Navy researchers report experimental confirmation of cold fusion (!??!??!!)

[Occulus]

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=216200272&cid=NL_eet

Cold fusion experimentally confirmed

R. Colin Johnson
(03/23/2009 8:43 PM EDT)
URL: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=216200272

PORTLAND, Ore. — U.S. Navy researchers claimed to have experimentally confirmed cold fusion in a presentation at the American Chemical Society's annual meeting.

"We have compelling evidence that fusion reactions are occurring" at room temperature, said Pamela Mosier-Boss, a scientist with the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (San Diego). The results are "the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons from low-energy nuclear reactions," she added.

...

Now, the Naval researchers claim that the problem was instrumentation, which was not up to the task of detecting such small numbers of neutrons. To sense such small quantities, Mosier-Boss used a special plastic detector called CR-39. Using co-deposition with nickel and gold wire electrodes, which were inserted into a mixture of palladium chloride and deutrium, the detector was able to capture and track the high-energy neutrons.

The plastic detector captured a pattern of tiny clusters of adjacent pits, called triple tracks, which the researchers claim is evidence of the telltale neutrons.

Other presenters at the conference also presented evidence supporting cold fusion, including Antonella De Ninno, a scientist with New Technologies Energy and Environment (Rome), who reported both excess heat and helium gas.

more...

So, is there any legitimacy at all to these claims? The US Navy and the American Chemical Society don't come across as crackpots to me...

[Teaser]

1. wait for the journal article.

then we'll see what's up.

[Birthmark]

2. Anyone taking bets on this?

I'm gonna say that the experiment can't be repeated.

[Kutjara]

3. It certainly seems to be resurfacing again.

Of course, many "respectable" scientists doubt whether real nuclear fusion is occurring in these experiments, but they get all arm-wavy and vague when asked to explain what else could explain the results. "Some unknown chemical reaction that produces energy," isn't a particularly satisfying alternative theory.

Still, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. There may be some cool (bah-bish) science at the end of this particular goose chase.

[JHB]

4. Wait for it.

If it actually worked, we'll find out in due time. If not, it's just more premature reporting, no need to encourage such.

[Wilber_Stool]

5. Try this article from New Scientist

Not too long and easy to understand.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16820-roomtemperature-fusion-in-from-the-cold.html

[Realityhack]

8. That article says it has been published...

a few months after the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal (Naturwissenschaft, DOI: 10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x).

http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/

[caraher]

6. You don't have to be a crackpot to be wrong

A report at a meeting is not generally peer-reviewed, at least not usually at the level of a journal article, and not all peer-reviewed articles are correct. (One scientist wrote that he feels one should regard results in the peer-reviewed literature as "not obviously wrong.")

There's really not enough information in that article to say much about what they did. More details are needed. And I thought the article was rather badly written:

"The hypothesis is that when electrolysis is performed on deuteron, molecules are fused into helium, releasing a high-energy neutron."

That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. First, a deuteron is a deuterium nucleus (a bound state of 1 proton and 1 neutron). It is not a molecule, nor is it an atom. Speaking of "molecules" fusing into helium is similarly nonsensical; what "fuses" are nuclei. It's even grammatically incorrect, though I suppose that could be fixed by making "deuteron" plural.

And it's far from clear how electrolysis could possibly play any role in nudging two deuterons close enough together that they'd fuse; but that's always a problem for cold fusion. What keeps this kind of research alive is that the payoff is essentially infinite, making even an essentially zero chance of it working insufficient disincentive not to keep trying. And it's worth remembering that the "big science" approach has been decades away from working for decades now, and has burnt through far more cash than these benchtop shots in the dark.

[Realityhack]

7. I remember reading about N-Rays.

Could be they have something. Likely they don't have what they think they do.

Terrible article.

[Orrex]

9. And Arthur C. Clarke stirs excitedly in his (metaphorical) grave

Big proponent of cold fusion, that Clarke.

[energyguy]

10. new cold fusion ideas

This I think this is the start of alot of news of about cold fusion. I found a process called SuperWave Fusion , the people behind it are reporting excess heat. Plus 2 independent labs have replicated the process. I would like to know what others think. Their website is http://superwavefusion.com/

[caraher]

11. I don't think much of them

All sizzle and no steak. Nice job on the web site. Nifty trademarked name for the process. But pretty weak on substance.

I was especially dumbfounded by their "what is cold fusion?" page where they say,

While cold fusion creates no dangerous by-products, it is, nevertheless often confused with both the “hot” fusion process found inside stars, and nuclear fission, the splitting of heavy nuclei used in atomic weapons and mainstream nuclear power. A nuclear fission reaction leaves behind harmful radioactive waste products. These misconceptions are just a few of the uphill battles that cold fusion researchers have had to face in their pursuit for a safe and plentiful source of new energy.

I don't think I've heard anyone complain that the trouble with cold fusion is that they're worried about radioactive waste. The universal complaint against cold fusion is that it doesn't seem to be reproducible which, coupled with the tenuous theoretical arguments for its being a possibility, places it in the category of a longshot at best and a scam at worst.