
New theory may explain the notorious cold fusion experiment from two decades ago - suprgeek
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/nov/27-big-idea-bring-back-the-cold-fusion-dream/
======
breckinloggins
I'd like to humbly request that popular science articles geared toward the
general public refrain from using the word "theory" in the non-scientific
sense. This article even includes the phrase "only a theory"!

I know there are more syllables, but can we start using the word "hypothesis"
when it is correct to do so?

It's hard enough combatting anti-science ideologies and repeatedly having to
explain that the word "theory" doesn't mean what you think it means. Please,
journalists, stop making it even more difficult by using the non-scientific
connotation of "theory" when you mean "hypothesis".

~~~
arrrg
I know you say that because of this other utterly stupid cultural battle, but
the use of “theory” in that article is largely correct. It would certainly not
be correct to call their theory an hypothesis.

Theories can be wimpy or really strong, can be good or bad. They are the
connective tissue you use to try and explain certain phenomena. From these
explanations arise predictions that help you formulate hypothesis. You then
try to falsify those hypothesis and if you fail your theory is strengthened
(and if you succeed your theory is wrong and at the very least has to be
modified or thrown out altogether).

A hypothesis is not a theory in waiting. You make a similar mistake as
Creationists do when they call Evolution “just a theory”.

~~~
andrewflnr
Did people ever talk about the "hypothesis of relativity?" It seems like it
was a "theory" before they managed to confirm it.

~~~
btilly
It is worth noting that the theory of Special Relativity is confirmed by the
Michelson–Morley experiment, which happened 25 years _before_ Einstein came up
with his explanation. In the interim period, Lorentz had managed to come up
with all of the contractions in Einstein's theory based on experimental data,
but had no explanation of why it was true.

Einstein's insight was to come up with a single coherent theory that explained
everything which had been observed, all together.

Therefore there was no period before they managed to confirm it.

The general theory was produced in 1916, when people were preoccupied by WW I.
Its first confirmation was the precession of Mercury's orbit, which had been
known about since the 1800s. Most people only heard about it after the second
confirmation in 1919 when Eddington measured gravitational lensing during an
eclipse. The third confirmation was the measurement of gravitational redshift.

Therefore it too was considered confirmed by the time most heard about it.

I say "considered" because several decades later physicists realized that all
three confirmations are explained by a wide variety of plausible theories that
do not possess the nonlinear characteristics of general relativity. (Removing
nonlinearity would be desirable because it would make it easier to reconcile
gravity and quantum mechanics.) This drove the development of better
confirmations.

Note that theories are usually developed to explain existing observation, so
the presence of confirmation before explanatory theory is actually quite
common.

~~~
ruchir
Could you please expand on that, or give a reference. What are the newer
theories that do not possess the nonlinear characteristics ?

~~~
btilly
I may well be misremrembering a comment in a class that I took over 20 years
ago.

Wikipedia lists a number of alternatives to general relativity. But I can't
find any that look linear. There may not have been a linear theory, just a set
of heuristics that any linear theory would be likely to support. In particular
when I took general relativity, my professor made the following points.

Let's model a concrete photon coming out of a gravitational potential well. We
can calculate exactly how much mass it should lose. Apply the particle wave
duality to that energy loss we get GR's gravitational redshift to first order.
Based on the wave interpretation, you can predict, to first order, the amount
that time slows in a gravitational well.

To model Mercury, assume that the Sun creates a potential well. At all points
in its orbit, assume that Mercury moves as Special Relativity says that a body
with fixed angular momentum and the appropriate kinetic energy for that radius
should move. (I forget whether you need to toss in the aforementioned time
dilation.) To first order, you recover the GR correction to the precession of
Mercury.

I forget the argument for the bending of light (maybe just throw gravitational
time dilation into the mix?), but there is a first-order heuristic that can
give the correct figure there as well.

The point is that if a series of heuristic arguments pull out the correct
prediction for the original 3 tests, then _any_ theory that tries to
reasonably combine QM, special relativity, and gravity, is likely to give
similar predictions to first order.

That professor claimed that the first test which he did not have a heuristic
explanation for involved the actual time that light took to get from one point
to another. Looking on Wikipedia, I think he's talking about
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay>.

------
HerrMonnezza
A recent pre-print paper suggests that a few mistakes in Widom-Larsen's
calculations lead to overestimating the amount of energy that can be produced:

    
    
      A correct calculation gives a neutron production rate from (1) about
      300 times smaller than what estimated in [1–3], for the value of the
      mass renormalization factor β ≈ 20 considered there. In turn, it is
      questionable that values of β can be realized, in particular for
      bound electrons, so large as to give rise to useful nuclear
      transmutation rates. A more detailed analysis of the attainable
      values of β is needed to obtain more deﬁnite conclusions on this
      interesting phenomenon, should it exist at all.
    

<http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6501> quote is from the "Conclusions" section

~~~
lewisglarsen
Our response to Ciuchi et al.’s preprint is as follows:

