4 ms·

This was seen ages ago. > In 1989, two electrochemists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, reported that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat ("excess

by drran 5y ago

This was seen ages ago. > In 1989, two electrochemists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, reported that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium. The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode. The reported results received wide media attention and raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

pfdietz 5y ago
Um, no. P&F saw nothing but their own experimental artifacts. Replication of their claims failed. Their setup was also different from this NASA one, with no gamma radiation shining on the palladium (and also palladium, not titanium or erbium as used by NASA.)
- drran 5y ago
  Most of the replications failed, except some. My theory is that nuclear reaction in hydrogen loaded palladium is initiated by cosmic gamma rays or cosmic muons, thus those laboratories which were open to cosmic rays, such as at top floors or in mountain areas, are able to reproduce results, while shielded labs are unable. I planned to set up a similar experiment and bombard a hydrogen loaded target with muons, or move the experiment to the top of a Carpathian mountain, but the institute of nuclear research in Kharkiv, Ukraine is under attack, so it's not possible. The idea of using ErD3 instead of Nickel or Palladium is very good, because it saves weeks of time to load the target with Deuterium.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Look, P&F's putative results cannot be the same thing as what these NASA guys are claiming. The NASA people are claiming ordinary DD fusion reactions are occurring, just at an enhanced rate. P&F's putative heat excess would have killed P&F from neutron radiation if it had been the ordinary DD reactions. Physicists knew P&F's nonsense was garbage because it required multiple miracles (that fusion would occur, that the ordinary fusion reactions would not, that some weird non-standard fusion reaction would occur instead.) Far, far more likely was they just were bumblers. And when replication failed (and it did fail; other vaguely similar but different sporadic results are not "replication") that prior was validated.

by drran 5y ago

pfdietz 5y ago

Um, no. P&F saw nothing but their own experimental artifacts. Replication of their claims failed. Their setup was also different from this NASA one, with no gamma radiation shining on the palladium (and also palladium, not titanium or erbium as used by NASA.)

drran 5y ago
Most of the replications failed, except some. My theory is that nuclear reaction in hydrogen loaded palladium is initiated by cosmic gamma rays or cosmic muons, thus those laboratories which were open to cosmic rays, such as at top floors or in mountain areas, are able to reproduce results, while shielded labs are unable. I planned to set up a similar experiment and bombard a hydrogen loaded target with muons, or move the experiment to the top of a Carpathian mountain, but the institute of nuclear research in Kharkiv, Ukraine is under attack, so it's not possible. The idea of using ErD3 instead of Nickel or Palladium is very good, because it saves weeks of time to load the target with Deuterium.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Look, P&F's putative results cannot be the same thing as what these NASA guys are claiming. The NASA people are claiming ordinary DD fusion reactions are occurring, just at an enhanced rate. P&F's putative heat excess would have killed P&F from neutron radiation if it had been the ordinary DD reactions. Physicists knew P&F's nonsense was garbage because it required multiple miracles (that fusion would occur, that the ordinary fusion reactions would not, that some weird non-standard fusion reaction would occur instead.) Far, far more likely was they just were bumblers. And when replication failed (and it did fail; other vaguely similar but different sporadic results are not "replication") that prior was validated.