Var kold fusion ikke en and?
Offentliggjort: 17. april 2017
Forskere i ’kold fusion’ eller LENR har publiceret masser af eksperimenter, der ikke er i overensstemmelse med den nuværende fortolkning af fysikkens og kemiens love. Men hvis de holder stik, har LENR potentialet til at forsyne kloden med billig og forureningsfri energi, der kan produceres lokalt og hvor som helst. Dette potentiale kan dog meget vel være en del af årsagen til, at den etablerede videnskab ser den anden vej.
Kold fusion blev verdenskendt, da Martin Fleischmann fra University of Southampton og Stanley Pons fra University of Utah den 10. april 1989 offentliggjorde eksperimentelle resultater, som viste overskudsvarme efter et forholdsvist simpelt kemisk eksperiment med elektrolyse1. Hermed skapte de håb om en praktisk taget utømmelig og billig energikilde uden forurening. Deres fund var meget kontroversielle, i og med at ledende forskere ikke kunne reproducere deres resultater og fordi, hvis disse var sande, ville gå imod den gældende teori for fusion. Denne teori foregiver, at kun høj energi kan forårsage kerneprocesser. Den energi, der er tilstede i et normalt kemisk eksperiment, er for lav til, at det kan forårsage ændringer i atomkernerne.
Quote from Translated by GoogleDisplay More
Was cold fusion is not a duck?
By Claus Andersen
Published: April 17, 2017
Researchers in 'cold fusion' or LENR has published lots of experiments that are not consistent with the current interpretation of physics and chemistry laws. But if they hold true, has LENR potential to provide the world with cheap and non-polluting energy that can be produced locally and anywhere. This potential may well be part of the reason that the established science look the other way.
Cold fusion became world famous as Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah April 10, 1989 published experimental results showed excess heat for a relatively simple chemical experiment with electrolysis 1 . This Skapti the hope of a virtually inexhaustible and cheap source of energy without pollution. Their findings were very controversial, given that leading scientists could not reproduce their results, and because if this were true, it would go against the prevailing theory of fusion. This theory purports that only high energy can cause core processes. The energy that is normally present in a chemical experiment is too low, it may cause changes in the atomic nuclei.
While Fleischmann and Pons were discredited in the scientific world, some researchers still interest for what today is called 'Low Energy Nuclear Reactions "(LENR), which covers a wider phenomenon.
The purpose of this article is to illustrate how LENR research field is reached to date and talk about the ongoing debate. The debate is being charged and politically, for various reasons, which will also be affected.
Can core processes occur at low energy?
In an effort to cut evaluation of LENR phenomenon from other aspects, the first few reproducible and simple LENR experiments be treated.
Such an experiment is the emission of neutrons from piezoelectric materials, just as they get crushed 2 . In a test where Luserne rock samples were inserted into a press, found in five out of the nine samples tested strong neutronudstråling place exactly at the time when they gave in to pressure. Neutronudstråling is as familiar a landmark for core processes.
Changing the atomic nucleus, so-called trans-mutations , is not possible at low energies according to current theory, but can be observed when the heavy hydrogen ( deuterium ) gas is forced through the multi-layer palladium and thin layers of other metals. Depending on the kind of metal that is used, many different kinds of transmutations be made, such as cesium -> praseodymium , barium -> samarium , tungsten -> Platinum 3 . For example, as researchers report that they can halve the amount of cesium inserted at the same time corresponding amounts of praseodymium is produced.
To the round of relatively simple experiments, it can be mentioned that when deuterium is pumped in and out of a chamber containing the zeolite -treated palladium nano-particles , so that a phenomenon is observed, which can not be explained in the field of electrochemistry . This includes a small excess heat emission of radio waves and an abnormal heat kinetics. After making more than a thousand experiments with this setup, so it was suggested LENR researchers 4 as a model experiment (in the style of model organisms that have been studied in biology).
Many other examples have been published, see also. continue reading below.
LENR as an energy source
Cold fusion is the most frequently used term when talking about extracting energy as heat from nuclear reactions at low energy. Many different experimental setups are used to extract excess heat. Somewhat simplified terms as they all have hydrogen as a common denominator (heavy and / or normally hydrogen) which will be contained in the metal (eg. Palladium or nickel ) as well as the application of energy (eg. Electrical current, heat or a laser) to start LENR fusion reaction. Thereby producing helium and energy (an example is illustrated here ).
Most experimental setups require external energy input to start and in some cases vedholde LENR process. This fact gives rise to the so-called 'coefficient of performance' (COP). This is a measure of how much extra energy produced, which for a COP that is four, meaning that when the 100 watt (abbreviated W) energy is used, then the 400W energy produced. If LENR machine is self-propelled, such as a fuel engine , the COP cease to be relevant.