“Erroneous wave functions of Ciuchi et al. for collective modes in neutron
production on metallic hydride cathodes” A. Widom, Y. Srivastava, and L Larsen
(v1 Oct. 17, 2012) <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.5212v1.pdf>

Abstract: “There is a recent comment [1] concerning the theory of collective
many body eﬀects on the neutron production rates in a chemical battery
cathode. Ciuchi et al. employ an inverse beta decay expression that contains a
two body amplitude. Only one electron and one proton may exist in the Ciuchi
et al. model initial state wave function. A ﬂaw in their reasoning is that one
cannot in reality describe collective many body correlations with only a two
particle wave function. One needs very many particles to describe collective
eﬀects. In the model wave functions of Ciuchi et al. there are no metallic
hydrides, there are no cathodes and there are no chemical batteries. Employing
a wave function with only one electron and one proton is inadequate for
describing collective metallic hydride surface quantum plasma physics in
cathodes accurately.”

Conclusions: “No signiﬁcant argument has been provided against our nuclear
physics results. The experimental evidence of neutron production and nuclear
transmutations in properly designed plasma discharge electrolytic cells [5]
agrees with our theoretical analysis and belies the theoretical arguments
given in [1] against a hefty production of neutrons in hydride cells.”

Lewis Larsen President and CEO Lattice Energy LLC

------
InclinedPlane
I found this article to be overly simplistic in its explanations, here's the
relevant paper if that helps (although it's still fairly impenetrable, but it
does have more details):
[http://www.springerlink.com/content/77127077754p1788/fulltex...](http://www.springerlink.com/content/77127077754p1788/fulltext.pdf)

Note that ultimately it still comes down to low-energy fusion, in this case
it's the fusion of two neutrons and Li-6 into Beryllium-8 which then decays
into He-4 nuclei. This is somewhat similar to the CNO cycle whereby you keep
adding protons to C-12 and the subsequent products until ultimately you end up
with C-12 again plus a He-4 nuclei, and a lot of fusion energy along the way.

Fortunately there are several clear-cut experiments that can be conducted to
verify each element of this theory, so we should see some progress on this
(one way or the other) in the coming years.

~~~
uvdiv
It's a stretch of terminology to call neutron capture "fusion". This would
make all (non-spontaneous) fission "fusion" too. Neutron capture is trivial to
accomplish; there's no Coulomb barrier, as neutrons are uncharged. What's
nontrivial, and an extraordinary-claim-demanding-extraordinary-evidence, is
the production of free neutrons.

They don't have extraordinary evidence, or any evidence. Apparently I'm
supposed be enthused about this future experiment, the outcome of which
_could_ be extraordinary, although there's no particular prior expectation for
this.

------
tokenadult
From the submitted article: "Zawodny has designed a stamp-size array of metal
tiles to test the theory. According to Larsen’s paper, the properties of some
of the tiles should make it easier for electrons and protons to merge and form
neutrons. If Zawodny observes evidence of neutron production, then he plans to
do a follow-up experiment to see if those neutrons are fueling radioactive
decay. Even if he gets the expected results, though, it would take several
years and many corroborating experiments before LENRs could be considered
confirmed."

. . . .

"So far, Larsen still has only a theory and some circumstantial evidence."

In other words, the operative word in the subtitle of the submitted article
(used as the submission headline here) is "may." There doesn't seem to be any
strong evidence yet that the process described in the article actually
produces net energy output.

P.S. I heartily approve of (and have upvoted) the first comment this comment
received, pointing out that there isn't even evidence that the speculated
process described in the article even exists.

~~~
uvdiv
_There doesn't seem to any strong evidence yet that the process described in
the article actually produces net energy output._

Massive overstatement. They don't have evidence the process _exists_ in any
form.

~~~
deanotron
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. There have been 1000+ replications /
reports of excess energy from this very same "anomalous energy effect" - the
hard part is the how and why.

See the very same Joseph Zawodny speak of "It has the demonstrated ability to
produce excess amounts of energy.." in a much more candid way:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBlKc0TaqPs>

For a good compilation of LENR related evidence, see this presentation from
ICCF-17 in September: <http://www.slideshare.net/tylervan/lenr>

~~~
gus_massa
> There have been 1000+ replications / reports of excess energy [...]

I followed the links, but the links I couldn't find an article with enough
technical details about the experiments. I think that you know more about what
is published in the subject, so can you please give me:

* One link to a paper where the excess of energy is clearly measure experimentally, that is published in a peer reviewed indexed journal with a high impact index.

* One link to an article with the technical details to reproduce the effect in the laboratory and measure the excess of energy. (Something like "Experimental LENR for dummies" would be nice.)

~~~
deanotron
how about a whole library of them? <http://lenr-canr.org/>

~~~
gus_massa
Two is better! I have enough physical background to understand these papers
but I'm not an expert in the subject. And I have to do my real work, so I have
enough time to read two or three papers, but I don't have time to read 1000 of
them.

I saw the webpage only for a few minutes, and most of the links look like
special edition books and conference proceedings. I couldn't find the
information I was looking for.

