Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The main replications of cold fusion, the ones that are beyond reproach, used Pd/d as the system. But commercial developers have often claim to use Ni-H to achieve similar effects. The claims include those of blacklight power some time ago, and now Rossi (which is for sure a scam, see here: Is the E-cat for real? ), and also others.

Ni-H power would almost certainly be inconsistent with the mechanism I proposed in the answer to Why is cold fusion considered bogus? . Only the heavy isotope can fuse, and it is present at far to low a concentration to make a chain reaction. The Nickel would have to segregate the deuterium from the protons, and it's too far fetched to believe.

So, to test the theory, I would like to know if there is any credible evidence for the existence of Ni-H cold fusion.

  • Are there any laboratory reproductions?
  • Are there audited non-Rossi tests?
share|improve this question
    
If OP's assertion that Palladium-Deuterium cold fusion is real, we can consider the economics of Pd-d fusion energy. Palladium is expensive, but not rare. Deuterium is plentiful, but needs to be extracted from the water. Also an expensive process. But the economic value of having such an unlimited energy source for mankind, makes these costs trivial. So who cares whether Nickel-Hydrogen cold fusion works, of even if Iron-Nitrogen cold fusion works. Why not go with the one that is known to work ? We can look for something cheaper later, once we have all that fusion energy. –  user26165 Nov 18 '13 at 6:59

7 Answers 7

Cold fusion does not exist, as discussed in the answers to this question. The fundamental reason for this is the mismatch in energy scales between the Coulomb barrier (MeV) and the energy scales of chemistry. Changing one of the chemical reactants from Pd to Ni has no effect on this fundamental issue.

The linked true-believer article, dated August 2012, says:

As far as commercialization of their technology goes, DGT says that they will be working towards obtaining industrial certifications and building industrial prototypes in the next months, and then in the next year setting up production lines and a support network.

"In the next months" implies that they would have had industrial prototypes built almost a year ago. Production "in the next year" means I ought to be able to buy one at WalMart already. If none of this has materialized, that's more evidence that the whole thing is nonsense.

The main replications of cold fusion, the ones that are beyond reproach, used Pd/d as the system.

This makes it impossible to provide a science-based answer to the question, since the scientific evidence is that Pd-d cold fusion is bogus. This is like a question asking, "Since everyone agrees that 2+2=5, is it valid to say that 8/2=37?"

The following text from the OP's question has been repeatedly edited out and in by various people:

I will not pay any attention to any answer that denies Pd/d cold fusion, and I will downvote any such answer. I am interested solely in Ni-H claims.

This reinforces my opinion that the question cannot be answered to the OP's satisfaction except with an incorrect answer.

The OP says:

Ni-H power would almost certainly be inconsistent with the mechanism I proposed in the answer to Why is cold fusion considered bogus? .

This calls for people to answer the question based on the OP's personal, unpublished, pseudoscientific theories.

From the linked article:

Then, short controlled discharges are applied by a spark plug-like apparatus which transforms the hydrogen into Rydberg State Hydrogen (RSH) atoms which react with the nickel lattice.

This is nonsense. As discussed in my answer to this question, the notion of Rydberg states in condensed matter is pure kook stuff.

