Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

[ksen]

. . .

>snip<

[E]steemed Physics Professor Yoshiaki Arata of Osaka University in Japan claims to have made the first successful demonstration of cold fusion. Last Thursday, May 22, Arata and his colleague Yue-Chang Zhang of Shianghai Jiotong University presented the cold fusion demonstration to 60 onlookers, including other physicists, as well as reporters from six major newspapers and two TV studios. If Arata and Zhang´s demonstration is real, it could lead to a future of new, clean, and cheap energy generation.

. . .

>snip<

======================================

Link --> http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html

Didn't see a thread on this.

Thoughts?

Anybody ever hear of these guys? Does it sound like they may be on to something? Will this just be another Pons/Fleischmann?

[Deleet]

Preliminary I'd say that it is more probable that they are wrong than #LoT are wrong.

Link seems dead.

[LeoM]

It's unlikely materialist's will be swayed by this evidence for cold fusion

[GenesisNemesis]

It's unlikely materialist's will be swayed by this evidence for cold fusion

You're right. Cold fusion would definitely possible through non-materialistic methods. :huh:

[LeoM]

It's unlikely materialist's will be swayed by this evidence for cold fusion

You're right. Cold fusion would definitely possible through non-materialistic methods. :huh:

I didn't imply that i meant they see it as impossible not likely. But you see if cold fusion exists then their is alternative energy source maybe from the supposed zero point energy field[aether].

[GenesisNemesis]

I didn't imply that i meant they see it as impossible not likely.

If new evidence shows up showing cold fusion actually works, then scientists would be glad to review it. Unfortunately, the evidence for cold fusion is currently flimsy.

[SteveP]

From what I've read about Pons & Fleischmann, if they had actually achieved fusion at the levels they claimed they would have been killed by the neutron flux.

Same seems to apply here.

[Sapho]

You're right. Cold fusion would definitely possible through non-materialistic methods. :huh:

I didn't imply that i meant they see it as impossible not likely. But you see if cold fusion exists then their is alternative energy source maybe from the supposed zero point energy field[aether].

Why dont we wait and see if this can be duplicated, hmm. Oh, and leoM try reading the artical thats been linked too, no magic energy here dude.

[Janus]

It's unlikely materialist's will be swayed by this evidence for cold fusion


I didn't imply that i meant they see it as impossible not likely. But you see if cold fusion exists then their is alternative energy source maybe from the supposed zero point energy field[aether].


<edited>

[Sapho]

It's unlikely materialist's will be swayed by this evidence for cold fusion


I didn't imply that i meant they see it as impossible not likely. But you see if cold fusion exists then their is alternative energy source maybe from the supposed zero point energy field[aether].


<edited>

Hes still peeved that he never got his letter from hogwarts.:D

[Theophage]

If cold fusion works, that means that there is a physical/materialist reason why it works. Knowing how it works, if it works (it most probably doesn't work) will help us to understand our universe a little better; which is the goal of all science. No magic here.

[Theophage]

It's unlikely materialist's will be swayed by this evidence for cold fusion


I didn't imply that i meant they see it as impossible not likely. But you see if cold fusion exists then their is alternative energy source maybe from the supposed zero point energy field[aether].


<edited>

That's pretty much against the IIDB rules isn't it? I hope you edit it before a mod comes wandering in here.

[theyeti]

Fusion, by definition, is a material phenomenon. It's the fusing of two nuclei to make a single nucleus, releasing energy in the process. If you reject materialism, just say that the energy came from magic pixies and skip the physical explanation.

As for this new report, it sounds interesting, but I'll withhold judgment until it's replicated by other labs.

theyeti

[Janus]

<edited>

That's pretty much against the IIDB rules isn't it? I hope you edit it before a mod comes wandering in here.

I'll take the risk. Frankly, some claims are just too stupid to deserve a polite rebuttal.

[Deleet]

That's pretty much against the IIDB rules isn't it? I hope you edit it before a mod comes wandering in here.

I'll take the risk. Frankly, some claims are just too stupid to deserve a polite rebuttal.

And or are repeated too often...

[youngalexander]

http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html
?
"Arata and Zhang demonstrated very successfully the generation of continuous excess energy [heat] from ZrO2-nano-Pd sample powders under D2 gas charging and generation of helium-4," Takahashi told New Energy Times. "The demonstrated live data looked just like data they reported in their published papers [J. High Temp. Soc. Jpn, Feb. and March issues, 2008]. This demonstration showed that the method is highly reproducible."

JHTS latest issue (http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jhts/33/6/_contents) does not have article. Perhaps #7.

This demonstration showed that the method is highly reproducible.
Remains to be seen.

