Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion
jlk
The Sunday Times (England)
lead with the following article on May 7, 1989
"Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion"
Sicentists at Harwell, the world;s leading nuclear laboratory, have finally
buried hopes that 'cold fusion' is the key to solving mankind's engery
problems. Dr. David Williams, head of the Oxfordshire team which has carried
out painstaking checks on the method, said yeaterday: 'We have spotted neither
head nor radiation.' The verdict is regarded as decisive because the checks
were carried out with the help of Prof. martin Fleischmann, who, together with
his former student Stanley Pons, make the orginal claims six weeks ago. The
two scientists had told a press conference in Utah that using their 'test-
tube' method, a gallon of sea water could produce as much energy as 300,000
gallons of petrol withot contributing to the greenhouse effect, acid rain or
producing radioactive waste.
It now appears that no more energy is given out from the table-top apparatus -
based on electrochemical cells - than is put into it. One possibility is that
the orginal experiment was distorted by background levels of gases and
radioactivity. Another is that the two scientists were misled by faulty
instruments.
Williams, who expressed reservations from the start, said: 'We believe we have
duplicated the experiments of Fleischmann and Pons, but using much more
sensitive equipment. Given the numbers we had been told to expect, we
should have seen something leap out at us by now. This has not happened.'
By his onw admission, the findings could leave Fleischmann a Harwell consultant,
with 'egg on my face'. They are likely also to embarrass researchers who
claimed to have replicated the results. The Harwell scientists cast doubts
last week on experiements carried out by Brigham Young University, Utah,
where a second group, led by Prof. Stephen Hones, claimed to have
preformed cold fusion albiet with only a fraction of the head output.
'Our machines are well able to pick up emissions at the level soptted by
Birgham Young University, but so far we have failed to find anything.' said
Williams. Fleischmann, of Southampton University, and Pons stunned the
world with the announcement that they ha d found a way to tap nuclear
fusion - the process that powers the sun and hydrogen bombs.
They claimed that nuclie of deuterium, which is present in sea water, could
be fused by passing an electric current through a test-tube of 'heavy water'.
The process seemed to give out head equal to four times the amount put in. It
seemed too good to be true, but experts at the UK Atomic Energy Authority at
Harwell decided the claims merited serious investigation. Three weeks ago,
sitll with no positive results, Harwell doubled its team working full-time on
the project and increased the number of electro-chemical cells in the test.
Doubts grew as it switched from looking for the head output claimed by
Fleischmann and Pons, in favour of measurements a billionth of the size
which had been reproted by Brigham Young University. The laboratory plans to
spen a final month of research looking for evidence of a trace material
which could have accounted for the results.
Dave Mack
>
>The Sunday Times (England)
>
>lead with the following article on May 7, 1989
>
>
>"Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion"
>
>Sicentists at Harwell, the world;s leading nuclear laboratory, have finally
>buried hopes that 'cold fusion' is the key to solving mankind's engery
>problems. Dr. David Williams, head of the Oxfordshire team which has carried
>out painstaking checks on the method, said yeaterday: 'We have spotted neither
>head nor radiation.' The verdict is regarded as decisive because the checks
>were carried out with the help of Prof. martin Fleischmann, who, together with
>his former student Stanley Pons, make the orginal claims six weeks ago.
Ouch!
OK, Harwell, even with Fleischmann's assistance, can't reproduce it.
Yet they continue to report it as a real (and given the ECS meeting
comments, a quite impressive) effect.
Conclusions?
Either Fleischmann intentionally withheld information from Harwell,
or FPH themselves have no idea what the key is.
I'm beginning to suspect that the latter possibility is the truth.
They aren't letting the Pd rods out to *anyone* - not even LANL,
apparently - so they know that the key is there. My guess is that
they are desperately trying to figure out why some rods work and others
don't, before someone else tumbles to it and patents it ahead of them.
