Donal: Is Occupy Over?
Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR)
dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude
Book of the Month
From the Readers
- PeraclesPlease 17 hours ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 day ago
- PeraclesPlease 2 days ago
- ironboltbruce 2 days ago
- Orion 3 days ago
- bslev 4 days ago
- Another Trope 4 days ago
- NCD 6 days ago
- bslev 1 week ago
- cmaukonen 1 week ago
Creative corner
- MrSmith1 2 days ago
- MrSmith1 1 week ago
- tmccarthy0 1 week ago
- MrSmith1 2 weeks ago
- Donal 2 weeks ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Donal 12 hours 15 min ago
- Donal 2 days 19 hours ago
- William K. Wolfrum 3 days 41 min ago
- Ramona 3 days 1 hour ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 days 10 hours ago
- Genghis 4 days 21 hours ago
- destor23 4 days 22 hours ago
- Donal 5 days 19 hours ago
- Donal 6 days 18 hours ago
- Donal 1 week 2 days ago
The Man Who Fell for Fusion
by Donal 1/20/2012 - 1:03 pm
|
Back in the 1980s, no one could replicate Pons and Fleischmann's claims about cold fusion, and the idea of controlled fusion without tremendous costs became a sort of atomic snake oil. ITER's tremendously expensive controlled "hot" fusion is still decades away from practicality, but the hydrogen bomb seems to suffice as proof of concept. Cold fusion has crept back into the news, but not into peer-reviewed discussion. Skeptics attack the few articles published with a fury. Peak Oil guru Tom Whipple is used to doubt, and has followed the issue dispassionately in a handful of articles. His Cold Fusion Update discusses the current claims of Italian entrepreneur Andrea Rossi:
There have been enough developments in the cold fusion story during the last two weeks to warrant revisiting the subject. For those of you who came in late, cold fusion, also known as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), is a phenomenon in which hydrogen, under proper conditions, is combined with palladium or nickel to produce heat. If the reaction can be developed to the point at which it makes lots of heat safely, then the world will change forever as the ingredients for the process and the costs of the reactor appears to be very inexpensive. The process leaves behind no adverse products such as greenhouse gases, ionizing radiation, radioactive waste or even ash.
Should the phenomenon prove economically viable, it has the potential of eliminating the need to burn fossil fuels for heat, light, industry, and transportation. In short LENR seems too good to be true and therein is the problem, for there is much skepticism that a new way of energy that has the potential to render all other forms of energy production - oil, coal, gas, wind, solar, biofuels -- obsolete can possibly be real.
Leaving aside for the moment the sometimes acrimonious debate that is going on between true believers in the phenomenon and the hard-core skeptics and the lack of mainstream media coverage, let's review some recent developments. Last week at a meeting of the UN's World Sustainable Energy Conference in Geneva representatives of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science gave presentations on the state of research on the LENR-Cold Fusion phenomenon. In short, numerous scientists from all over the world have conducted experiments in which they observed excess heat coming from combining either palladium or nickel with hydrogen. These reactions have been repeated many times and cross-verified by other labs, so there is now little doubt that the cold fusion or LENR can really take place.
Further on, Whipple blithely notes that working units would probably emit gamma rays but that Rossi expects Underwriter's Laboratories to certify the e-Cat for home use.
... Rossi now hopes to be selling the newly designed 10 Kwh home heating units in the U.S. later this year for $400-$500.
Apparently Rossi has never read about Dr Bruce David Banner. I have no idea at all if cold fusion is viable, but I can't help but believe that the plutocrats behind the energy utility companies would toss Rossi out of a high window rather than let devices that cost about as much as an Eden Pure heater (as seen on TV!) put them out of business.
Update: Starts With a Bang, at Science Blogs has two recent articles debunking the Rossi claims :
-
- Donal's blog
- Add new comment
- 2473 reads
In the News
-
WTF, Quebec?
Quebec student protesters find creative ways around controversial new law
-
Obamneybush Plans for Afghanistan
Perceptive Dagblog readers know the difference between Obama, Romney and Bush:
Obama NYT today: .how President Obama’s thinking about what he once called “a war of necessity” began to radically change less than a year after he took up residency in the White House....The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it. “Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.”...Mr. Obama concluded in his first year that the Bush-era dream of remaking Afghanistan was a fantasy...