[Gamer4Fire]

How would a fusion reaction that does not produce heat be harnessed to produce electricity? All nuclear power plants are steam turbine generators utilizing a nuclear reaction to create heat instead of burning coal or gravity and falling water to turn the turbine, etc. So what energies from a cold fusion reaction are utilized to create electricity?

[Yeshi]

How would a fusion reaction that does not produce heat be harnessed to produce electricity? All nuclear power plants are steam turbine generators utilizing a nuclear reaction to create heat instead of burning coal or gravity and falling water to turn the turbine, etc. So what energies from a cold fusion reaction are utilized to create electricity?

not only that (secondary energy is harnessed) but in order for 2 particles to fuse, it is not the proximity but the energy level that enables it. Energy level, like 10 keV means the particles are "hot" as any dispersion that happens is thermal by definition (uncontrollable). So to fuse, there has to be energy there as speed of particles. To have enough energy to harness it at all, it has to be "a lot" of fusing particles per second.

This implies hot plasma. Hot plasma != cold.

Methinks by "cold fusion" it is somehow implied we can have fusion without (much) primary energy investment, happening "on its own" without need for particle cannons, strong fields etc.

[WCH]

The linked article said that it generates heat, so obviously it's not saying the reaction wouldn't involve heat. It's just saying that the initial conditions of the reaction wouldn't require heat -- that you could cause a heat generating fusion reaction at room temperature.

So I guess the idea is increased efficiency over "hot" fusion? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me -- once you've got the reaction started it's generating shitloads of heat, so by continuously "feeding" it with new base materials, the reaction would quickly become self-sustaining. So the improvement in efficiency of not having to get it hot before starting would likely be small.

[LeoM]

It's unlikely materialist's will be swayed by this evidence for cold fusion


I didn't imply that i meant they see it as impossible not likely. But you see if cold fusion exists then their is alternative energy source maybe from the supposed zero point energy field[aether].

<edited>

Zero Point Energy field has experimental evidence the simplest evidence coming from the casmir effect. So calling me crazy is not warranted thankyou.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

[MorningLightMountain]

<edited>

Zero Point Energy field has experimental evidence the simplest evidence coming from the casmir effect. So calling me crazy is not warranted thankyou.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

The problem is that cold fusion has nothing to do with zero-point energy and besides zero-point energy by it's very definition cannot be used as a useful energy source.

[ksen]

How would a fusion reaction that does not produce heat be harnessed to produce electricity? All nuclear power plants are steam turbine generators utilizing a nuclear reaction to create heat instead of burning coal or gravity and falling water to turn the turbine, etc. So what energies from a cold fusion reaction are utilized to create electricity?

From my limited understanding the "cold" in "cold fusion" doesn't necessarily mean cold to the touch.

[barbos]

From what I've read about Pons & Fleischmann, if they had actually achieved fusion at the levels they claimed they would have been killed by the neutron flux.

Same seems to apply here.

Yeah, assuming they have 1 watt excess due to the fusion they would have in the order 1e+10-11 neutrons per second. There will be measurable health effects. Also I don't understand why do they bother measuring temperature when neutron detectors are much more reliable way to detect reaction.

[Dhaeron]

The linked article said that it generates heat, so obviously it's not saying the reaction wouldn't involve heat. It's just saying that the initial conditions of the reaction wouldn't require heat -- that you could cause a heat generating fusion reaction at room temperature.

So I guess the idea is increased efficiency over "hot" fusion? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me -- once you've got the reaction started it's generating shitloads of heat, so by continuously "feeding" it with new base materials, the reaction would quickly become self-sustaining. So the improvement in efficiency of not having to get it hot before starting would likely be small.
The idea of cold fusion is to get fusion under conditions that are cold compared to the inside of a star, which does not have to be very cold at all. The reason why this would be awesome is easy to see, no huge magnetic fields necessary to hold extremely hot, charged plasma. Just a simple output of heat (and usually neutrons). So it would be immensely less difficult to create a working fusion reactor with a cold fusion.
If this is real we'll very soon hear how other labs confirmed the results, i won't hold my breath though, it seems quite unlikely.

[skepticalbip]

<edited>
Zero Point Energy field has experimental evidence the simplest evidence coming from the casmir effect. So calling me crazy is not warranted thankyou.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy I still don't think you understand the problem. How the hell can you actually use zero point energy to do work?

As an example of unusable potential, if you happen to be close to sea level then there is approximately 14.7 pounds per square inch pressure acting on everything. How can you use it to do work without expending more energy than you get from it? There is enough pressure on a square foot to lift a ton weight (if you could manage to eliminate the same pressure on the opposite side). It is enough energy to easily crush a gallon container but you first have to expend energy to pump the air out of the container.