Paul Dietz's speculations about beryllium or boron impurities are
interesting, but don't fit the facts as reported by FPH. They were
led into this area of research when they independently noticed that
sometimes Pd-D systems ended up with the deuterium levels noticeably
depleted. This suggests that Be-9 + p isn't the answer, since it would
work better with water than heavy water. The deuterium is an essential
component in the reaction. A reaction with boron seems unlikely due
to the high Coulomb barrier, as Paul pointed out.
The problem with any reaction involving impurities which are consumed
by the reaction is that they should be used up gradually, and the amount
of heat produced should taper off. (Unless they are being replenished -
could it be something in the lithium they're using to make the LiOD?
Or [horrors!] could the heavy water they're using be contaminated with
something?)
Several weeks ago, someone on the net reported that (according to Pons)
there was only one guy who knew how to make rods that worked. If this is
true, it should eliminate any possibility that the contaminant (if
there is one) is in the electrolyte.
Both Jones and Scaramuzzi insist that non-equilibrium conditions are
essential to the process they've observed. If the key is an impurity
in the rods, it may be the result of an uneven distribution of the
impurity within the rod - say, a higher concentration at the surface
than in the interior or vice versa. (Note that this condition might
be achieved in Jones' experiments through deposition of materials on
the cathode, in which case he may only be seeing a surface effect,
which could explain the tremendous difference in energy released. I
know next to nothing about the Scaramuzzi set up - can someone who
has read the preprint comment?)
I have this sickening feeling that we aren't going to find out the
truth until FPH release their materials for independent analysis,
which may be a long way off. It's damned frustrating.
--
Dave Mack
Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head
> ... The verdict is regarded as decisive because the checks
> were carried out with the help of Prof. martin Fleischmann....
> should have seen something leap out at us by now. This has not happened.'
> consultant, with 'egg on my face'...
I'm getting impatient about "Agent X" which Messrs. F&P clutch to so tightly
(a popular, if not unique interpretation). Surely Fleischmann, faced with
this HIGHLY embarrassing situation, feels BEHOLDEN to let the cat out of
the bag. The poker game has limits - so does my patience!
Of course, the cat may have been that famous feline well-known to
Schroedinger... :-@
Fed up and irritated,
--
Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip
'twixt cup and lip
Paul Dietz
>My guess is that
>they are desperately trying to figure out why some rods work and others
>don't, before someone else tumbles to it and patents it ahead of them.
Agreed. It is unfortunate, though, that they are not involving
the rest of the scientific community. N minds are better than three.
>They were
>led into this area of research when they independently noticed that
>sometimes Pd-D systems ended up with the deuterium levels noticeably
>depleted.
No, I don't think so. This would take far too long at the rates they
describe. I think they were led to it by some experiments that indicated
to them that protons and deuterons in Pd behave as nearly free particles.
You might also be confused by the separation of D/H at the Pd electrode.
I still don't understand how this works; could an electrochemist explain
it to us?
>This suggests that Be-9 + p isn't the answer, since it would
>work better with water than heavy water. The deuterium is an essential
>component in the reaction. A reaction with boron seems unlikely due
>to the high Coulomb barrier, as Paul pointed out.
Well, Be is also unlikely. Protium would tunnel better than deuterium
in either case. Huggins' claims contradict the idea, though.
I note that 10B has a nice resonance near (~25 keV away) the energy of
p+9Be. The probable reaction would be p+9Be --> 6Li+4He+2.126 MeV.
Another possibility is that FPH melted and recast their Pd many times,
each time contaminating it with a bit more lithium. Experiments
with "virgin" electrodes would have lithium only at the surface,
I imagine.
>The problem with any reaction involving impurities which are consumed
>by the reaction is that they should be used up gradually, and the amount
>of heat produced should taper off.
At a reaction rate of 10^12/cc/s, if the impurity is present as one
atom to every thousand Pd atoms it will take two years to be
fully consumed.
>I have this sickening feeling that we aren't going to find out the
>truth until FPH release their materials for independent analysis,
>which may be a long way off. It's damned frustrating.
This information would tell us a lot about the putative reaction, so
I'm not surprised they aren't releasing it.
