6 ms·
New theory may explain the notorious cold fusion experiment from two decades ago
- at-fates-hands 14y agoI remember my Physics teacher discounting this straight away and wouldn't let us talk about it at all. He simply replied, "They will be shown as frauds and quietly retire, never to be heard from again." It stuck with me and I was glad to see someone revisiting the idea again.
- tokenadult 14y agoFrom the submitted article: "Zawodny has designed a stamp-size array of metal tiles to test the theory. According to Larsen’s paper, the properties of some of the tiles should make it easier for electrons and protons to merge and form neutrons. If Zawodny observes evidence of neutron production, then he plans to do a follow-up experiment to see if those neutrons are fueling radioactive decay. Even if he gets the expected results, though, it would take several years and many corroborating experiments before LENRs could be considered confirmed." . . . . "So far, Larsen still has only a theory and some circumstantial evidence." In other words, the operative word in the subtitle of the submitted article (used as the submission headline here) is "may." There doesn't seem to be any strong evidence yet that the process described in the article actually produces net energy output. P.S. I heartily approve of (and have upvoted) the first comment this comment received, pointing out that there isn't even evidence that the speculated process described in the article even exists.
- uvdiv 14y agoThere doesn't seem to any strong evidence yet that the process described in the article actually produces net energy output. Massive overstatement. They don't have evidence the process exists in any form.
- deanotron 14y agoI'm sorry, but that's just not true. There have been 1000+ replications / reports of excess energy from this very same "anomalous energy effect" - the hard part is the how and why. See the very same Joseph Zawodny speak of "It has the demonstrated ability to produce excess amounts of energy.." in a much more candid way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBlKc0TaqPs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBlKc0TaqPs For a good compilation of LENR related evidence, see this presentation from ICCF-17 in September: http://www.slideshare.net/tylervan/lenr http://www.slideshare.net/tylervan/lenr
- gus_massa 14y ago> There have been 1000+ replications / reports of excess energy [...] I followed the links, but the links I couldn't find an article with enough technical details about the experiments. I think that you know more about what is published in the subject, so can you please give me: * One link to a paper where the excess of energy is clearly measure experimentally, that is published in a peer reviewed indexed journal with a high impact index. * One link to an article with the technical details to reproduce the effect in the laboratory and measure the excess of energy. (Something like "Experimental LENR for dummies" would be nice.)
- deanotron 14y agohow about a whole library of them? http://lenr-canr.org/ http://lenr-canr.org/
- gus_massa 14y agoTwo is better! I have enough physical background to understand these papers but I'm not an expert in the subject. And I have to do my real work, so I have enough time to read two or three papers, but I don't have time to read 1000 of them. I saw the webpage only for a few minutes, and most of the links look like special edition books and conference proceedings. I couldn't find the information I was looking for. Calorimetric measures are extremely difficult to do correctly, so I would like to see: ) One paper in a well known journal, to be sure that an independent expert in the subject has read it thoughtfully. ) One clear description of the experimental setup, so I could try to convince some friends to reproduce it.
- breckinloggins 14y agoI'd like to humbly request that popular science articles geared toward the general public refrain from using the word "theory" in the non-scientific sense. This article even includes the phrase "only a theory"! I know there are more syllables, but can we start using the word "hypothesis" when it is correct to do so? It's hard enough combatting anti-science ideologies and repeatedly having to explain that the word "theory" doesn't mean what you think it means. Please, journalists, stop making it even more difficult by using the non-scientific connotation of "theory" when you mean "hypothesis".
- Groxx 14y agoAs a counter-argument: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory#Widom-Larsen_theory http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory#Widom-Lars... (the theory in question)
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- arrrg 14y agoI know you say that because of this other utterly stupid cultural battle, but the use of “theory” in that article is largely correct. It would certainly not be correct to call their theory an hypothesis. Theories can be wimpy or really strong, can be good or bad. They are the connective tissue you use to try and explain certain phenomena. From these explanations arise predictions that help you formulate hypothesis. You then try to falsify those hypothesis and if you fail your theory is strengthened (and if you succeed your theory is wrong and at the very least has to be modified or thrown out altogether). A hypothesis is not a theory in waiting. You make a similar mistake as Creationists do when they call Evolution “just a theory”.