share|improve this answer
4  
"since the scientific evidence is that Pd-d cold fusion is bogus." -- You're mixing up current theoretical understanding with experimental evidence. Your challenge at this point is an empirical one. You must show why every experiment is invalid in some way. Theory is only distantly relevant at this point. As a practical matter, your most effective strategy will be to discredit everyone looking at this stuff as crackpots. –  Eric Walker Aug 22 '13 at 18:59
2  
Palladium Deuterium cold-fusion certainly exists, as tritium was detected by Pons & Fleischmann at Utah, at Bhabha, at Texas A&M by two independent groups (Wolf and Bocris) and also at Los Alamos (but the fellow was not allowed to publish). That settles the question of nuclear effects for good, and there is nothing you can say, unless you can show that all these people were deliberately committing coordinated fraud. You can't mismeasure tritium, it is radioactive with a clear signature, the detection method is 100% reliable at any concentrations, nor can you make tritium chemically. –  Ron Maimon Aug 22 '13 at 19:15
1  
Also, there is a nice twist here--- I also explained the phenomenon completely with a "personal, unpublished, pseudoscientific theory" on this website, which is personal, is unpublished, but which has the sole advantage of being correct technically (I checked it, you can do so too). So that the mechanism is now known. So all your comments about theoretical impossibility are certainly unjustified, since I explained how it works theoretically. Regarding the claims of DGT, I agree, they look fraudulent, all the corporate work does, which is why I am asking for reliable experiments on this. –  Ron Maimon Aug 22 '13 at 19:30
2  
I should add that the detection method for tritium in heavy water is a blue flash of Cherenkov radiation from the emitted beta electron, and the half-life is short enough to get good counts even at the trace concentrations of ordinary heavy water, and the amount of tritium in cold-fusion heavy water was hundreds of times background. –  Ron Maimon Aug 22 '13 at 20:19

Maybe these NASA Langley docs might provide an answer.

share|improve this answer
1  
Hi @user34218 we generally expect answers to be self-contained and not just links. Also, your link is broken. Please take the time to make your answer more complete. –  Brandon Enright Nov 19 '13 at 21:23

Here is a link to a paper from October 13th 2013 for the ICCF-18 conference, co-authored by :

Prof. Yeong E. Kim, Department of Physics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA, John Hadjichristos, Defkalion Green Technologies Corporation, 1140 Homer Street, Suite 250, Vancouver BC V682X6, Canada

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/...

Abstract: Experimental results for anomalous heat effect and super magnetic field observed for hydrogen-Nickel systems are described. Theoretical analysis and reaction mechanisms are presented using theory of Boson cluster state nuclear fusion (BCSNF) based on the optical theorem formulation. Observed excess heat generation and anomalously large magnetic field are explained by theoretical descriptions based on nano-scale explosions (“Bosenova”) and proton supper currents.

share|improve this answer

Today there is no reasonable doubt that Cold Fusion is real. There are many reproduced evidence, past or current. Some peer-reviewed.

Theoretical arguments are epistemologically void, since in real science, when theory and experiments disagree, experiments rules. No serious argument could rule out all (if much) of successful LENR experiments. Some experiment were badly made, positive or negative in the early time, but after few years, skeptic electrochemist like Heinz Gerischer had enough evidence to be convinced.

The replicated experiments proving tritium production were so impossible to deny by measurement artifacts that Huizenga invoked a conspiracy theory. Same for the Elforsk test, and globally for most critics when looked in details.

Anyway one have to notice that LENr was declared pathological science at an APS conference less than 1 month after publication, and the 3 key negative experiments were done in 6 weeks, with one confirmed (excused) case of data tweaking, and few errors in calorimetry. Current state of knowledge on LENR anyway says that those experiments could not work, even with a good calorimetry (see ICCF18 miles calorimetry comparison,see Edmund storms student book).

Today the most replicated experiments are based on Palladium Deuterium, electrolysis and gas permeation. Production of heat have been proven above 50 sigma, and at COP above 2. The only problem which stopped most research was that electrolysis limited temperature, thus potentiam usage. Anyway NASA 89 replicated 2005Tsinghua/2007Biberian/2008NASA, based on gas permeation showed another method... this method, using nano-structured materials containing nickel and 1Hydrogen is the base of todays industrial developments by Leonardo Corporation, Defkalion, Brillouin, Lenuco, Nichenergy, Celani/Kresenn.

The reactor of Leonardo Corporation have been tested and confirmed as producing much more heat than any chemical process known on earth. 7 physicist from 4 universities and 2 countries, in absence of the inventor, with access to electric input and reactor walls. A black box test, with unrestricted access to the out of the boxes.

There is only one public critic, whose conspiracy theory structure, evident incompetent in thermography, and lack of serious reading of the report, make serious people consider as crackpot-like. As Bo Hoistad said on ibtimes, this is a shameful article. It is however sadly much quoted as a reason to doubt.