The experimental setup as Fleichmann and Pons used has been reproduced countless times 10 , which clearly produced excess heat, but full technical control is not achieved with the process. For example, it is reported that energy extraction 50 times greater than that which can be obtained from the possible chemical reaktoner 9 . This occurs, however, the direct current in milli amps size, which is still quite a distance from one item to the consumer.
Many allegations of heat-producing equipment manufactured by companies and universities have been proposed over the years, however, most often without proper documentation at a level of detail that has made possible reproduction. The scientific and technical progress may be achieved, have largely been kept secret most likely to protect copyright . The alleged COP values go up to thousands and a proper evaluation is difficult, as further described below. Reports of heat production from a LENR arrays varies widely - from small devices with a high COP and low energy (<1 W 5 ) for the medium and high COP energy (1MW unit 6 ); but a complete documentation that enables independent replication has not been published.
COP-value of a LENR machine should be about four or higher to turn a normal heat pump and preferably more than ten in order to be profitable. This is because the energy produced from most LENR-arrays, the heat, as opposed to the electricity that is used to drive the machine (in the best case, only about 55% of the heat energy being converted to electricity).
Before an actual LENR machine is available, then it's obviously difficult to evaluate its COP. The fuel used can be readily recovered enough of the water and are very rich in energy, compared with oil-based fuels. Just how much energy will depend on the process used, and its COP etc. Theoretically, the hydrogen in one milliliter of water - converted to helium - release energy in the order of one thousand liters of petrol 8 .
Reproducibility, repeatability and replicability
It seems that two aspects are mixed together when up the discussion falls on one of the three terms: reproducibility, repeatability or replikebarhed. First aspect: About LENR the observed effect can be obtained at any time - what might be called full technical control (normally obtained from one individual or a research group). The second aspect is whether LENR effect has been observed in different laboratories and by different people. In the debate on LENR are the three terms - reproducibility, repeatability and replicability - generally used to cover one or both aspects. Before a full understanding is achieved by a new phenomenon, it is not necessarily expected that one has full technical control. On the other hand, is one of the cornerstones of all scientific researchers that experimental results - to be valid - can also be observed in other laboratories.
Being able to produce excess energy in a Fleischmann-Pons-like experiment is to date not possible on command, ie when and where LENR researchers wish. Nevertheless, excess heat and helium has been observed in dozens of independent laboratories worldwide. Today held several LENR experiments, which by today's technological capability can be controlled, such as the three simple experiments mentioned above. One possible viable option lets as to be recognized replication of such well-controlled experiments.
LENR sightings are of the established scientific company considered experimental artifacts and incompatible with our current understanding of the laws of physics. The so-called Coulomb barrier is the one that makes that two nuclei (which are both positively charged) repel each other so much that the concentration of atomic nuclei only achieved by a high energy. Even if the merger process should have taken place, then one would then expect high energetic radiation such as gamma radiation , which would naturally follow to release the energy produced. Thus, maintains the classical physics (for the mentioned experiments) that when radiation is not being observed in LENR experiments, the concentration is not possible. LENR researchers claim that the classical physics principles are based on experiments from the free-flying particles, which is not a complete explanation of what takes place inside a close array of atoms (such as a palladium metal or a piezoelectric crystal).
A simplified way to describe classical physics is that the only way that can transfer energy to the atom's nucleus, is using photons or particles kinetic energy in a collision (eg. To start the merger). Too: Where the energy is transferred from the nuclear core after the concentration, it must be made via a limited number of photons (eg. Gamma rays) or by emitting particles with high energy. At room temperature, however, there is plenty of total energy in a material for starting the fusion of two hydrogen / deuterium atoms, but it is necessary to focus the energy on the two merging atomic nuclei. This will in classical physical terms mean very fast moving atomic nuclei or gamma rays (i.e., high energy). After the successful fusion has taken place, the classical physics require that the energy produced (two hydrogen / deuterium nuclei release energy when they merge into helium) is released from the newly created helium nucleus either as photons and / or kinetic energy from the resulting particles (which REQUIRED at least two particles move in opposite directions). (Note - the neutrino role omitted here for ease of understanding).
Theories that try to explain the observed effects are plentiful; they range from the exotic (eg. Cast Dark Energy / Matter 11 and 'Zero point energy' ( Casimir effect )) for the composition of existing physical principles in a new way. The formation of super-slow neutrons from an electron , which is forced, together with a proton 12 inside the metal, it could explain how the helium can be produced. It takes place stepwise in that the generated neutrons merges with a proton (which is energetically favorable) until the last step when the third neutron merge, and the emitted β-radiation . Using classical physical principles - mind you - is thus an explanation of helium and energy production pieced together. β-radiation would then be picked up within the material and will therefore not be directly measurable outside.