[Ezkerraldean]

well, if he's right, this Professor Yoshiaki Arata bloke will be hailed as the greatest genius ever. i hope he is, but i very much doubt he is.

[LeoM]

Zero Point Energy field has experimental evidence the simplest evidence coming from the casmir effect. So calling me crazy is not warranted thankyou.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy I still don't think you understand the problem. How the hell can you actually use zero point energy to do work?

As an example of unusable potential, if you happen to be close to sea level then there is approximately 14.7 pounds per square inch pressure acting on everything. How can you use it to do work without expending more energy than you get from it? There is enough pressure on a square foot to lift a ton weight (if you could manage to eliminate the same pressure on the opposite side). It is enough energy to easily crush a gallon container but you first have to expend energy to pump the air out of the container.

It's true under modern science it's deemed as impossible to use zero point energy as an alternative energy source. But of course that does not mean it does not exist? Oh yes i forgot it MUST be an alternative energy source.

[premjan]

Later it was shown by several groups including Srinivasan and Padmanabha Krishnagopala Iyengar at BARC in the early 1990s that the reaction produced tritium as well as helium indicating that cold fusion was real. However, further work at BARC was abandoned due to denunciation of cold fusion by mainstream scientists and the US government.Apparently the Fleischmann / Pons thing was real too, but for some reason it was not followed up - perhaps it was too complex? This one might work out. Deuterium is not that hard to produce - e.g. from seawater.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci-tech/cold-fusion-success-in-japan-gets-warm-reception-in-india_10053182.html

[Gamer4Fire]

How would a fusion reaction that does not produce heat be harnessed to produce electricity? All nuclear power plants are steam turbine generators utilizing a nuclear reaction to create heat instead of burning coal or gravity and falling water to turn the turbine, etc. So what energies from a cold fusion reaction are utilized to create electricity?

not only that (secondary energy is harnessed) but in order for 2 particles to fuse, it is not the proximity but the energy level that enables it. Energy level, like 10 keV means the particles are "hot" as any dispersion that happens is thermal by definition (uncontrollable). So to fuse, there has to be energy there as speed of particles. To have enough energy to harness it at all, it has to be "a lot" of fusing particles per second.

This implies hot plasma. Hot plasma != cold.

Methinks by "cold fusion" it is somehow implied we can have fusion without (much) primary energy investment, happening "on its own" without need for particle cannons, strong fields etc.

Okay. I know how we make fission bombs. We put a lot of dynamite around a radioactive element. And to make a fusion bomb, we just take a lot of fission bombs and surround a radioactive element (highly simplified). I could see how creating a fusion reaction from a cold state would be preferable.

[youngalexander]

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci-tech/cold-fusion-success-in-japan-gets-warm-reception-in-india_10053182.html
According to Wiki an uptodate account of LENR may be found in Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9812706208/thesecularweb/).

An interview with Storm (http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/stormsinterview.pdf) contains this
The book was written mainly to show the reality and to help people investigate the subject. I have no idea whether the effect can be made practical or not. It is premature to expect a practical application and unwise to promise such a result. Nevertheless, I think the probability that cold fusion can be made practical is so high that serious effort is warranted.
Meanwhile, the need for clean energy has become so great, all possibilities need to be explored.
Personally, I would place more probability on the Polywell.

[premjan]

That Storm PDF keeps crashing my Acrobat. But I am trying to install SP2 at the moment.
...now it works.

[Porky Pine]

Zero Point Energy field has experimental evidence the simplest evidence coming from the casmir effect. So calling me crazy is not warranted thankyou.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy I still don't think you understand the problem. How the hell can you actually use zero point energy to do work?



Haven't you ever seen Stargate Atlantis? Of course it can work!

[Yeshi]

Personally, I would place more probability on the Polywell.

exactly :)

the inherent problem with fusion containers that have some sort of matter or electrodes placed there where the nuclear reaction takes place, have this part of the machinery (soon) destroyed.

In Palladium experiements of "cold fusion" even if the crystal grid of the metal helps catalize fusion by some unexplained quirk, the gitter will invariably get degraded due to process.

So, electrostatic containment with no medium electrode is prolly the only way to go..

[premjan]

The temperature doesn't seem too high but perhaps the electrode will still be degraded.

[Yeshi]

The temperature doesn't seem too high but perhaps the electrode will still be degraded.

the released energies in fusion are of order MeV. Now, if the resultant particle can interact with surrounding matter, its destructive.

[premjan]

True it is the neutrons which can do the damage.

