Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

[sandwind]

Just wonder if this is propaganda from pushed by nukleocrats

"DIA assesses with high confidence that if LENR
can produce nuclear-origin energy at room temperatures, this disruptive technology
could revolutionize energy production and storage, since nuclear reactions release
millions of times more energy per unit mass than do any known chemical fuel.''

"If nuclear reactions in LENR experiments are real and controllable, DIA assesses that whoever produces the first commercialized LENR power source could revolutionize energy production and storage for the future. The potential applications of this phenomenon, if commercialized, are unlimited. The anomalous LENR effects seen in these metal lattices containing deuterium may also have as-yet undetermined
nanotechnology implications. LENR could serve as a power source for batteries that could last for decades, providing power for electricity, sensors, military operations, and other applications in remote areas, including space. LENR could also have medical applications for disease treatment, pacemakers, or other equipment. Because nuclear fusion releases 10 million times more energy per unit mass than does liquid
transportation fuel, the military potential of such high-energy-density power sources is
enormous. And since the U.S. military is the largest user of liquid fuel for transportation,
LENR power sources could produce the greatest transformation of the battlefield for U.S.
forces since the transition from horsepower to gasoline power."

[ASH]

Re: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

Just wonder if this is propaganda from pushed by nukleocrats

Not propaganda, so much as a qualified statement of the obvious by the defense intelligence agency. If this technology (cold fusion) is real and can be made to work effectively, then it will be a big deal.

Here is some commentary I wrote in a similar thread from last year, after announcement of SPAWAR's results:

There has been a low level of research activity on cold fusion, generally at the margin of mainstream science, ever since Pons and Fleischmann. These days they call it "low-energy nuclear reactions" because the phrase "cold fusion" got a bad name. The whiff of fraud (or, more fairly, irreproducible results) which surrounds cold fusion has generally made its study a career-killer, and restricted both funding and the venues of discussion. Generally, it's not the best people who are working on it (because the best people usually have the option to work in some other area which doesn't have a stigma attached), they don't have the best resources (because the folks who hold the purse strings don't want to be accused of throwing money at "pseudo-science"), and their ideas don't get much exposure to the mainstream scientific community (because after the initial claims of Pons and Fleischmann were debunked, no one mainstream takes such research very seriously). Recently, the American Chemical Society (the "mainstream community") decided to start hosting conference sessions in which to discuss cold fusion for the specific reason that they don't want the researchers working in that area to be intellectually isolated, and so that their results and ideas can be brought back into the mainstream fold for discussion and peer review.

The issue with fusion is that the repulsive electrostatic force between two atomic nuclei has a much longer range than the attractive residual strong nuclear force which would pull them together and allow them to fuse. Thus, it's hard to get two nuclei close enough together to fuse -- normally they have to take "a running jump" to overcome the electrostatic repulsion, meaning that they have to be smashed together at high speed. That's why most fusion reactions require a very high temperature. However, there are other ways of getting two nuclei close together.

Interestingly, prior to Pons and Fleischmann, a different method of cold fusion -- called "muon-catalyzed fusion" -- was demonstrated which everyone agrees works. A negative muon is a particle that behaves much like an electron, but is about 200 times heavier. You can actually form "mu-atoms" by replacing the electrons in an atom with negative muons. The big difference is that since the negative muon is heavier than an electron, its atomic orbitals are much closer to the nucleus than in a regular atom -- about 200 times closer. And when you make a molecule out of mu-atoms, the inter-nuclear spacing is also about 200 times closer. It turns out that this is close enough for mu-heavy-hydrogen molecules to undergo nuclear fusion spontaneously at very low temperatures. This never turned into a cheap source of energy because it takes a lot of energy to manufacture muons, they don't live very long (they decay into an electron and some neutrinos a few microseconds after they are created), and they have a tendency to stick to the "ash" created by the fusion process which eventually takes them out of useful circulation (a good catalyst isn't consumed by the reaction it catalyzes). However, it does give you a rough idea about how close two heavy-hydrogen nuclei need to be in order to fuse at low temperature -- about 200 times closer than a regular hydrogen molecule.

