Extrémophile
The cold fusion is a nuclear reaction of Fusion which would have been carried out under conditions of Température and of ambient Pression. The nuclear Fusion is realizable by obtaining extreme pressures and temperatures such as those reigning in the sun, the explosion of an atomic bomb (principle of the bomb with Hydrogène) or in a way more controlled in installations such as Tore Supra in Cadarache, the JET (Joint European Torus) in Oxford or the future ITER in Cadarache which each one make it possible to obtain plasmas sufficiently hot and with very high density of plasma to produce phenomena of atomic fusion.
cold Fusion is a popular term to indicate the field of research on the “nuclear reactions to low energy”. It became common following the controversy surrounding the experiment of Fleischmann and Pons in March 1989. Several research teams then tried to reproduce their results, without reaching that point. A committee organized by the Département of the Energy of the United States then concluded that there was no convincing evidence that a useful energy source could result from this research. Five years later, the majority of the governments and the researchers considered that the phenomenon was only one illusion.
Since, several researchers continued research and took part in the International Conferences on cold fusion. They published their work in considered scientific magazines, by announcing the generation of abnormal energy or other nuclear effects. The sophistication of the Calorimeter S.A. made of great progress, concludes in 2004 a second committee from the Department from Energy from the United States, and the evidence of generation of abnormal energy is more convincing than in 1989. However, according to his report/ratio, of many experiments are badly documented, the amplitude of the phenomenon did not increase, it is difficult to reproduce, and a nuclear origin is generally excluded. The committee opposed thus the financing of a major research program, and identified various fields of research likely to solve the scientific controversy.
Outline
When the Eau is electrolyzed in a vase surrounded by a Calorimètre, it is possible to check the law of Conservation of energy by using the theories of the electricity, the Thermodynamique and the Chimie: electrical energy in entry, the Heat accumulated in the vase, stored chemical energy, and heat escaping from the vase balance perfectly. When the Cathode consists of palladium, and when water is replaced by heavy Eau, one expects the same transfers of energy.What Fleischmann and Pons observed in their experiments, with their great astonishment, it is that, in certain cases, the heat measured by the calorimeter higher than is envisaged. When they calculated the Densité of power on the basis of the Volume of cathode, they obtained a too large value to be explainable by a chemical reaction. Consequently, they concluded that the effect was to be nuclear, although they did not have an experimental evidence.
Other scientists tried to reproduce these results. Much failed, but some made a success of and published their results in scientific newspapers like Japanese Journal off Applied Physics and the Newspaper off Electroanalytical Chemistry. Certain researchers think that there is sufficient experimental evidence to establish the scientific validity of the phenomenon, while others reject this evidence: in 2004, the committee of evaluation of the American department of energy remained divided equally on this question (what is a significant change compared to the conclusions of the committee are equivalent of 1989).
The search for products of nuclear fusion gave contradictory results, which led two thirds of the committee of 2004 to reject the possibility of nuclear reactions during these experiments. An additional reason to reject this assumption is the fact that the current theories Physique S would be unable to explain how nuclear fusion could occur in these experiments, and how generated energy could be converted into heat (rather than in radiation or other nuclear products). However, in 2006, Mosier-Boss and Szpak, researchers with the American Marine, announced nonambiguous evidence of nuclear reactions, which must be still reproduced independently by other researchers.
The American office of the patents granted a patent concerning cold fusion in 2001. However, our current knowledge of the phenomenon, if it is proven, is insufficient to consider commercial applications in the near future. The committee of 2004 identified several fields of research to be conducted by the scientific Méthode: research continues.
History
March 23rd, 1989, the “One” of the very serious Financial Times started a shock wave: two electrochimists, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the university of Utah, stated there to have succeeded in obtaining a nuclear fusion reaction during a relatively banal experiment of electrolysis carried out with a simple pair of electrodes (of which one of palladium) connected to a battery and immersed in heavy Eau…
During this experiment, they would have measured an important surplus heat emission which they interpreted like the resultant of a nuclear phenomenon of Fusion controlled. This type of nuclear reaction, during which atomic nuclei amalgamate by generating a very great quantity of energy, is to some extent the Graal physicists which have made an effort for more than fifty years controlling the mechanisms at the origin of the operation of stars, but also of the thermonuclear bombs. The control of this quasi-unlimited energy source would release the humanity of the constraints related to the exploitation of nonrenewable energy resources or generating dangerous waste, as it is currently the case for the “traditional” nuclear power resting on the principle of the Fission of the atomic nuclei.