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Dave Mack
>In article <35...@alembic.UUCP> c...@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
>>My guess is that
>>they are desperately trying to figure out why some rods work and others
>>don't, before someone else tumbles to it and patents it ahead of them.
>
>Agreed. It is unfortunate, though, that they are not involving
>the rest of the scientific community. N minds are better than three.
For scientific research, yes. Not if you want to patent something.
>>They were
>>led into this area of research when they independently noticed that
>>sometimes Pd-D systems ended up with the deuterium levels noticeably
>>depleted.
>
>No, I don't think so. This would take far too long at the rates they
>describe. I think they were led to it by some experiments that indicated
>to them that protons and deuterons in Pd behave as nearly free particles.
From Business Week, May 8, 1989, p. 102:
"Pons learned that Fleischmann, who was conducting experiments on
deuterium, had discovered unexpectedly low levels of the substance
in the electrodes he was using. Years later, after moving to the University
of Utah's chemistry department, Pons found similar anomalies while using
electrodes to separate hydrogen from deuterium..."
OK, so it's not the best source in the world.
>>The problem with any reaction involving impurities which are consumed
>>by the reaction is that they should be used up gradually, and the amount
>>of heat produced should taper off.
>
>At a reaction rate of 10^12/cc/s, if the impurity is present as one
>atom to every thousand Pd atoms it will take two years to be
>fully consumed.
If the impurity is not replenished, I would expect the reaction rate to
drop off exponentially as the fuel is consumed. This isn't the sort
of reaction profile FPH are seeing. My assumptions here may be naive -
I need to check this more carefully.
--
Dave Mack
JAMES WILLIAM SMITH
In article <12...@argon.siesoft>, jlk@siesoft (jlk) writes:
> lead with the following article on May 7, 1989
> said yeaterday: 'We have spotted neither
> head nor radiation.'
> preformed cold fusion albiet with only a fraction of the head output.
> Fleischmann and Pons, in favour of measurements a billionth of the size
Boy! P&F can't be blamed for getting excited about this. If I got
a billion times as much head as everybody else, I'd be happy too...
:-) something to lighten this heavy discussion...
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| James W. Smith, University of Arkansas | |
| ...uunet!harris.cis.ksu.edu!jws3@hcx | We must love one another |
| harry!hcx!jw...@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu | or die. |
| Telenet: jw...@130.184.7.209 | --A. Clarke |
| 515 Skyline Dr., Fayetteville, AR 72701 | |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Doug Roberts
>
>lead with the following article on May 7, 1989
>
>
>"Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion"
>
>Sicentists at Harwell, the world;s leading nuclear laboratory,
Now why do I immediately feel the need to question whatever is going to
follow this statement?
--Doug
--
===============================================================
Douglas Roberts
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Box 1663, MS F-602
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
(505)667-4569
dz...@lanl.gov
===============================================================
John Logajan
> >Scientists at Harwell, the world's leading nuclear laboratory,
> ...
> Now why do I immediately feel the need to question whatever is going to
> follow this statement?
> Douglas Roberts
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
It all depends on which direction Harwell is leading us :-)
--
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 -
- log...@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / jo...@logajan.mn.org -
Chris Phoenix
>[deleted]
>"Pons learned that Fleischmann, who was conducting experiments on
>deuterium, had discovered unexpectedly low levels of the substance
>in the electrodes he was using. Years later, after moving to the University
>of Utah's chemistry department, Pons found similar anomalies while using
>electrodes to separate hydrogen from deuterium..."
I just realized a problem with this.
How much D2 would need to be fused before the level became noticable?
How much heat would that produce? How easy would it be to do the thought
experiment and see that this couldn't possibly be an indication of fusion?
If this is really the thing that made them start looking, doesn't this cast
doubt on their understanding of fusion? Or am I missing something?
--
Chris Phoenix | "I was afraid of worms! Worms, Roxanne!"
cpho...@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!"
Usenet: The real source of the "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling" debate.
Disclaimer: Don't mind me, I'm just a student!