Elforsk is confident enough on the result to publish an article in their corporate magazine "Elforsk Perspektiv" in Nov2013.

The reactor of Brillouin, in early version have been tested by SRI, and a researched of SRI presented the results at ICCF17.

An employee of NASA (Nelson) , known to have criticized Rossi previously fro too secretive behaviors, have tested the reactor of Defkalion. the report have leaked, and inside he clearly report cooperation and goodwill of Defkalion during his tests. He was sent by a NGO, not NASA. Interrogated by a Forbes journalist, Gibbs, he confirmed.

Beside them, National instruments is proudly sponsoring ICCF18 and invited LENR actors at NIWeek2012, whit his boss supporting LENr "Edisonians" during his opening conference. Before that the "Big Science segment" boss of NI, who was selling control technology for tokamak, have made conference supporting LENR in BRussels and Rome parliaments early 2012.

Today 2 teams in ST Micro (ST NewsVenture from Grenoble, and Mastromatteo from Italy) are interested in LENR, and they own a patent. Toyota (Technova) and Mitsubishi (MHI,Iwamura) never stopped researching, and Japanese journals (JJAP...) and Wikipedia don't block LENR claims.

Today SRI (Stanford Research Institute the one of SiRI), ENEA (Italian new energy state labs) and US Navy NRL work together and replicate each others. They work to identify key parameters and improve the electrolytic method. They have mostly identified all parameters, and finally seen the importance of impurities and crystallographic parameters in the palladium. They presented their collective results at ICCF18 and in a conference in Brussels

Today nearly all failed experiments published or not, are well understood. (Ask Edmund Storms for details).

Basically in the first month, some key condition were not fulfilled (loading, current density, impurities, polarity). Epistemologically, asking for a new phenomenon to be fully reproducible when you don't master it is an unforgivable error. There is no excuse for any scientist to have used that argument, unlike you ignore the early time of any technology like semiconductors or planes.

Among pathological argument you also find the "tea kettle" argument which is scientifically absurd, pretending that something that is not useful is not real. Some ask of high COP, while what is important is the signal over noise ratio, which is better at low power.

some claim there is no replications, while there are many. Tritium experiments have been replicated among many countries and kind of organizations (texas AM, BARC, Amoco...). Even more organization have proven LENR heat production. He4 and Heat production is replicated by ENEA and Miles. F&P have been replicated exactly by Longchampt (CEA) in 1997 with modern tools, but there are many less exact replication. Some isothermal calorimetry have been done too(McKubre), ruling out CCS theories, like does Tritium and other transmutations evidences. recently Toyota published in Peer-reviewed journal (JJAP) a replication of Mitsubishi LENR transmutation experiments.

One argument is often that results are not published in peer-reviewed journals. It is factually false, and beside many others you can find many articles by Pamela Mosier Boss of US Navy Spawar, Mitsubishi and Toyota. It is however a fact that top journals like Nature and Science have shown an unethical bias against cold fusion, both refusing to retract or correct erroneous negative paper (caltech, MIT), or to allow LENR paper to be published despite positive-peer-review (Oriani) or simply dumping it for absurd reasons (ENEA Deninno report41, correlating He4&Heat). Note that Edmund Storms is currently hired by naturwissenschaften to organize peer-review of LENR papers.

Beside not being arguments against experiments, theory cannot rule-out LENR despite what is erroneously said. There is enough complexity inside lattice to allow collective behaviour, screening, as we discover every year in material science and lattice physics.

Today the only reason to doubt on LENR reality is that the size and depth of collective denial is so huge that naive people refuse to accept it, and prefer to accept the popular smaller conspiracy theory.

in fact in history, collective delusion is very common and history have been rewritten to hide that fact, less in the past. The work of Thomas Kuhn, Roland Benabou "Mutual assured Delusion", various Groupthink theories, and simply honest history of science give simple and unsurprising explanation on what happened.

Today, despite opposition, LENR is supported by industrialist who simply believed their instruments, and admitted their theoretical ignorance. It is clear from their profile that they have seen enough evidence to oppose to popular position against LENR.