Mitt Romney, Feb. 2012 : LAS VEGAS -- LAS VEGAS -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday night blasted President Obama and his administration for “putting in jeopardy” the nation’s military mission by signaling it hopes to end its combat mission in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013.
Appearing at a campaign rally here shortly after landing in Nevada, Romney said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s statement Wednesday that U.S. forces would transition from a combat mission in Afghanistan next year “makes absolutely no sense.”....George W. Bush, from May, 2003: BBC - "We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide... Free nations will press on to victory,"
Bush Afghanistan strategy : Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who had spent the last two years of the Bush administration trying to manage the many trade-offs necessary as the Iraq war consumed troop and intelligence resources needed in Afghanistan, arrived with a PowerPoint presentation. The first slide that General Lute threw onto the screen caught the eye of Thomas E. Donilon, later President Obama’s national security adviser. “It said we do not have a strategy in Afghanistan that you can articulate or achieve,” Mr. Donilon recalled three years later. “We had been at war for eight years, and no one could explain the strategy.”
-
Marco Rubio as VP: Bilderberg conspiracy
Mitt Romney isn’t very far into the vice presidential selection process. But according to a dedicated band of conspiracy theorists, the pick is all but a lock: Sen. Marco Rubio.
That’s the current thinking among a worldwide collection of activists who are obsessed with the secretive Bilderberg Group, an alternating roster of global power players who loom as large — if not larger — in the online fever swamps of the fringe as the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76518.html#ixzz1vN5egowzRead the article at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76518.html -
Why science needs wonder
Aristotle and Plato didn’t agree on much, but they were united in identifying wonder as the origin of their profession. As Aristotle said, “It is owing to their wonder that men . . . first began to philosophise.” This idea appeals to scientists, who frequently enlist wonder as a goad to inquiry. “I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky,” wrote Carl Sagan in 1985, locating in this response the stirrings of a Copernican desire to know who and where we are.
Yet that is not the only direction in which wonder may take us. To Thomas Carlyle, wonder sits at the beginning not of science, but of religion. That is the central tension in forging an alliance of wonder with science: will it make us curious, or induce us to prostrate ourselves in pitiful ignorance? We had better get to grips with this question before we too hastily appropriate wonder to sell science. That is surely what is going on when pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope are (unconsciously?) cropped and coloured to recall the sublime iconography of Romantic landscape painting, or the Human Genome Project is wrapped in biblical rhetoric, or the Large Hadron Collider’s proton-smashing is depicted as “replaying the moment of creation”. The point is not that such things are deceitful or improper, but that if we want to take that path, we should first consider the complex evolution of the relation between science and wonder.
[....]
Pretending that science is performed by people who have undergone a Baconian purification of the emotions only deepens the danger that it will seem alien and odd to outsiders, something carried out by people who do not think as they do. Daston believes that we have inherited a “view of intelligence as neatly detached from emotional, moral and aesthetic impulses, and a related and coeval view of scientific objectivity that brand[s] such impulses as contaminants”. It is easy to understand the historical origins of this attitude: the need to distinguish science from credulous “enthusiasm”, to develop an authoritative voice, to strip away the pretensions of the mystical Renaissance magus who acquired knowledge through personal revelation. We no longer need these defences, however; worse, they become a defensive reflex that exposes scientists to the caricature of the emotionally constipated boffin, hiding within thickets of jargon.
Read the article at http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/sci-tech/2012/05/why-science-needs-wonder -
Craig Venter Wants to Solve the World’s Energy Crisis
... We’re trying to harness photosynthesis. A key part of photosynthesis is what happens when the sun goes down. Cells convert CO2 into sugar and fat molecules. And they store the fat to burn as energy to get them through the night ... We’re trying to coax our synthetic cells to ... store far more fat than they actually were designed to do, so that we can harness it all as an energy source and use it to create gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel straight from carbon dioxide and sunlight. This would shift the carbon equation so we’re recycling CO2 instead of taking new carbon out of the ground and creating still more CO2. But it has to be done on a massive scale to have any real impact on the amount of CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere, let alone recovering from the atmosphere.
... We envision facilities the size of San Francisco. And 10 or 15 of those in this country. We need sunlight, seawater, and non-agricultural land, but you need a lot of photons to drive this. You need a lot of surface area of sunlight to do that. It’s a great use for Arizona. Lots of sunlight there.