Calorimetric measures are extremely difficult to do correctly, so I would like
to see:

 _) One paper in a well known journal, to be sure that an independent expert
in the subject has read it thoughtfully.

_ ) One clear description of the experimental setup, so I could try to
convince some friends to reproduce it.

------
btilly
If anyone qualified wants to dig in,
[http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-
in...](http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-index-to-
documents-re-widomlarsen-theory-of-lenrssept-4-2012) provides a series of
references to their theory.

------
Jabbles
Surely Lithium decay would produce radiation at a very specific frequency that
could be detected?

And wouldn't putting a sample of the water (post-experiment) through a mass-
spectrometer immediately reveal the presence of Beryllium?

~~~
th0ma5
When I spent my entire Christmas vacation absorbing LENR a couple of years
ago, it was just that... slight traces of reaction byproducts, and a few
traces of pits in neutron detection gel, so, yes? The problem at the time was
why so little of such things if it is fusion, but now we have this theory.

------
prewett
I was a little surprised when then said that the electron combines with the
proton to form a neutron, but apparently it is called "electron capture" (see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture>). In case anyone else was
wondering...

~~~
uvdiv
Somewhat importantly, no one else claims isolated protons (hydrogen nuclei,
which are stable) undergo EC. It's an effect of unstable, radioactive nuclei
with too many protons and excess energy. Not free protons. In fact, naively
that violates mass conservation: a proton+electron combined weigh less than a
neutron. With EC, there is excess mass in the unstable nucleus. Here they are
claiming something entirely different: the excess energy comes in from other
electrons, in a coherent quantum mechanical effect. (An "effective particle",
a "heavy electron", takes the place of a physical electron). It's not the
same.

------
jhartmann
One thing that I like about Widom-Larsen theory is that it attempts to reason
about possible quantum effects that could cause different sorts of reactions
then fusion. While I was a tike back when Pons and Fleischmann were doing
their experiments, I always thought the fusion explanation was bunk.

Extremely low energy neutrons created through quantum interactions makes a lot
more sense then something majickally defeating the coulomb barrier with
regularity (sure there are tunneling effects, but those don't happen with
regularity.) While this area of physics is full of some quacks (Rossi for
instance), I am glad this is starting to get more attention over the last few
years. There is so much that happens as a result of quantum physics that is
just counter intuitive, and really so much is left to understand about how the
realm of the small effects our macro level reality. I really wish Feynman
would have been alive when the first cold fusion craze was announced, perhaps
he could have had clues to offer that made people think twice about possible
quantum effects instead of the obvious craziness of fusion.

------
rpm4321
Can someone much smarter with physics than myself explain what the hubbub was
a couple of years back when 60 Minutes and a few other sources were starting
to rehabilitate Fleischmann?

<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4952167.html>
<http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n>

Is this the same phenomenon?

Edit: Additional question - If the palladium based device described in 60
Minutes consistently outputs more energy than input (they just don't know how
long each reaction will take, exactly how much energy will be output, or quite
frankly how it works), wouldn't it be a trivial matter to daisy chain hundreds
of these devices and get a relatively more consistent average energy output?

------
at-fates-hands
I remember my Physics teacher discounting this straight away and wouldn't let
us talk about it at all. He simply replied, "They will be shown as frauds and
quietly retire, never to be heard from again."

It stuck with me and I was glad to see someone revisiting the idea again.

------
sobbybutter
If anyone is interested, I've found Eugene Mallove's "Fire from Ice" to be a
fantastic read in documenting cold fusion and its troubled past.

[http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Ice-Searching-Behind-
Fusion/dp/18...](http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Ice-Searching-Behind-
Fusion/dp/1892925028/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351024905&sr=1-1&keywords=fire+from+ice)

------
jzawodn
Oh, hey... that's my uncle.

------
deanotron
I've been following the Rossi Ecat spectacle since stumbling upon it in 2011,
and I think LENR (cold fusion) will be the biggest story on the planet in a
few months time. I'm a 'believer'.

The Believers movie just came out a week ago:
<http://www.thebelieversmovie.com/>

Also Rossi is featured in this month's Popular Science:
[http://pesn.com/2012/10/16/9602208_Andrea-Rossis_Black-
Box--...](http://pesn.com/2012/10/16/9602208_Andrea-Rossis_Black-Box--
by_Popular-Science/)

~~~
Nursie
I don't understand how anyone can believe Rossi.

He has a mysterious device. He refuses to submit it to tests where anyone but
him gets to measure the sytem's energy inputs and outputs. It hasn't been
properly evaluated by third parties. He makes wild claims about both the
product and how well it's selling. AND he has a history of this if you read
about his previous ventures.

It has every hallmark of a con. At this point I'm genuinely interested - how
can you believe it?

------
mikemoka
doesn't anybody know that there is already a field tested product coming to
market?

<http://ecat.com/>

~~~
mromanuk
I'm following the ecat and Rossi story about the possible LENR device that he
has (supposedly) built. Everything regarding this matter is surrounded by
mystery and a lot of people objecting the tests.

I hope to see some serious development from other parties like NASA. Could be
really cool.