So yes LENR is replicated. without doubt since 1991 as said Gerischer. By industrialists recently. And it is publicly ignored.

This is a usual situation. See Wright brothers story.

share|improve this answer

It is not generally known that Martin Fleischmann founded two directly related branches of science: LENR and Nanoplasmonics.

These two sciences have since diverged with one in disrepute(LENR) and one highly regarded as a cutting edge science(Nanoplasmonics).

I consider that Nanoplasmonics is the quintessential expression of the electrochemists art, a science conceived and brought into being by progenitor and paterfamilias of LENR, Martin Fleischmann himself back in 1974.

But basically they both deal with the same zoo of quantum mechanical phenomena.

These days as an optical science, mainstream academic Nanoplasmonics does not involve itself in the catalyzation of nuclear activity, but there is a family of easily replicated third party crossover Nanoplasmonic experiments that show how Nanoplasmonics can produce unexplained nuclear activity as follows:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf

Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt.

A.V. Simakin and G.A. Shafeev

Abstract

Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 10^^11 -10^^13 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 – 0.355 um were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 10^^10 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 – 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed.

Here is another paper in the same vein:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.6276.pdf

Accelerated alpha-decay of 232U isotope achieved by exposure of its aqueous solution with gold nanoparticles to laser radiation

A.V. Simakin, G.A. Shafeev

This paper shows how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission.

It is hard for me to understand how this type of crossover Nanoplasmonic experiment cannot be accepted by a fair and impartial observer as a true and independent 3rd party test(s), which can support the starting point in understanding the reality of a working and usable cold fusion/LENR Ni/H reactor.

There is direct connection between nuclear activity and LENR which is a Nanoplasmonic science. The E-Cat is a Nanoplasmonic device.

share|improve this answer

My previous answer was less comprehensive that what Charles Beaudette have well detailed. this books is available (courtesy of the author) on the site of University of Tsinghua

http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

Unlike the books of Huizenga and Taubes, it contains references to works done after 1989, it describes the experiments of F&P, of McKubre, Oriani, Miles/Bush, the 4 critics of Lewis,Hansen,Morrison,Wilson and their respective rebuttal and raise very good question of epistemology, the role of failures in science, chemistry, compared to interpretation of failures in theory and modern nuclear physics (which is today mostly theory validation and no more experimental science)... I refer to this book for further question on logic and epistemology. It addresses the common fallacies used against cold fusion, which are absolutely clear for practice-based scientists and for engineers. As not being an academic, it is hard to understand how those fallacies are integrated in nuclear physics academic paradigm today... maybe double-culture scientist can give answer. Epistemology is the key point. basically , the interpretation of "lack of theory" of "high rate of failure" is different in nuclear physics as it is in chemistry and other practice-based science. As Beaudette explain, using that fallacies the cloning of Dolly (99.5% failures) of the HTSC (no theory) should be rejected. By luck, maybe because there was some short term applications (the tea kettle fallacy) those domain dound support.

Note that Cold Fusion as it is a phenomenon happening in an electrochemistry cell, with calorimetry measurement, is a pure chemistry problem, and the top electrochemist of their time (F&P, Bockris, Heinz Gerischer) have clearly proven that for their point of view it was a real chemistry phenomenon.

The only problem is that chemist are nor more competent in particle detection than nuclear physicists are in calorimetry. This does not cancel their competence in calorimetry either. Physicist succeeded in proving that there was 10^6 less neutrons and gamma than expected from a hot fusion fusion, as strongly as chemist have proven there was heat produced commensurate with Helium4. Physicist have also proven they could not find a theory, which does not cancel the competence of chemist who proved something producing heat above known chemical possibilities was happening anyway. Physicist also, despite their claims, found no "impossibility" in current QM theory, relativity, thermodynamics... they just failed to find an explanation. getting from failure to negation seems to be an egotistic fallacy, as we observe for Lewis and bad stirring, Hansen and recombination, but also Huizenga and tritium, and all physicist and LENR theories.

Beaudette summarize the fiasco of the century that way :

Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.

The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.

The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told.

