect. p + 62Ni -> 63Cu (for example) IS an exothermic, energy-releasing reaction. And a good thing too---if it weren't, 63Cu would be unstable to proton emission.

The strict meaning of "62Ni is at the top of the binding energy curve" is that there is no possible reaction 62Ni + 62Ni --> (any other combination of 56 p and 68 n) which is exothermic.

Stellar fusion stops at iron for a variety of reasons; "p + Ni is not a net positive energy reaction" is not one of them. The main reason is that there's not much p left in hot stars; the only common light nucleus available for reactions is 4He. So you end up looking at alpha-capture reactions on already-proton-rich nuclei, and it turns out that these reactions indeed stop being energy-producing after 56Ni.

Again, the reason cold fusion doesn't work is the kinetics (the reaction rate is basically zero at anything below supernova temperatures), not this aspect of the energy budget.

I know that a P, gamma reaction has a positive Q...I ran the calc...but that is not related to the point I am trying to make about the overall process here. If you calculate the Q for any P, gamma reaction with anything, it will always have a positive Q. The threshold energy has to be in the MeV range.

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/qcalc/

However, the probability of this reaction is almost close to zero. The likely events are P, n or P, 2n or P, P--which will always have negative Q values due BE/n in this range. If we take a million events, and one is exothermic and the other 999999 are endothermic, then it is obviously useless as an energy source...and that is my point.

glenn

 

[Tubbythin]

I know that a P, gamma reaction has a positive Q...I ran the calc...but that is not related to the point I am trying to make about the overall process here. If you calculate the Q for any P, gamma reaction with anything, it will always have a positive Q.

No it won't. The Q-values become negative for very neutron-deficient nuclei.

The threshold energy has to be in the MeV range.

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/qcalc/

However, the probability of this reaction is almost close to zero. The likely events are P, n or P, 2n or P, P--which will always have negative Q values due BE/n in this range. If we take a million events, and one is exothermic and the other 999999 are endothermic, then it is obviously useless as an energy source...and that is my point.

glenn

I'm not sure what you're trying to calculate here.

 

[Hindmost]

The fact that you know of no invention that "appears like magic " hardly affects this situation. If we start with the Fleischmann-Pons experiments, this has been "appearing" for 20 years whether you believe it or not. There is nothing in the physics that you understand that would make this reaction viable. Nothing in Newtonian physics would explain the photoelectric effect, either.

I mentioned that I coudn't think of an example of an invention in the past 50 years that seemed like magic because you brought up the topic without providing any examples. I still can't think of any. Hitting nickel with a proton is not magic.

Pons/Fleischmann experiments have never been repeated...ever...after 20 years and no workable theory, it is obvious why the scientific community has ridiculed cold fusion.

Einstein's Nobel prize explained the photoelectric effect quite well and started the world on a path to new knowledge.

Peer reviewed journals would expect the details of the device to be exposed and the inventor obviously does not want to do that. What "peers" would review it? Those that say it can't happen because they have never seen it before? Rossi is an engineer and his pathway is to build working units. For him, that is by far the best way to show that he has something and he doesn't need anyone peering into his invention. The mechanisms of the reaction will be determined after there is an effect to study. If this is real, lithium deuteride pellets and Shiva lasers will not be needed. Prayers to Shiva for a "break even" can remain unanswered and Shiva can be disarmed.

This is an argument from silence. Full details are not necessary to show evidence of a principle. There has to be a workable theory and this reaction just goes against everything science has determined in the past century. If one is going to overturn physics...put up something that can be verified.

If this is real, we would be working on it before the ITER.

As to your example, you discuss stars. In your research, have you ever noticed that the conditions in stars are different than in the Rossi device? Is it possible, in your opinion, that in stars, there are grain boundaries in the nickel you believe must be present? Certainly, your star nickel will be a neutral atom in a metallic lattice, won't it? I find it interesting that many would extrapolate and expect the same mechanisms and products under such different conditions.
Your last line merely displays your complete ignorance about the Naval Research Lab. You might want to read a bit before you make such statements.

I don't do research, but I read a bit.

I should have left the star thing out...it just seemed to be an easy point to make...But the center of big stars are not fully understood. However, the remanants of supernova explosions have iron/nickel core type stuff that is flung around the cosmos. If this reaction was probable, I would expect some copper laden asteriods. There are people on this site that could correct me on this.

As to others who are quick to condemn, wait for the data. Be skeptical but not dismissive as, at present, you have bases for the former but no bases for the latter. This will work itself out over the next year or so and all will learn something about science and human nature. Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan.

They are quick to condem because it lacks evidence. The people on this forum, the scientific community and myself would really like this to be true....a source of energy that would be easily distributed and plentiful would great. But the evidence has to rise to a much better level and have a workable theory.

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

No it won't. The Q-values become negative for very neutron-deficient nuclei.

Ok..sorry about that--just meant in general...

I'm not sure what you're trying to calculate here.