Mark Wilkins
>>
>>"Harwell scientists pour cold water on cold fusion"
>>
>>Sicentists at Harwell, the world's leading nuclear laboratory, have finally
>>buried hopes that 'cold fusion' is the key to solving mankind's engery
Hmm. CERN, Fermilab, (Nasty classified and semiclassified American
facilities), will all be dismayed to hear this.
Glad that English spirit is alive and well there.
:-)
-- Mark Wilkins
Chuck Sites
> In article <12...@argon.siesoft> j...@siesoft.uucp () writes:
> >
>
> OK, Harwell, even with Fleischmann's assistance, can't reproduce it.
> Yet they continue to report it as a real (and given the ECS meeting
> comments, a quite impressive) effect.
> Conclusions?
> Either Fleischmann intentionally withheld information from Harwell,
> or FPH themselves have no idea what the key is.
>
> I'm beginning to suspect that the latter possibility is the truth.
> They aren't letting the Pd rods out to *anyone* - not even LANL,
> apparently - so they know that the key is there. My guess is that
> they are desperately trying to figure out why some rods work and others
> don't, before someone else tumbles to it and patents it ahead of them.
I agree...
> Paul Dietz's speculations about beryllium or boron impurities are
> interesting, but don't fit the facts as reported by FPH. They were
Latter..
> component in the reaction. A reaction with boron seems unlikely due
> to the high Coulomb barrier, as Paul pointed out.
The idea from Paul that Boron (or Be), plays an active role in the fusion
process may be the wrong approach. I would like to think that if a
boron contaminate exists in the F&P rods, it may play a different role.
Here are some ideas I've had about this.
If BORON is a contaminate in the F&P rods, I would like to sugjest one
possible method by which it maybe involved in the fusion process. First, cold
fusion is a process which brings two nuclei (A<8) close enough to tunnel
through the repulsive coulomb barrier via an interaction with some third
body. In the case of muon catylized fusion, the muon acts as the third
party. In F&P's case, they believe that Pd is acting as the third party.
F&P results have been hard to verify, and it is believed that a contaminate
could be involed. If boron is the contaminate, I would sugjest there maybe
a process which would cause a B2H-- molecule, where boron would act as
the third body, and Pd as an attractor site to bring the hydrogen together.
If this is the case, it should be possible to see cold fusion as a surface
effect with boron based electrolytes and certain metals.
Boron is a pretty interesting element. The electron shells are filled
for the s & p levels, and has one lone d electron resulting in a +3
oxidation state. With hydrogen it forms B3H, but what I'm sugjesting here
is that under the influence of an electolyzed system, B2H-- could be formed
where the Boron is attracted to the anode (+), and the 2H attracted to the
cathode (-). Under the influence the applied electric field, latic
constrains, and via a quantum mechanical tunneling mechanism, it would
it would seem that cold fusion is possible, if not simple.
A quick diagram of this molecule in palladium would look like:
(Pd+) (Pd-) (Pd+)
\ | /
\ (B) /
\ / \ /
(H+) (H+)
\ /
(Pd-)
For cold fusion as a surface effect under electrolysis I would
suspect the following B2H-- in this formation:
---- (- negative potential -) ----
( - ion )
(+h) (+h)
\ /
/ ( B ) \
/ \
|
++++ (+ Positive potential +) ++++
Because of the need for a negativly charged ion at the negative
electrode, I would sugjest using a metal with a gernerally electro-
negative oxidation state. Using these ideas, here is a basement
physics experiment, I've tried (It's only sugjested as possible
way to see cold fusion if B2H-- is doing as I described. I'm not
responsible you die of radiation poisoning, or anykind of other
laboratory mishaps :-)
This very simple experiment which generates a fair amount of heat.
I leave the neutron, and gamma tests to the experts, or a good chemist
to explain where the heat comes from. Electrolyze a nickle (Ni) anode (+)
and a Copper (Cu) cathode (-) in a bath of H2O and Borax. (2Na4B7O*10H2O)
at 10V @ 0.150amp. Replace with D2O at your own risk.
