Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Watch "60 minutes" today



As I recall they mentioned the energy generation, but it is not universally
reproducible. They did not mention the detection of helium generated in the
process.

Look at the videos on the referenced website at:
http://superwavefusion.com/media/video-gallery/

In the first video he proposes violating the laws of thermodynamics. I
don't think this enhances his credibility.

In the second video he says it is not "fusion". OK, he is saying that
fusion is only done by collision so this is not fusion, which is nonsense.

The third video which attempts to explain the mechanism resorts to
handwaving when it comes to the actual fusion process.

The 60 minutes report is also on their website.

BUT nowhere is there any evidence produced for their being fusion. If He4
is produced and detected, this would constitute fairly direct evidence for
deuterium fusion, but there is no mention of this. So all one can say from
these videos is that there is anomalous heat generation.

An interesting experiment would be to see if you get the same result with
plain water, or better yet undeuterated water.

If there is evidence for He generation why is it not mentioned???? I find
this very curious. So can this anomalous heat generation be sustained for a
long period of time? It appears to be erratic at best. If it can't be
sustained then it is probably a chemical effect and may not be usable for
large amounts of power.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


On Apr 20, 2009, at 7:10 PM, John Clement wrote:

I did not get to watch the 60 minutes presentation, but I did look
at the
web site. I was not impressed by the web site. In one video they
disclaimed that there were any nuclear processes, and the investigator
essentially implied he did not have much knowledge of physics.

In the second video they claimed deuterium fusion. If this really
happens
then there should be an independent way of verifying this. The
explanation
of why there is fusion sounded like gobbledy-gook to me. Now if
someone
else can explain his explanation in more reasonable terms, I would
be glad
to read it.

They claim to be designing this effect for home heating!!! I am not
sure I
want a fusion reactor in my home.


1) Let me begin with what is well known about fusion of two deuterium
nuclei, for example, by bombarding a deuterium target with a beam of
accelerated deuterons. The experimental results are in reasonable
agreement with what is predicted theoretically; it is a QM problem of
coulomb barrier penetration. The fusion probability is very low at ~10
keV; it becomes nearly three orders of magnitude larger at ~100 keV,
etc.

But no matter what the initial energy is, the outcome of such fusion
is always the same: about one half of collisions result in 3H+1H
(production of tritium and protons, of combined energy of 4 MeV). The
other half of collisions result in 3He+1n (production of 3He and
neutrons, of combined energy of 3.3 MeV). And rarely (one out of
million collisions) the output is 4He + a photon of 18 MeV. All this
is well known.

2) One argument against cold fusion was that kinetic energies of
deuterium ions, at room temperatures (even far above the most probable
energy of 0.04 eV, if I recall this number correctly) are too small to
make fusion possible. The other argument was as follows. Suppose that
cold fusion of two deuterons is responsible for generation of measured
excess heat at the rate of about 1 W. How many neutrons would be
produced? The energy of each neutron is known to be close to 2.5 MeV
(a fraction of 3.3 MeV released by the corresponding fusion
reaction). Neutrons are produced in one half of collisions. Thus they
contribute a little less that 0.5 W=0.5 J/s or about 3*10^12 MeV/s.
The estimated answer is 3*10^12/ 2.5=1.2*10^12 neutrons per second.
Attempts to detect neutrons, emitted from electrolytic cells, were
made but they were not successful. Attempts to detect photons of 18
MeV were also unsuccessful.

3) I cannot speak for Mike McKubre. But I can imagine what he would
say to John C. First he would probably show a beautiful experimental
result--a correlation between the amount of excess heat and the number
of helium atoms produced in the cathode of his cell. Mike was one of
several people who independently demonstrated such a correlation. His
result was a straight line (with large random errors but many data
points). The slope of the line was one atom of helium per 23 MeV of
excess heat. That is what one would expect by comparing the mass of
two deuterium atoms with the smaller mass of one helium atom.

Mike would take it for granted that production of neutrons and
tritium, if any, certainly does not match the rates corresponding to
the amount of excess heat. Therefore, he would say, "it must be a new
nuclear process." The mechanism of this process (taking place inside
the palladium lattice) is not known. But production of helium from
deuterium, he would emphasize, is a nuclear process, even if it is not
a simple two-body collision. The released energy, he would speculate,
goes directly into the lattice (as in Mosbauer effect). That is why no
radioactive byproducts are produced.

4) None of this conflicts with the idea that some neutrons and
tritons, or photons, are occasionally produced. But the amounts are
negligible in comparison with what is produced in a nuclear reactor.
Unfortunately, the term cold fusion is still used (for sentimental
reasons, I suppose). Most researchers now use the term CMNS (Condensed
Matter Nuclear Science) or LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction). It is
remarkable that, at the end of the interview, Martin Fleischmann
mentioned two things he regrets: using the term cold fusion and
agreeing on the press conference. I remember him saying, four years
ago, that they wanted to wait another year (to perform more
experiments and to publish a paper). The press conference, he said,
was imposed on them by the university administration.

P.S.
Here is a better link, for those who want to see the interview again.
The link I posted yesterday was for the entire program (1 hour); the
link below, I was told, is for the relevant interview only.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n

P.P.S.
Reproducible experiments, demonstrating the reality of a nuclear
effect resulting from a chemical effect, would be a great challenge to
theoretical physicists. The prevailing view is that nuclear processes
(associated with nucleons inside atomic nuclei) are not influenced by
chemical processes (associated with atomic electrons). Fortunately,
researchers on both sides of the controversy agree on an acceptable
methodology of validation. I am still waiting for at least one teacher
willing to participate in the Curie Project. For details see:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/359anniversary.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ludwik Kowalski, a retired physics teacher and an amateur journalist.
Updated links to publications and reviews are at:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/my_opeds.html
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/revcom.html

Also an ESSAY ON ECONOMICS at:
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/economy/essay9.html