- andrewflnr 14y agoDid people ever talk about the "hypothesis of relativity?" It seems like it was a "theory" before they managed to confirm it.
- Jabbles 14y agoSurely Lithium decay would produce radiation at a very specific frequency that could be detected? And wouldn't putting a sample of the water (post-experiment) through a mass-spectrometer immediately reveal the presence of Beryllium?
- tocomment 14y agoYou should write to the researchers.
- th0ma5 14y agoWhen I spent my entire Christmas vacation absorbing LENR a couple of years ago, it was just that... slight traces of reaction byproducts, and a few traces of pits in neutron detection gel, so, yes? The problem at the time was why so little of such things if it is fusion, but now we have this theory.
- raverbashing 14y agoI suspect that Lithium decay radiation would be difficult to measure due to the water surrounding the experiment. But this is certainly a very interesting theory.
- btilly 14y agoIf anyone qualified wants to dig in, http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-index-to-documents-re-widomlarsen-theory-of-lenrssept-4-2012 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-in... provides a series of references to their theory.
- jzawodn 14y agoOh, hey... that's my uncle.
- HerrMonnezza 14y agoA recent pre-print paper suggests that a few mistakes in Widom-Larsen's calculations lead to overestimating the amount of energy that can be produced: A correct calculation gives a neutron production rate from (1) about 300 times smaller than what estimated in [1–3], for the value of the mass renormalization factor β ≈ 20 considered there. In turn, it is questionable that values of β can be realized, in particular for bound electrons, so large as to give rise to useful nuclear transmutation rates. A more detailed analysis of the attainable values of β is needed to obtain more definite conclusions on this interesting phenomenon, should it exist at all. http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6501 http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6501 quote is from the "Conclusions" section
- lewisglarsen 14y agoOur response to Ciuchi et al.’s preprint is as follows: “Erroneous wave functions of Ciuchi et al. for collective modes in neutron production on metallic hydride cathodes” A. Widom, Y. Srivastava, and L Larsen (v1 Oct. 17, 2012) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.5212v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.5212v1.pdf Abstract: “There is a recent comment [1] concerning the theory of collective many body effects on the neutron production rates in a chemical battery cathode. Ciuchi et al. employ an inverse beta decay expression that contains a two body amplitude. Only one electron and one proton may exist in the Ciuchi et al. model initial state wave function. A flaw in their reasoning is that one cannot in reality describe collective many body correlations with only a two particle wave function. One needs very many particles to describe collective effects. In the model wave functions of Ciuchi et al. there are no metallic hydrides, there are no cathodes and there are no chemical batteries. Employing a wave function with only one electron and one proton is inadequate for describing collective metallic hydride surface quantum plasma physics in cathodes accurately.” Conclusions: “No significant argument has been provided against our nuclear physics results. The experimental evidence of neutron production and nuclear transmutations in properly designed plasma discharge electrolytic cells [5] agrees with our theoretical analysis and belies the theoretical arguments given in [1] against a hefty production of neutrons in hydride cells.” Lewis Larsen President and CEO Lattice Energy LLC
- sobbybutter 14y agoIf anyone is interested, I've found Eugene Mallove's "Fire from Ice" to be a fantastic read in documenting cold fusion and its troubled past. http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Ice-Searching-Behind-Fusion/dp/1892925028/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351024905&sr=1-1&keywords=fire+from+ice http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Ice-Searching-Behind-Fusion/dp/18...
- InclinedPlane 14y agoI found this article to be overly simplistic in its explanations, here's the relevant paper if that helps (although it's still fairly impenetrable, but it does have more details): http://www.springerlink.com/content/77127077754p1788/fulltext.pdf http://www.springerlink.com/content/77127077754p1788/fulltex... Note that ultimately it still comes down to low-energy fusion, in this case it's the fusion of two neutrons and Li-6 into Beryllium-8 which then decays into He-4 nuclei. This is somewhat similar to the CNO cycle whereby you keep adding protons to C-12 and the subsequent products until ultimately you end up with C-12 again plus a He-4 nuclei, and a lot of fusion energy along the way. Fortunately there are several clear-cut experiments that can be conducted to verify each element of this theory, so we should see some progress on this (one way or the other) in the coming years.