The advertisement of the Financial Times arrived in a quite particular context: three years before, Tchernobyl had reminded the whole of planet that the nuclear energy of fission could present considerable dangers and the nuclear programs engaged the shortly after the first Oil crisis of 1973 started to be increasingly criticized by the public opinion of the principal industrialized countries.
Work on controlled thermonuclear fusion had always marked time for 50 years in spite of the billion dollars invested and, after the oil crises of the Années 1970, energy consumptions had taken again their progression. Lastly, even if one attended the implosion of the Eastern bloc, the geopolitical context remained dubious with the rise of the Fondamentalisme S religious and the Nationalisme in the principal oil-producing countries.
In this context, the prospect opened by Pons and Fleischmann to produce quasi-unlimited quantities of energy starting from water, seemed marvellous.
From the start, the debate thus exceeded the felted framework of the scientific publications: information was immediately taken again all over the world by the majority of the daily newspapers and television channels and was presented as what could be, rightly, a major scientific discovery, but also the promise of a new age for Humanity.
However, as of the publication of discovered this “cold fusion”, many scientists disputed, if not the reality of the heat emission describes by the two electrochimists, at least their conclusions concerning a thermonuclear fusion. They recalled that it is theoretically not possible to overcome by “electrochemical” means such as the electrolysis described by Pons and Fleischmann, the electric forces which make that two atomic nuclei are pushed back.
According to the allowed scientific theories for several decades, two atomic nuclei have been able indeed to amalgamate only at the price of a very important energy expense, making it possible to cross this repulsion, the Coulomb Barrière. Currently one imagined only the fusion " hot " to get this energy able to bring closer the cores.
However, whereas cold fusion seemed to be only one media damp squib, one assisted three days after the publication of the Financial Times with a dramatic turn of events: Steven Jones of the Brigham Young University did not observe heat but observed the emission of neutrons which could indicate a nuclear reaction, indirectly confirming the validity of work of Pons and Fleishmann.
Very quickly, of many scientists, whose some Nobel Prize of physics, stated to also confirm unexplainable releases whereas they tried to reproduce the experiment of the two electrochimists.
The Energy Research Advisory Board of the American department for energy joins together a scientific commission thus in order to inquire into cold fusion. This one could not reproduce cold fusion in question.
The debate intensified between holding of a still unexplained phenomenon but having to make the object of detailed work, and the opponents for whom, in the best of the cases, the heat emission was ascribable with a bad operational Protocole, and on the worst assumption, with a huge hoax orchestrated by scientists of second zone in the search of notoriety and budget.
For the guards of scientific orthodoxy, “cold fusion” was to be classified without other form of lawsuit in the category of “pathological sciences”, as well as the Mémoire of water, the Homéopathie or the perpetual motions.
Without positioning on the ground of the experimental validation of the assertion of Pons and Fleischmann, the detractors indeed reproached them for having announced their discovery by the means of the press general public and not initially in a Scientific magazine with Reading panel, procedure usual as regards scientific paper of importance.
It is indeed of use to announce the scientific results of work in reviews which initially submit the article to one or more scientific experts charged to check that the description of the experiment, analysis of the results and the conclusions which result from this answer the criteria of the scientific step.
The scientific magazines of international audience, such as Natural , follow this use, and the scientists who hope to obtain for their work an international recognition subject to this so important rule for obtaining appropriations and the continuation of their professional path (it is the famous “publish gold perish” which conditions today, with the search of the funds of operation, most of the daily life of the researchers).
While insisting on the fact that Pons and Fleischmann “had so to speak put the cart before the horses” by giving early product of their discovery to the press general public, it was possible with certain detractors to insinuate that the authors of discovered had not wished to confront themselves with the judgment of recognized scientists and to be likely to see their ridiculed claims… This argument would have had some consistency if Pons and Fleischmann had not indeed subjected an article to an scientific magazine at reading panel. Not only they had subjected to Nature an article reporting their discovery but the reading panel of the prestigious publication had not emitted an objection on the scientific character of the communication.
Ten years after the facts, the “media precipitation” whose proof the two scientists made is still quoted like final argument showing their “lack of serious obvious”. It is nevertheless true that the experiment described by Pons and Fleischmann suffered from a certain number of defects likely to call in question the validity of their conclusions. In particular, they normally did not specify if they had observed the formation of neutrons and helium, present during a thermonuclear reaction of fusion (one qualifies them “ashes” of the reaction of fusion), and the same conditions of measurement of the temperatures during the experiment could generate a certain error count.
