Cold Fusion- Is it pseudoscience?

[jimmydasaint]

More pseudoscience or science fact? This is your call.

 

Like most people, I felt deflated post 1989 when no-one could replicate the cold fusion experiments of Fleischmann and Pons and felt that the two scientists were fakes. This is suggested as typical pseudoscience.

 

However, Japanese researchers have claimed cold fusion from using a Double Structure cathode where deuterium ions are introduced on to a Pd coated electrode where the deuterium ions fuse together by cold fusion. It is interesting that the journal appears to be peer reviewed so that it revives the theory again.

 

'The DS-cathode first used consisted of a Pd bottle-shaped outer cathode filled with “Pd-black” powder as an inner cathode. The outer-cathode was used principally to introduce D+ ions into the inner-cathode where the primary reaction that realizes excess energy takes place. After repeated trial tests lasting over a year, the authors began the main experiment using this DS-cathode in September 1992 and the experiment is still in progress. It should be noted that DS-cathode is fundamentally different from the Single Structure Cathodes (SS-cathodes below) used by all other researchers which consist of a plate, foil, wire, cylinder or rod.'

 

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYanewenergya.pdf

[insane_alien]

well, if you can find a way to fuse nuclei without huge temperatures and pressures then no it isn't suicide. there may be possible ways of doing this. i'll wait till there have been results from other labs confirming their results before i decide whether they are talking rubbish.

[swansont]

I'm not sure that LENR-CANR passes as peer-review in the normal sense of the term.

 

While there are a number of experiments that have detected "something," it's reproducing these experiments that seems to be the problem. That's a big hurdle one must overcome to be mainstream.

[jimmydasaint]

I'm not sure that LENR-CANR passes as peer-review in the normal sense of the term.

 

While there are a number of experiments that have detected "something," it's reproducing these experiments that seems to be the problem. That's a big hurdle one must overcome to be mainstream.

 

I agree that reproducibility of the experiment is crucial but they have modified the original experiment.

 

By the way, I think it is a Japanese journal not lenr-canr:

 

'Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, A new energy caused by "Spillover-deuterium". Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. B, 1994. 70 ser. B: p. 106.

A New Energy caused by “Spillover-Deuterium”

By Yoshiaki ARATA, M. J. A., and Yue-Chang ZHANG * (Communicated Sept. 12, 1994)

 

Abstract: It was verified that a new kind of energy is caused by “Spillover-Deuterium” generated in a double structure (DS)-cathode with “Pd-black”. Using this cathode, the authors confirmed the sustained production of a significantly abnormal amount of energy over a period of several months that could not be ascribed to chemical reaction energy. The chemical reaction energy of 0.1 [mol] Pd-black used is only 4[kJ], but more than 200[MJ] of excess energy was continuously produced for over 3000

---

at an average rate of 50-100 [kJ/hr] using a DS-cathode with a same quantity of Pd-black. Intermittent operation over a period of two years using this structure proved the complete reproducibility of these results.

 

Key words: Spillover deuterium; Pd-black; DS-cathode; new energy.'

Edited May 27, 2008 by jimmydasaint