Nothing really...I was just trying to make the point that the probability of nickel capturing a proton is really small and other reaction we likely more probable...and therefore this would not be and energy source. I don't know what the cross sections are, but I assume they are really small.

glenn

 

[Horatius]

Tinkerers sometimes chance on important things they do not fully comprehend.

This is true. What is also true is that "tinkerers" who claim to have hit on a fabulous new source of clean energy almost always, for some strange reason, seem to be irrationally resistant to doing the extremely simple experiments and measurements that might actually show that they have something real.


Seriously - what legitimate reason can you think of for someone claiming to have discovered some new nuclear reaction to have not measured the type, and intensity, of radiation produced, or to have done some before-and-after mass spec analysis of their materials to show without a doubt that there are new elements or isotopes being created?

 

[Cuddles]

As to others who are quick to condemn, wait for the data.

Yeah, that's not how it works. The claim has been made, so the data should have already been provided. The fact that we are expected to wait for the data is precisely the reason for condemning the claim in the first place.

 

[BenBurch]

This is true. What is also true is that "tinkerers" who claim to have hit on a fabulous new source of clean energy almost always, for some strange reason, seem to be irrationally resistant to doing the extremely simple experiments and measurements that might actually show that they have something real.


Seriously - what legitimate reason can you think of for someone claiming to have discovered some new nuclear reaction to have not measured the type, and intensity, of radiation produced, or to have done some before-and-after mass spec analysis of their materials to show without a doubt that there are new elements or isotopes being created?

Some people lack the technical ability to measure those things, but could still build something on this scale.

No, I don't think this person has anything at all, but I am open to the idea that some day some person will build something, for example a homebrew polywell device or similar, that will work, and that this person might not be the best one to really measure and explain it.

 

[Horatius]

Some people lack the technical ability to measure those things, but could still build something on this scale.

No, I don't think this person has anything at all, but I am open to the idea that some day some person will build something, for example a homebrew polywell device or similar, that will work, and that this person might not be the best one to really measure and explain it.

But even then, the guys who don't have the technical skills never go to the people who do, and ask for help. And even if such help is offered, they find excuses to refuse it.

Around here, a couple of years back, we had a guy who got in the papers claiming to have done something with his electric motors that allowed them to produce free energy. He had offers of free lab use, and lab assistants, from the engineering department at one of our local universities, and he still found an excuse to avoid doing any of the tests that people suggested he do in order to determine what was really going on.

There are enough technically minded people out there with labs and boredom that someone who really thought they had something could find the help they need to do the tests they need. There's just no excuse for avoiding it.

 

[pteridine]

Yeah, that's not how it works. The claim has been made, so the data should have already been provided. The fact that we are expected to wait for the data is precisely the reason for condemning the claim in the first place.

You already have as much data as you'll get for a while. No radiation measured during or after operation. 12 kW output with much less than 12kW input. Temperature rise from <20 C to steam at 102 C. Reports are published.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You already have as much data as you'll get for a while.

Since that data does not establish the truth of their claims (and every physicist who has looked at it seems to agree that the numbers simply don't work for the nuclear reactions they are claiming to cause) then it's highly likely they are scammers.

If they aren't scammers we'll get more data later, but that is highly unlikely to say the least. Odds are, we'll never see the data you imply might exist.

Needless to say you'd have to be a huge idiot to invest a penny in these guys' device.

 

[Cuddles]

You already have as much data as you'll get for a while.

And as I say, that is exactly the problem.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You already have as much data as you'll get for a while. No radiation measured during or after operation. 12 kW output with much less than 12kW input. Temperature rise from <20 C to steam at 102 C. Reports are published.

We don't have any Data, we have an anecdote.

 

[BenBurch]

We don't have any Data, we have an anecdote.

And now for something completely different;

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/The Fusion Fission Hybrid Thorium Fuel Cycle Alternative.pdf

 

[pteridine]

We don't have any Data, we have an anecdote.

If you were given input and output temperatures and flow rates would you consider that data or would it also be anecdotal unless you measured everything yourself?

Do you consider all hot fusion data anecdotal, also, or do the hot fusion researchers have a level of credibility with you?

Rossi owns his company and is not seeking investors, he is looking for customers for his technology.

 

[ben m]

If you were given input and output temperatures and flow rates would you consider that data or would it also be anecdotal unless you measured everything yourself?

That'd be a big improvement. Input/output temperatures and flow rates; model numbers on the measuring devices (calibration sheets would be nice too); and oscilloscope traces (NOT just a "power meter reading") relevant the "12kW input" claim.

Do you consider all hot fusion data anecdotal, also, or do the hot fusion researchers have a level of credibility with you?

Hot fusion researchers have a huge level of credibility. There are large numbers of people with access to the raw data, and their not-perfectly-raw data is published extensively---a "hot fusion" paper does not take the form of a press-conference saying "look, 12kW". It takes the form of a huge pile of graphs, diagnostics, etc.

And they're making ordinary claims; which demand ordinary evidence.