American, Italian and Japanese teams have continued to work for more than ten years on the subject and they estimate to have obtained results confirming that such a phenomenon exists (one does not name more it however “cold fusion”, but more modestly: nuclear reactions at low temperature or chemically assisted nuclear reactions ). These teams assert the reality of the heat emission (higher of 25 % with 70 % with provided energy). Some affirm to have highlighted the production of helium. All underline the transitory and rare character phenomenon. Certain physicists, like Peter Hagelstein of MIT (Cambridge, the USA) even proposed a theory of it.
Over one sixteen years period (1989-2005), not less than eleven International Conferences met on the subject, without counting a multitude of meetings less solemn behaviors here or there either on cold fusion itself, or on the more general topic of new energies. Being given their weak local echo, the scientific press was unaware of them. First (ICCF1) was held with Salt Lake City in March 1990 and was followed from eleven others (of ICCF2 with ICCF13) successively to Like (Italy) in June - July 1991, with Nagoya (Japan) in October 1992, with Hawaii (the USA) in December 1993, with Monte Carlo (Monaco) in April 1995, with Sapporo (Japan) in October 1996, with Vancouver (Canada) in April 1998, with Lerici (Italy) in May 2000, with Beijing (China) in May 2002, with Cambridge (the USA) in August 2003, with Marseilles (France) in November 2004, with Yokohama (Japan) at the end of November 2005 and with Moscow (Russia) in June 2007.
In France
In France, country engaged in an energy policy resting very largely on the nuclear one, the debate was very quickly closed: Jean Teillac, then High-Commissioner with atomic energy (ECA) and thus personality strongly associated with the nuclear complex French militaro-industrialist, refused to engage of research on the question.
One engaged a rapid however programs experiments with the power station of the Bugey, to show as much that in France there was no interdict on cold fusion at the ECA, that to try to show the inanity of research in this field. Little time after, Michel Martinot, his principal private secretary, explained in the columns of the Figaro of June 9th, 1993 why nothing was opposed so that the researchers of the ECA work on the question of cold fusion, provided that they do it on their premises, the weekend, and on their own financial resources.
Extremely of this “encouragement” of their hierarchy, some French scientists, such Jean-Paul Bibérian with Marseilles, engaged in a very discrete way on this way. Others could be given a financing on behalf of certain oil companies attentive with the developments of a possible major discovery for humanity.
If the ECA ignored officially the question and so eminent spirits did not hesitate to declare that cold fusion raised of “pathological science” as well as the Mémoire of water, France was thus not completely apart from the race with cold fusion.
Thus, Jacques Dufour, of the Laboratory of Nuclear Sciences of the Conservatory National of Arts and Trades of Paris, would have succeeded has to make finance its research on the subject by Shell.
The “founding fathers” Pons and Fleischmann saw themselves making it possible by Toyota to continue in France their work in a laboratory sheltered within the Institut Minoru de Recherches Advanced (IMRA) of Sophia Antipolis and this until the retirement of Pons which it took in France in 1999 (Fleischmann had taken it two years before in England). The industrial stakes being considerable, very little information filtered of this laboratory. However, in 1993, with ICCF4 with Maui, the two researchers announced capacity to produce towards the end of the year up to 200 kw…
Small projections in April 2005
The magazine New Scientist announced in its online edition the April 27th 2005 that a tepid reaction of fusion would have been obtained by Seth Putterman, Brian Naranjo and James Gimzewski with the the University of California. By using lithium tantalate crystals and the pyrolectric Effect (it is necessary to heat -33°C with +7°C in a few minutes these crystals plunged in a gas bath of Deutérium, in order to produce a local electric field), they would have been successful to produce a flow, weak but measurable, of Neutron S.
The authors underline rapidly that they did not develop a new energy source: their experiment produces a few hundreds of neutrons a second, whereas a commercial nuclear reactor would need to produce tens of million of them a second.
Discusses
The advertisements of positive tests of cold fusion apart from the scientific publications at reading panel are discussed and are prone to guarantee.
References
| Random links: | Consualia | Andrianampoinimerina | Claude Jean Chéron de Boismorand | The Soul off has Man | SdKfz 7 | Extremophile |