If you disagree I beg you give evidence, which mean:

  • written critics
  • base purely on experimental points
  • addressing all phenomenon, at least on calorimetry (including the high power events) AND on tritium and on He4/Heat correlation
  • not based on dogmatism, or theory
  • not based of failures or incompetence transformed in argument
  • not based on rumors, or call to authority or consensus
  • which address ALL the experiments, and at least the experiments of F&P, McKubre, Miles&Bush, Oriani
  • not based on conspiracy theory

For sources, beside the numerous citations in Beaudette book Excess Heat you could consult the archive of Charles Beaudette which are donated to the J. Willard Marriott Library of the University of Utah , in Salt Lake City , Utah .

The Beaudette Archive on Cold Fusion, also known as The Charles G. Beaudette Papers (Accession #2297) contains over 1,800 papers written by cold fusion researchers; 700 quotations; 40 interviews from the period starting in March 1989 and continuing through 2005; the proceedings for the first through eleventh International Conferences on Cold Fusion; technical reports from other conferences, such as the EPRI/NSF meeting of October 1989; photographs of many members of the cold fusion community; about 40 CDs of e-mails, photographs, and technical papers recorded on gold-film disks; miscellaneous popular press articles about the field; and a sampling of the various monthly journals and magazines that were published from 1989 to 2005, including but not limited to Cold Fusion Times, Infinite Energy, New Energy News, and New Energy Times. Also included are draft and final versions of both the first and second editions of Excess Heat. Dr. Stan Larson, of the Marriott Library’s Manuscripts Division (email: stan.larson@utah.edu), is curator of the collection.

Today companies and agencies (like Cherokee, fund, Sunrise securities, DoD/Navy/Darpa, ENEA, Nasa/NARI, Toyota, Mitsubishi, and some that I know of privately who prepares ) are investing millions in LENR technology, and if it was as claimed impossible, it would mean they failed in their due diligence despite the broadcast warnings and general suspicion, and as a technology watcher my duty is to warn them. (serious point, if you have evidence tell me, I am committed in that subject based on the publicly know facts, trusting the numerous skeptics to give real evidence).

For now no critics fulfilled the scientific method requirement, not even partially. It is even a surprise that the consensus survive despite absolute lack of evidence to support it. I found many source to justify that weird sociology event, and it seems quite common according to authors like Thomas Kuhn, Roland Benabou, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, and to science historian. I can confirm that at least their model apply to finance industry.

Thanks in advance.

share|improve this answer

The patent by Pekka Soininen Applicant Etiam Oy might help shed some light on the Ni-H Systems. Read it and think for yourself.

http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013076378A2?cl=en

Also Consider this paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

People say that the Ni-H systems work. With more experimentation we will find out. Thats the only way it doesn't matter what you think, what matters is what actually works.

share|improve this answer
2  
A link to a patent is not a good answer. You should use some of the patent information to answer and cite the patent as a reference. –  Brandon Enright Nov 18 '13 at 5:12
1  
Hydrogenation catalysts comprise platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), rhodium (Rh), ruthenium (Ru), alloys of Pt, Pd, Rh and Ru, Raney nickel, Urushibara nickel and nickel oxide. Nickel forms stoichiometric green nickel oxide NiO with a NaCl crystal structure, non- stoichiometric black Nii_xO, wherein x is about 0.02, and black Ni(III) oxide N12O3. Potassium is often added to the nickel catalysts for promoting catalytic activity. These catalysts are typically used at temperatures up to several hundred °C. –  user34101 Nov 18 '13 at 17:26
    
[0050] Hydrogen molecules H2 are activated by breaking the chemical bond between hydrogen atoms. Activation is preferably done with a material comprising a transition metal, transition metals or mixtures of transition metals capable of forming metal hydrides such as nickel and platinum group metals. Atomic hydrogen (H) is formed by activation. –  user34101 Nov 18 '13 at 17:27
    
In Short: As already disclosed hereinbefore, materials especially good for activating molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen on the surface of said materials comprise nickel, nickel oxide, and platinum group metals such as platinum and palladium. –  user34101 Nov 18 '13 at 17:38

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.