Thanks Paul, Thanks Dave, I hope this pans out as a useful idea for Cold
Fusion. n
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Chuck Sites | mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!coplex!chuck . . .
o o o o chuck@coplex | ATT: (502)-968-8495 o o o o
O O O O O Philosophy: He who has toe jam (fill in the blank) O O O O O
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Mayer
>>
>>Sicentists at Harwell, the world;s leading nuclear laboratory,
>>
Actually, don't these cold fusion experiments suggest perhaps
UofU, Texas A&M, Stanford, Case-Western(sp?), and anyone else
who is seeing any results [ positive or negative ], are
the "world's leading nuclear labs". (1/2 :-)
Ronald Mayer
ar...@portia.stanford.edu
emanuel
>
>
... and what about, er, uh, Fermilab? :-)
--
Emanuel T.M. Machado, CERN | "Science is true. | UUCP:
_ _ | Don't be misled | ema...@cernvax.UUCP
/_ ____ __ __ _ </ | by facts." | FLAMES:
/_ / / / /_ < / / /_/ <'_ /_ | -- Finagle's Creed | /dev/null
J. Dow
>In article <12...@argon.siesoft>, jlk@siesoft (jlk) writes:
>> ... The verdict is regarded as decisive because the checks
>> were carried out with the help of Prof. martin Fleischmann....
>> should have seen something leap out at us by now. This has not happened.'
>> ...By his own admission, the findings could leave Fleischmann, a Harwell
>> consultant, with 'egg on my face'...
>
>I'm getting impatient about "Agent X" which Messrs. F&P clutch to so tightly
>(a popular, if not unique interpretation). Surely Fleischmann, faced with
>this HIGHLY embarrassing situation, feels BEHOLDEN to let the cat out of
>the bag. The poker game has limits - so does my patience!
I too am impatient. But, Andrew, do you really think P&F give a flying <oops>
about our impatience? IMHO they have their own problems that have a bit more
priority than massaging our overblown egos, nie?
<o.o>
>Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
>National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
>Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip
> 'twixt cup and lip
--
Sometimes a bird in the hand leaves a sticky deposit.
Perhaps it were best it remain there in the bush with the other one.
{@_@}
jdow on bix (where else?) Sometimes the dragon wins. Sometimes
jd...@gryphon.CTS.COM the knight. Does the fair maiden ever
{backbone}!gryphon!jdow win? Surely both the knight and dragon
stink. Maybe the maiden should suicide?
Better yet - she should get an Amiga and
quit playing with dragons and knights.
Information @ Any Price
> I too am impatient. But, Andrew, do you really think P&F give a flying <oops>
> about our impatience? IMHO they have their own problems that have a bit more
> priority than massaging our overblown egos, nie?
I am expressing an emotion called impatience. It is usual for us, even
emotionally crippled as we scientists are, to express ourselves once in a
while.
Sorry about the ego; I'll have a chat with it later :-)
--
Bronis Vidugiris
>In article <1...@bach.nsc.com> andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) writes:
>>In article <12...@argon.siesoft>, jlk@siesoft (jlk) writes:
]>> ... The verdict is regarded as decisive because the checks
]>> were carried out with the help of Prof. martin Fleischmann....
]>> should have seen something leap out at us by now. This has not happened.'
]>> ...By his own admission, the findings could leave Fleischmann, a Harwell
]>> consultant, with 'egg on my face'...
]>
]>I'm getting impatient about "Agent X" which Messrs. F&P clutch to so tightly
]>(a popular, if not unique interpretation). Surely Fleischmann, faced with
]>this HIGHLY embarrassing situation, feels BEHOLDEN to let the cat out of
]>the bag. The poker game has limits - so does my patience!
]
]I too am impatient. But, Andrew, do you really think P&F give a flying <oops>
]about our impatience? IMHO they have their own problems that have a bit more
]priority than massaging our overblown egos, nie?
Personally, I am starting to have serious doubts about F&P's integrety at
this point. I'm begining to seriously consider that their results could
be out-and-out fraud. This is more or less a gut feel at this point - I
am curious if anyone out there in netland has any facts which would tend
to refute or support this hypothesis.
--
bhv@igloo