- uvdiv 14y agoIt's a stretch of terminology to call neutron capture "fusion". This would make all (non-spontaneous) fission "fusion" too. Neutron capture is trivial to accomplish; there's no Coulomb barrier, as neutrons are uncharged. What's nontrivial, and an extraordinary-claim-demanding-extraordinary-evidence, is the production of free neutrons. They don't have extraordinary evidence, or any evidence. Apparently I'm supposed be enthused about this future experiment, the outcome of which could be extraordinary, although there's no particular prior expectation for this.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jhartmann 14y agoOne thing that I like about Widom-Larsen theory is that it attempts to reason about possible quantum effects that could cause different sorts of reactions then fusion. While I was a tike back when Pons and Fleischmann were doing their experiments, I always thought the fusion explanation was bunk. Extremely low energy neutrons created through quantum interactions makes a lot more sense then something majickally defeating the coulomb barrier with regularity (sure there are tunneling effects, but those don't happen with regularity.) While this area of physics is full of some quacks (Rossi for instance), I am glad this is starting to get more attention over the last few years. There is so much that happens as a result of quantum physics that is just counter intuitive, and really so much is left to understand about how the realm of the small effects our macro level reality. I really wish Feynman would have been alive when the first cold fusion craze was announced, perhaps he could have had clues to offer that made people think twice about possible quantum effects instead of the obvious craziness of fusion.
- prewett 14y agoI was a little surprised when then said that the electron combines with the proton to form a neutron, but apparently it is called "electron capture" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture). In case anyone else was wondering...
- uvdiv 14y agoSomewhat importantly, no one else claims isolated protons (hydrogen nuclei, which are stable) undergo EC. It's an effect of unstable, radioactive nuclei with too many protons and excess energy. Not free protons. In fact, naively that violates mass conservation: a proton+electron combined weigh less than a neutron. With EC, there is excess mass in the unstable nucleus. Here they are claiming something entirely different: the excess energy comes in from other electrons, in a coherent quantum mechanical effect. (An "effective particle", a "heavy electron", takes the place of a physical electron). It's not the same.
- deanotron 14y agoI've been following the Rossi Ecat spectacle since stumbling upon it in 2011, and I think LENR (cold fusion) will be the biggest story on the planet in a few months time. I'm a 'believer'. The Believers movie just came out a week ago: http://www.thebelieversmovie.com/ http://www.thebelieversmovie.com/ Also Rossi is featured in this month's Popular Science: http://pesn.com/2012/10/16/9602208_Andrea-Rossis_Black-Box--by_Popular-Science/ http://pesn.com/2012/10/16/9602208_Andrea-Rossis_Black-Box--...
- Nursie 14y agoI don't understand how anyone can believe Rossi. He has a mysterious device. He refuses to submit it to tests where anyone but him gets to measure the sytem's energy inputs and outputs. It hasn't been properly evaluated by third parties. He makes wild claims about both the product and how well it's selling. AND he has a history of this if you read about his previous ventures. It has every hallmark of a con. At this point I'm genuinely interested - how can you believe it?
- rpm4321 14y agoCan someone much smarter with physics than myself explain what the hubbub was a couple of years back when 60 Minutes and a few other sources were starting to rehabilitate Fleischmann? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4952167.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4952167.html http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n Is this the same phenomenon? Edit: Additional question - If the palladium based device described in 60 Minutes consistently outputs more energy than input (they just don't know how long each reaction will take, exactly how much energy will be output, or quite frankly how it works), wouldn't it be a trivial matter to daisy chain hundreds of these devices and get a relatively more consistent average energy output?
- mikemoka 14y agodoesn't anybody know that there is already a field tested product coming to market? http://ecat.com/ http://ecat.com/
- mromanuk 14y agoI'm following the ecat and Rossi story about the possible LENR device that he has (supposedly) built. Everything regarding this matter is surrounded by mystery and a lot of people objecting the tests. I hope to see some serious development from other parties like NASA. Could be really cool.