Pons and Fleischmann -- and those that followed them -- were attempting to catalyze cold nuclear fusion using electrochemical methods and a metallic substrate such as palladium. The platinum-group metals are good at adsorbing or absorbing hydrogen, and they get used a lot for chemical catalysis. In general, the way a catalyst works is to increase the reaction rate of a chemical (or, in this case, nuclear) reaction by stabilizing the transition state between reactants and products. A catalyst can stabilize the transition state by lowering its energy or by making a certain spatial configuration of the reactants that is favorable to the reaction more likely. In the case of muon-catalyzed cold fusion, the negative muons were the catalyst -- they made a closely-spaced configuration of hydrogen nuclei energetically stable by dint of their extra mass in a normal chemical bond. In the case of a metal catalyst, it's normally the surface of the metal which holds the reactants in place and lowers the energy of the transition state. In particular, the regular atomic spacing of the metal creates a scaffold on which chemical reactions can take place.

And this is one of the things about cold fusion that never made much sense: the chemical bonds in a piece of palladium are formed by electrons and have the usual sort of spacing (i.e. a bit bigger than the spacing between hydrogen atoms in a normal H2 molecule). We know we need the hydrogen nuclei to get about 200 times closer together than this in order to get much fusion at low temperature, but the catalyzing framework which is supposed to accomplish this is 200 times bigger than the transition state we want to stabilize.

It doesn't help that heat is released when hydrogen is adsorbed onto palladium, or that many of the cold fusion experiments are electrochemical, which means that energy is supplied to the "reactor" to make the reaction go. That has made it easy for skeptics to conclude that something other than nuclear fusion is responsible for any energy coming out of the reactor. Generally speaking, evolution of helium (a fusion byproduct) and neutrons of the correct energy (assuming the fuel is a deuterium/tritium mix) -- and in the correct quantity relative to the amount of fuel consumed -- are regarded as the necessary proof of an actual fusion reaction. Although I have read that some researchers report evolution of helium, I have not read that these results have been independently reproduced and verified. I don't know if anyone has ever claimed to be getting neutrons (before the news story linked by this thread). So, as far as I know, cold fusion by electrochemical means remains improbable from a theoretical standpoint, and unverified from an experimental standpoint. But never say die. If someone else can duplicate SPAWAR's results, then there will be a lot of renewed interest.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

I heard a guy on Science Friday last friday claim that he could repeat the Pons/Fleischmann experiment at will and that others could also. He also stated the release of energy was roughly a hundred times the input energy. The problem was a problem of scale. I don't buy it for a second, but it'll be interesting to see if we get a new round of cold fusion stories in the MSM.

The segment is several minutes into this podcast.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201003261

[ASH]

Re: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

I heard a guy on Science Friday last friday claim that he could repeat the Pons/Fleischmann experiment at will and that others could also. He also stated the release of energy was roughly a hundred times the input energy. The problem was a problem of scale. I don't buy it for a second, but it'll be interesting to see if we get a new round of cold fusion stories in the MSM.

The segment is several minutes into this podcast.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201003261

What I am waiting to hear from these guys is some quantitative analysis. Rather than "we got heat" or "we got helium", it would be ideal to know that the right amount of heat and helium are being produced. Something to the effect of: "I put in X moles of deuterium and got out Y moles of helium, and the net heat evolved was Z Joules (not counting whatever energy I supplied to the reaction). Of Z, Z1 can be accounted for by known chemical reactions, and Z2 cannot; but Z2 happens to equal the nuclear potential energy difference between Y moles of helium and Y moles of deuterium."

And I'm still waiting for the hydrino power stations I was promised! :p

[Starving Steve]

Re: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

What about small scale fission nuclear reactors? Could they be made so easy to use that a caveman could operate them?

I am thinking of uses such as heating schools, heating hospitals, heating office towers, heating apartment blocks in cities, and even heating homes.

I burned 3 cords of wood from Dec thru March on Vancouver Island, and that was in the warmest winter in a century. The storage for the 3 cords of wood took two large sheds. My cabin is only 1280 sq. ft. and insulated to double-code.

Wouldn't minature nuclear fision be a much better alternative for central heating than wood? And the wood wasn't cheap; it cost $600 from mid-Dec thru late March.

The Nautulus submarine was the world's first minature nuclear reactor, and there should be many other applications for minature nukes, both in and out of the military. Central heating and air-conditioning is one application that I can think of; sea-water filtration and pumping is another application of mini-fision nukes that comes to mind.

Why not pick-up a mini-nuke at the hardware store to last thru the winter and provide for all of my home's heat and light? --- Because the pot-heads say I can't?

[sandwind]

Re: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

Not propaganda, so much as a qualified statement of the obvious by the defense intelligence agency. If this technology (cold fusion) is real and can be made to work effectively, then it will be a big deal.[/INDENT]

I was suspicious because during cold war they get huge amounts of money from west. Like more 80% money for research went to nuclear projects (mostly confidential with lots of freedom in spending money ). Only like 5-8% for technologies that would make use of current energy sources more efficient and about 6 % for renewable sources. (I took the numbers from head so they are about). After this time governments started look at their hands more carefully a cut spending on them. I am sure that now they are doing what is possible to get more money from goverments.