Another explanation introduces a coupling between the vibrations in metalstrukturmatricen (so-called phonons ) with the atomic nuclei to be added to the total energy of the metal is treated as a whole 13 , by means of a macroscopic description. This joining of two different domains of classical physics necessitates the coupling between the atomic nuclei and the vibrations in the metal structure: phononerne, which may be explained by nærfeltsteori . This coupling might occur with photons as staging 14 . To start the fusion of hydrogen is absorbed into the metal matrix , one can imagine these vibration waves at sea as when they hit a fjord, you can focus the energy enough to overcome the Coulomb barrier in the bottom of the fjord. Such inlets would naturally occur inside the metal due to the structure. Impurities and / or cracks that with the proper morphology, will form the so-called 'Active Nuclear Environment' (NAE) 15 i.e. the right environment for core processes to start merger.
The energy created by the merger would then be released back to the metal structure as phonons. In some LENR creations 16 shows energy production in the short-term bursts of energy. Therefrom one can wonder whether a chain reaction or the avalanche effect of new fusions have occurred in a specific NAE area until this area is destroyed by the energy produced. The avalanche would then be started with the first merger, which then releases the energy produced directly inside the NAE area, thus starting the subsequent fusion processes.
Many researchers are working to confirm or deny these postulated LENR mechanisms.
LENR researchers report that they are actively blocked from publish, obtain research funding and patenting. To illustrate how they are treated, then Glenn Seaborgs description of how he gave an evaluation of cold fusion to America's president 17 was raised. In this video, he describes short, how he informed the president, which is said not to be in accordance with a scientific approach. He said he did not investigate LENR before he reported it, and he pushed on to put together a committee where the conclusion was foregone. Seaborg subsequently formed 'The Energy Research Advisory Board' of America Department of Energy to evaluate the cold fusion 18 . US DOE wrote off cold fusion / LENR November 15, 1989 just seven months after Pons and Fleischmann - a remarkably narrow time frame when you otherwise know how research and public examinations usually take place.
Seaborgs conclusion was repeated in 2004 19 for a team LENR researchers presented their findings to the Committee.
At Wikipedia you can read that as articles on cold fusion is rarely published in the scientific mainstream journals with peer review, they will not be tested at a level that can be expected of science 20 . This view seems to be shared by most researchers working in related fields, as well holding the expert knowledge needed to evaluate LENR sightings. LENR researchers responds with a reference to Max Planck's famous statement that "science advances one funeral at a time" (Planck was one of the authors of modern physics and was met with strong resistance when he introduced quantum mechanics).
The prospects are good (too much money and much fame), which has stood in the way to share, discuss, and is taking an open evaluation of results within LENR field. In addition, wounds that distrust when turns of this size are known, sometimes, not to bring out the best in people. On the one hand it can be argued that science is broken "science is broken" in the sense that LENR research at the present time "will ruin your career" if else you'd like something in research. On the other hand, all agree that there must be some minimum criteria for scientific work, otherwise we would be able to report what some one. The scientific ideal is that no theory must take the upper hand over the experimental observations, if they all are made properly. In this respect the secrecy and lack of transparency that seems to have plagued LENR field, possibly the cause of the lack of confidence that exists between the general scientific society and LENR research.
The conflict of interests between established research and new research with the potential to revolutionize the field is described by LENR researchers 21 . This be it in connection with financial and academic honor, where billions of Dollars and Euro have been used and continue to be invested in hot fusion (after decades of research by thousands of scientists). If LENR turned out to be true, then it would research establishment therefore find themselves in a precarious situation in all respects.
From LENR researchers' perspective, they are in a locked position where their experimental results can not be published in the normal scientific journals, because they do not fit with the current theory. New theory may not be published, because there is no recognized experimental results supporting it. Therefore, they have made their own journals, where the normal peer-reviewed process carried out, with other LENR researchers. A possible viable option could be to combine theoretical interpretation of experimental results in an unambiguous manner 22 .
It's hard to find out how many people actually working on LENR; but it seems that the field is in the growth. Eg. Kim Daasbjerg from Aarhus Nano entered the open MFMP project . LENR field covers about 16 countries with 200 to 500 researchers. Some LENR researchers talking to amend the US Department of Energy's decision 23 - based on four arguments: First, the large number and the global spread of LENR researchers; secondly that they have built up a collection of research, can no longer be ignored; thirdly LENR-theories that explain the observations, is coming; and lastly, that several experimental setups demonstrating LENR, already showcased.
LENR researchers have published lots of experiments with detailed observations that do not conform to present day interpretation of physics and chemistry laws. But if they hold true, has LENR potential to provide the world with cheap and non-polluting energy that can be produced locally and anywhere. This potential may well be part of the reason for the current situation where the established scientific company will not look properly at LENR phenomena by experimentally verify or falsify them.
It will be interesting to see what happens. About LENR is 'and' is still open. But as Niels Bohr is quoted 24 as saying: "Prediction is very besværligt, especially about the future" .
The final word on LENR has not yet said.
For the interested reader attached to this list of material that hopefully is useful even if it does not cover LENR field completely or representative.