cold fusion conspiracy video

[gib65]

Check out this video:

 

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=PTBSp1QvCuw&feature=related

 

Is it real science or pseudo-science? It strikes me as paranoid conspiracy theory.

 

It's about a group of scientists who discovered a cheap and easy way to perform cold fusion but the scientific community refuses to believe their results are legitimate.

[iNow]

It's about a group of scientists who discovered a cheap and easy way to perform cold fusion but the scientific community refuses to believe their results are legitimate.

I bolded the bit which answers your question.

[jdurg]

Actually, small bits of "cold fusion" can happen. Hell, you can buy kits that allow you to do it in your kitchen. The thing is, there is absolutely NO WAY to scale it up to a level that produces useful energy in a way that releases more than it costs.

[Klaynos]

Their results have never been successfully reproduced. Therefore it will not be accepted by the scientific community.

[JohnB]

Their results have never been successfully reproduced.

So if I could show otherwise, you would at least be open to the idea?

The thing is, there is absolutely NO WAY to scale it up to a level that produces useful energy in a way that releases more than it costs.

On what do you base that remarkable prediction?

 

To be honest, I've only paid passing attention to the cold fusion thing. However, the main argument against it boils down to "Our theories say it can't happen". This to me is no argument as consistent obs trump theory every time.

 

The greatest argument in favour seems to be the excess amounts of byproducts attained. Tritium is an example. If tritium is present in a concentration "X" before the experiment and in concentration "Y" after the experiment, then something odd is going on.

 

We are faced with one of two conclusions, either;

a) The theory is incomplete and something weird is happening. or

b) A number of labs in a number of different nations are making exactly the same mistake. (A mistake that they don't appear to make in any other analysis that they might do.)

 

The idea that a lab will only make mistakes when measuring tritium levels from CF experiments is quite laughable and improbable, hence we can safely assume that the theory is incomplete. Why do some people have a problem with this idea?

 

While watching the videos, I paused and did google searches on some of those speaking in favour of CF and had a look at their bios. These are not wild eyed loons and I would dare to say that their comments on any topic other than CF would be accepted without argument.

 

You may like to read this piece by Dr, Edmund Storms.

 

The bottom line is that there are effects observed and these observations have been replicated.

 

Theory should be modified to fit obs, not used as some sort of magical mantra in an attempt to discredit obs.

[gib65]

Hmm... looks like we have controversy even here.

 

One thing that strikes me as odd is why it would even matter that the scientific community doesn't take these CF advocates seriously. If they really did get the results they claim, couldn't they just start building a technology out of it? Couldn't they produce power cells and sell them on the open market? That would be one hell of a battery! If it really works, it would sell like hot cakes and soon enough there would be one in every household and every retail outlet. Those nay-sayer scientists who deny the result of these CF experiments would be completely bypassed and we'd be brought into a new age of clean renewable energy. Why bother making a documentary to expose the conspiracy?

[Klaynos]

Reproducibility is a fundamental requirement of science for this kind of experiment. If it can't be reproduced it probably didn't happen. If it can be then it's no problem getting published and "accepted".

[swansont]

You may like to read this piece by Dr, Edmund Storms.

 

The bottom line is that there are effects observed and these observations have been replicated.

 

There are effects — something is happening. It just isn't consistent with fusion. The first graph shows 10^11 Helium atoms per Joule of energy released, which is 6.25 MeV per reaction, and with the caveat that not all of the He is detected, so that's even less energy per reaction. But D-D fusion forming He-4 releases 24 MeV per reaction. So there's a factor of 4 (or more) discrepancy in the energy. This means that some of the reactions would be giving off He-3, but then, where are the neutrons?

 

It's things like this that keep cold fusion from being accepted.

 

Theory should be modified to fit obs, not used as some sort of magical mantra in an attempt to discredit obs.

 

That goes both ways. Eventually you have to modify your theory that this is fusion, if it does not agree with actual observations of fusion. Masses and binding energies are very well known.

[Mr Skeptic]

You gotta account for all possibilities. Maybe the laws of physics are different in the basement of cold fusion advocates than elsewhere

[TheUnknown]

You gotta account for all possibilities. Maybe the laws of physics are different in the basement of cold fusion advocates than elsewhere

 

Seems rational to me Beings that that always seems to be the case!

[hermanntrude]

OK if cold fusion existed on a useable scale, someone would be using it. It would probably have been sold to someone and be used to create weaponry or large power stations in a country desperate enough to try.

 

So, if cold fusion was viable, we'd surely know about it.

 

we don't, so it probably doesnt.

[JohnB]

One thing that strikes me as odd is why it would even matter that the scientific community doesn't take these CF advocates seriously. If they really did get the results they claim, couldn't they just start building a technology out of it?

Gib, building power cells isn't a back yard operation, it requires manufacturing facilities and buckets of money. Money will only come if you can show clear title to the product. Clear title means a patent. You can't get a patent on power cells using this effect.

 

From the POV of the Patent Office, power cells using this effect (if it isn't fusion) would be an over unity device and therefore unpatentable. Nobody is going to dump millions into developing a tech that they can't patent.

 

Swansont, when I wrote the previous post I was going to insert a section where I wondered if having the term "fusion" involved was part of the problem. Maybe this is why the term "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" seems to be getting more common. I'm simpler. To me, Hydrogen in and Helium out = Fusion. Everything else is book keeping.