Yes I fully agree that if this is true it like big deal.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

Pons and Fleischmann got bad treatment from the Scientific community. Their University did a poor job at the time with public relations and management of their observations. Too bad. There is clearly phenomena going on in the solid-state/nuclear physics world that we don't understand well enough to manipulate or to create predictable experiments about yet. High temperature (as in above -70 kelvin) super conductivity is another. Laboratory events happen that are hard to explain and hard to reproduce. The scientific method has a hard time validating statistically rare but significant events such as go on with "cold fusion" or "room temperature superconductivity". There is clearly something here and should be funded intensely since the payoffs are potentially so significant. Nuclear weapons, transistors, and LASERs were once considered as exotic.

Though I love Science for Science's sake I find it ironic that we(the world) are spending $10 billion dollars chasing big fat Bosons and generally ignore this stuff. Too bad.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

I was suspicious because during cold war they get huge amounts of money from west. Like more 80% money for research went to nuclear projects (mostly confidential with lots of freedom in spending money ). Only like 5-8% for technologies that would make use of current energy sources more efficient and about 6 % for renewable sources. (I took the numbers from head so they are about). After this time governments started look at their hands more carefully a cut spending on them. I am sure that now they are doing what is possible to get more money from goverments.

Yes I fully agree that if this is true it like big deal.

this was from December wired:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
nuclear ships, locomotives and even a ( tongue in cheek ) airplane.
http://www.metafilter.com/87703/The-...path-not-taken

[radon]

Re: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

Pons and Fleischmann got bad treatment from the Scientific community. Their University did a poor job at the time with public relations and management of their observations. Too bad. There is clearly phenomena going on in the solid-state/nuclear physics world that we don't understand well enough to manipulate or to create predictable experiments about yet. High temperature (as in above -70 kelvin) super conductivity is another. Laboratory events happen that are hard to explain and hard to reproduce. The scientific method has a hard time validating statistically rare but significant events such as go on with "cold fusion" or "room temperature superconductivity". There is clearly something here and should be funded intensely since the payoffs are potentially so significant. Nuclear weapons, transistors, and LASERs were once considered as exotic.

Though I love Science for Science's sake I find it ironic that we(the world) are spending $10 billion dollars chasing big fat Bosons and generally ignore this stuff. Too bad.

I don't know how old you are, but when the original news broke about cold fusion it was a big deal. Unfortunately it was followed by crushing disappointed when no one was able to reproduce their results. Nuclear weapons, transistors, and LASERs are all well documented and reproducible. Something might be happening there, but as yet there is no credible evidence that it is fusion. Basic research is important, but cutting funds from LHC doesn't mean they will go to research cold fusion. Furthermore, I would argue that understanding how gravity works is just as important.

From the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, April 17, 1969, regarding the justification for funding the then-unbuilt Fermilab:

Senator John Pastore: Is there anything connected with the hopes of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country?
Robert Wilson: No sir, I don't believe so.
Pastore: Nothing at all?
Wilson: Nothing at all.
Pastore: It has no value in that respect?

Wilson: It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

I heard a guy on Science Friday last friday claim that he could repeat the Pons/Fleischmann experiment at will and that others could also. He also stated the release of energy was roughly a hundred times the input energy. The problem was a problem of scale. I don't buy it for a second, but it'll be interesting to see if we get a new round of cold fusion stories in the MSM.

I heard that segment as well. Also see this press release:

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/...-10-01-06.html

Assuming that one buys all of this it would seem that the primary issues are 1) obtaining a sustainable controllable reaction large enough to generate enough power for return on investment, 2) that the energy released is less ordered (in the form of heat) than the highly ordered electrical energy that goes into creating the reaction - requiring highly refined materials and processes, which leads to the "cheap" part of 3) that all of this would have to be proven to be more stable, safe and cheap than modern conventional fission reactors (nod to Steve for the post above).

[sunskyfan]

Re: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

I had just out of school (Astronomy and CS) when Cold Fusion hit. I remember it very well. It took 50 years to realize the LASER and somewhere in the 25 year range for Nukes. Transistors about 25 years. There was no skeptics then? It would be interesting run history again with these ideas with the nature of modern science's politics and see if they could survive the over-wrought skepticism I think exists today.

I have no problem with LHC but I do think our Science gets too distant from survival and I think it would be healthy for our Science to receive that kind of expectation again.