... If we can’t get some key scientific breakthroughs within the next couple of years, it probably won’t happen in 10 years. So it’s something that’s really dependent on fundamental science. But we’re already able to do things that were once seen as impossible.
... I think the new anti-intellectualism that’s showing up in politics today is a symptom of our not discussing these issues enough. We don’t discuss how our society is now 100 percent dependent on science for its future. We need new scientific breakthroughs—sometimes to overcome the scientific breakthroughs of the past. A hundred years ago oil sounded like a great discovery. You could burn it and run engines off it. I don’t think anybody anticipated that it would actually change the atmosphere of our planet. Because of that we have to come up with new approaches. We just passed the 7 billion population mark. In 12 years, we’re going to reach 8 billion. If we let things run their natural course, we’ll have massive pandemics, people starving. Without science I don’t see much hope for humanity.Read the article at http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/05/mf_venter/2/
Latest Comments
-
in Fair Weather Dems will be...Resistance
-
in Fair Weather Dems will be...Resistance
-
in Counting Saverin's...Donal
-
in Fair Weather Dems will be...Ramona
-
in Why science needs wonder...Verified Atheist
-
in Is the Occupy Movement...Another Trope
-
in Torture is not Missing...Verified Atheist
-
in Torture is not Missing...Verified Atheist
-
in Torture is not Missing...Another Trope
-
in Torture is not Missing...Donal
-
in When Corporations...Verified Atheist
-
in Torture is not Missing...Verified Atheist
-
in Fair Weather Dems will be...Peter Schwartz
-
in Craig Venter Wants to...Verified Atheist
-
in Fair Weather Dems will be...Peter Schwartz
A few points:
-
It's true that cold fusion is not like the perpetual motion machine or exceeding the speed of light in vacuo, in that there's no reason why it should be considered theoretically impossible.
-
Most cold fusion research that I've been familiar with has not focused on generating more energy than is put in, but in generating nuclear byproducts in a more manageable environment. My understanding is that there is a lot of promise here.
-
As for the specific claims here, if you have a nuclear reaction of hydrogen and nickel, you're going to end up with copper. If you have a nuclear reaction of hydrogen and palladium, you'll end up with uranium.
-
I'll start with that last one first, since it's the most obviously bad. First and most fundamentally, there are no isotopes of palladium that when combined with hydrogen will release energy to form uranium (because the resultant uranium isotope would have a higher rest mass than the sum of its palladium and hydrogen components). Secondly, uranium is radioactive, so the idea of this being a "clean" reaction are questionable, but that doesn't really matter because of the first point.
-
As for nickel, the most common isotope is 58Ni (atomic mass=57.935343). If you combine that with regular hydrogen 1H (atomic mass=1.007825), you'll end up with 59Cu (atomic mass=58.939498). 59 has a half-life of 81.5 seconds. Not clean. However, if we use 62Ni (atomic mass=61.928345) or 64Ni (atomic mass=63.927966), you do end up with stable 63Cu (atomic mass=62.929598) and 65Cu (atomic mass=64.927790), respectively. Both of these have lower rest masses than the sum of their components, so that meets both criteria, assuming that they're not just making stuff up, which given their statement about palladium…
In short, I think they're making stuff up, primarily because of the BS about a hydrogen/palladium nuclear reaction, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible that one day someone might figure out a true cold fusion reaction.Addendum: as for using 62Ni or 64Ni, they make up 3.6% and 0.9% of the composition of naturally occurring nickel, respectively. So, if that was the plan, first you've got to figure out a way to separate those two isotopes. Otherwise, you'll end up with radioactive copper.
In retrospect, if he's not completely making this stuff up (the most likely possibility in my opinion), it's possible that the energy he's receiving isn't from fusion, but from the fission of those unstable isotopes I mentioned, along with all of its unwanted radiation.
So in other words your opinion is that this proposed fusion process is not worth a plug nickel?
Ba-dump-bump.
In looking into this further, I realized that the press release was perhaps oversimplifying things (this is unfortunately all too common). The palladium and nickel act more as catalysts than as reagents. Supposedly, these catalysts "compress" the deuterium (2H) so that it can more easily fuse with itself to form 4He. As Genghis points out below, there are good reasons to be skeptical of this.
However, muon catalyzed cold fusion has been demonstrated, with the drawback being that it requires more energy than it generates. (That doesn't make it useless, it just means it's not useful for generating energy.)