 

I tend to look at these things in a basic manner.

Q1. Is there an effect?

A. Yes.

Q2. Is the effect replicable?

A. Yes.

Conclusion: The effect is real.

 

Q3. Are there by products?

A. Yes.

Q4. Are the by products those of a chemical or nuclear nature?

A. Nuclear.

Conclusion: There is a nuclear reaction taking place.

 

Now the biggy.

Q5. Does current theory allow for the observed effect?

A. No.

Q6. Does current theory tell us where to look for the discrepancies?

A. Yes.

Conclusion: We should try to find out what the hell is going on.

 

The missing neutrons are not a problem, but perhaps a hint to the solution. Rather than saying "There are missing neutrons, therefore the effect is fallacious." I would look at it as "There are missing neutrons, what happened to them?"

 

The byproducts tell us that there is indeed a nuclear effect going on, but theory tells us there should be more neutrons produced. "Where are they?" is the question.

 

By asking the right question in the right way, we may find a whole new area of knowledge. And how cool is that?

[Mr Skeptic]

Actually, small bits of "cold fusion" can happen. Hell, you can buy kits that allow you to do it in your kitchen. The thing is, there is absolutely NO WAY to scale it up to a level that produces useful energy in a way that releases more than it costs.

 

Aren't some of the real cold fusion devices being considered as a neutron source?

[Kyrisch]

 

Q3. Are there by products?

A. Yes.

Q4. Are the by products those of a chemical or nuclear nature?

A. Nuclear.

Conclusion: There is a nuclear reaction taking place.

 

False.

You forgot Q5. Is there enough of the nuclear by-product to imply that a nuclear reaction is taking place?

A. NO.

Conclusion: There probably isn't anything out of the ordinary going on.

 

In fact, Pons and Fleishmann never formally measured neutron "emission" greater than background levels.

[jdurg]

Where do I base my prediction? Look at the cost of the materials required. Then look at the amount of energy released. If you overall numbers are positive, then it can be scaled up. The thing is, heavy water is NOT inexpensive. It requires a great deal of engery to generate, and the fusion reaction that has been proposed does not create enough energy to make the production of D2O profittable.

 

It's like saying you can heat your house by reacting five ounces of platinum metal per month. Yes, you may be able to do it, but the cost associated is not putting you in the black.

[swansont]

I think that the mainstream view is more like this:

 

Q1. Is there an effect?

A. Maybe. There's excess heat claimed, but it's not always clear if the experiment was rigorous enough.

Q2. Is the effect replicable?

A. Sort of. Sometimes it's replicated and sometimes not.

Conclusion: Can't draw one until they get their act together.

 

Q3. Are there by products?

A. Maybe. The levels are around background, so it may just be sloppy experiments.

Q4. Are the by products those of a chemical or nuclear nature?

A. Could be either.

Conclusion: Can't draw one until they get their act together.

 

Now the biggy.

Q5. Does current theory allow for the observed effect?

A. Depends on of there is really an observed effect.

Q6. Does current theory tell us where to look for the discrepancies?

A. Yes.

Conclusion: Can't draw one until they get their act together.

[Samar]

It's strange that 20 years now and even the most basic results of these experiments are not confirmed or are said to be "Nearly ...." or simply depends.

[Kyrisch]

It's strange that 20 years now and even the most basic results of these experiments are not confirmed or are said to be "Nearly ...." or simply depends.

 

Exactly, it's no better than the 'experiments' done to prove the effect of telepathy real. When there are results, they're marginally above chance, and never able to be consistently replicated.

[JohnB]

Where do I base my prediction?......

Hmmmm, fair enough. I've always believed that scaling up an operation can reduce costs, but I see you have may a very valid point.

False.

You forgot Q5. Is there enough of the nuclear by-product to imply that a nuclear reaction is taking place?

A. NO.

Conclusion: There probably isn't anything out of the ordinary going on.

So if there is no He present before the experiment' date=' but it is present afterwards, where does it come from?

 

You may like to read this paper. (I do like papers where they explain the process used to eliminate outside contamination.) They found excess ⁴He production and dental xray films placed near the chamber were found to be "significantly exposed".

 

To quote their conclusion;

Our cold fusion experiments show a correlation between the generation of excess heat and power and the production of He, established in the absence of outside contamination. This correlation in the palladium/D2O system provides strong evidence that nuclear processes are occuring in these electrolytic experiments. The major gaseous fusion product in D2O + LiOD is 4He rather than 3He. No helium products are found in H2O + LiOH experiments.

BTW, all the other papers I've skimmed also tie excess He production to excess heat production. Seems that no heat, no He.

 

Swansont, also fair enough.

 

I realise that I might sound as if I'm arguing for "Cold Fusion", but I'm not really. ( Or not intending to.)

 

I'm arguing for the proposition that there appears to be some sort of anomalous process going on (whatever it might be) and that as such it is a valid area of research and those working in the area are therefore not cranks. This means it is unreasonable to automatically dismiss their work as "faulty" in some way.

 

Their work should stand or fall on the basis of the work presented, not whether it agrees with the current thinking. (With the caveat that if they appear to break any Laws, they'd better have their ducks really well lined up.)

 

If anybody is interested, there are a lot of papers available on the topic here. I add that many appear to be from various conferences, rather than the peer reviewed literature. (Although some are.)