[Underseer]

From what I've read about Pons & Fleischmann, if they had actually achieved fusion at the levels they claimed they would have been killed by the neutron flux.

Same seems to apply here.

Yeah, assuming they have 1 watt excess due to the fusion they would have in the order 1e+10-11 neutrons per second. There will be measurable health effects. Also I don't understand why do they bother measuring temperature when neutron detectors are much more reliable way to detect reaction.

Thermometers are a heck of a lot cheaper than neutron detectors.

[Martian Astronomer]

Yeah, assuming they have 1 watt excess due to the fusion they would have in the order 1e+10-11 neutrons per second. There will be measurable health effects. Also I don't understand why do they bother measuring temperature when neutron detectors are much more reliable way to detect reaction.

Thermometers are a heck of a lot cheaper than neutron detectors.

Technically, all you really need is a few bubble detectors (http://www.bubbletech.ca/radiation_detectors_files/Bubble%20Detectors.html)to determine that neutrons have been emitted, and I don't think that they're that expensive (especially compared to heavy water and palladium).

[barbos]

Yeah, assuming they have 1 watt excess due to the fusion they would have in the order 1e+10-11 neutrons per second. There will be measurable health effects. Also I don't understand why do they bother measuring temperature when neutron detectors are much more reliable way to detect reaction.

Thermometers are a heck of a lot cheaper than neutron detectors.

The problem with thermometer is that you don't know what exactly are you measuring.

As for the neutron detector, I am pretty sure you can find something for $50.
At these levels you can use pretty much anything even something not designed for neutron detection (gamma, electron)

Anyway, I am pretty sure he should have died had it been fusion reaction.

[premjan]

Maybe neutrons are not that many but are claimed absorbed in some other reaction. Someone mentioned hydrino in the cold fusion literature.

[barbos]

Maybe neutrons are not that many but are claimed absorbed in some other reaction. Someone mentioned hydrino in the cold fusion literature.
It would be great, unfortunately there are a lot of neutrons.

[Martian Astronomer]

Maybe neutrons are not that many but are claimed absorbed in some other reaction. Someone mentioned hydrino in the cold fusion literature.

I'm aware that people have sunk significant money into hydrino theory, but everything I've ever read about it since the 90's has given me the impression of being a crackpot theory.

[premjan]

Anyway effect seems to be real, though we are not yet sure, but may not be practical. True that hydrino theory is not accepted scientifically by most.

[Martian Astronomer]

Anyway effect seems to be real, though we are not yet sure, but may not be practical. True that hydrino theory is not accepted scientifically by most.

Okay, I did a little more digging. The only papers that I can find with experimental evidence of hydrino theory in the ISI database are 4 papers by RL Mills, the owner of Blacklight Inc. and the originator of hydrino theory. These were all published between 1995 and 2004. The remaining papers addressing hydrino theory are either physicists telling him his math is wrong, or Mills responding to his critics.

The wiki article on hydrino theory states that his theory basically rejects a great deal of proven quantum mechanics. I don't know what caused the UV lines in his published work, but it really looks like Randall Mills is the only one who "scientifically" accepts hydrino theory.

[premjan]

Yes, there may be some new theory that underlies the cold fusion results but whether or not it is really fusion (where else are the neutrons coming from?) it has been experimentally verified by other researchers and writing it off earlier was premature. The new experiment may trigger some more curiosity.

[militant agnostic]

If i remember correctally, the general theory behind cold fusion and the seeming absence of neutrinos in the experiments is due to it being catalyzed by a quantum tunneling event rather than slamed together like hot fusion. If this is the case then the widly regarded concept that when neutrinos are generated in certain conditions half will spin in a direction that makes them undetectable explains away some, and a few other effects get rid of even more makes the excess heat with few neutrons conceivable.

I wouldn't sell the idea short. I have seen alot (dozens) of debates about this and I am always surprised by the amount of people who hold degrees onthe subject who feel optimistic about it. Nearly half tell me (when directally questioned) that would consider putting serious funding into resaerching the phenominon if they could. I have encountered very few who really think the idea is to mediocre in it's likelyhood and potential that they aren't interested.

I agree that the results of these experiments have shown a significant quantumm event that could yeild practical results. I have personally seen alot of good arguments against the idea that the interest in the phenominon is only being preserved because the results of the experiments are so vague that any claim against the theory can be shut down by the believers saying "oh well it could be this or that phenominon". I am not alone in thinking that the results don't really fit that pattern.

[SteveP]

Do you mean neutrinos or neutrons? neutrinos from Earth bound fusion of any sort would be pretty hard to detect.

Or are you perhaps thinking of the solar neutrino problem (http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html)?

(hey is that the same Tim Thompson as here on IIDB?)