Yes, I found that this piece was quickly picked up at eCat News, and a commenter there wrote, "In Pd-D, the main reaction is usually reported to be D+D->He4" - D being deuterium. That would explain why no one was wearing shielding against gamma rays.
I'm tempted to do a piece attacking zombies just to see who reposts it.
As long as most folks think LENR (aka Cold Fusion) is a fantasy the Energy Folks hopefully won't pay attention to it until its too late... Much like the candlestick makers. In the age of the internet it may already be too late... the LENR cat is crawling out of the Bag. The naysayers remind me of that Propaganda guy from Saddam Huessein's regime saying that the Baghdad was completely secure.. while bombs were dropping in the background. Its amazing watching the psychology of this... what happens when there is a monumental shift in our capabilities....
"the LENR cat is crawling out of the Bag"
Nice choice of idiom
Exactly... well stated Becktemba!
Donal, there's a reason the phenomenon hasn't been peer reviewed and barely makes it into the mainstream press, and it's not because oil companies are quashing the news.
Simply put, Rossi has no credibility, and his demonstrations have not been very convincing.
That's not to say that the LENR phenomenon doesn't exist or that it cannot be commercialized, but I don't plan to get excited until credible scientists endorse it as a breakthrough or people start actually using it to heat their homes.
Some more on the recent hullabaloo about NASA's interest:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/16/cold-fusion-nasa-says-n...
Cold Fusion has been the subject of hundreds of successful experiments beginning with the reproduction of the Pons & Fleishmann experiment at Stanford University by Robert Huggins and his material science group 6 months after the Utah work surfaced. The Stanford success was the subject of a paper in Fusion Technology, a refereed journal. See LENR-CANR.org for excellent coverage of the field.
The Rossi work may ultimately be proven not to be a nuclear reaction at all. See Page 10 at Cheap Green on the Aesop Institute website for a non-nuclear Nickel Hydrogen system that ran for more than a year with 8 times the input energy as output. See the Abstract there of the Final Report covering a USAF SBIR Contract to Thermacore in 1994.
The Introduction to the Aesop website outlines a little recognized mortal threat from a solar storm which has the capability of causing meltdowns at hundreds of nuclear plants worldwide.
Decentralized cost-competitive renewable energy must become an urgent priority asap. The Rossi work, with all his personal limitations, has caused many to begin to pat attention to Black Swans, highly improbable energy innovations with huge implications.
That may prove to improve the odds of human survival on planet earth.
The Pons & Fleischmann (& Hawkins) experiment very likely failed to properly calibrate their measuring devices. Later groups who thought they had recreated it (including one at my alma mater, Georgia Tech, where I was at the time this paper was published), later retracted their claims after realizing that they, too, had made experimental errors.
As I said above, one day we might figure out how to do cold fusion. I see no evidence that it's happened yet, though, and plenty of evidence to suggest that Rossi et al. are mistaken.
"Back in the 1980s, no one could replicate Pons and Fleischmann's claims about cold fusion,"
What? Yes, there were people who did. NASA for one.
It is wondrous strange that someone who went to jail for one scientific scam can decades later find people (including some scientists) prepared to argue that "maybe he got it right this time." Thanks for linking to the excellent Starts With a Bang posts.
Cold fusion has been reproduced thousands of times in hundreds of major laboratories. These replications are described in mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers. I have copied 1,200 of these papers from the library at Los Alamos. I suggest you review this literature before commenting on the research. See:
http://lenr-canr.org
Does this reporting cause cognitive dissonance? Skepticism is always healthy. Cynicism, not so much. There's a reason why Tom Whipple is a veteran energy reporter.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-Rossi-Looking-at-Mass-Produ...
My link can't get past the spam filter. So, there is an article poast 1/18/2012 at oilprice.com by Bian Westenhaus that is germane to this subject. When the UL and DARPA and NASA are involved, perhaps more than cynicism is warranted? Just saying. You of course will judge. It's under the energy section. Title: "Is Rossi Looking at Mass Production of the E-CAT?"
I respect Tom Whipple's reporting, but AFAIK he hasn't examined or explained Rossi's PetrolDragon experience—his arrests, imprisonment, etc. Supporters present this as persecution, opponents smell a fraud.
Westenhaus' article notes that NASA has not mentioned Rossi or the E-Cat by name.
Sending something to Underwriters Labs is vastly different than UL being involved.
Do the Math has an informative post on not very cold Nuclear Fusion.