ACS 2007 Chicago: Cold fusion anyone?
Things are winding down here. I just went along to the session on cold fusion (read the story here), but my expert timing meant that i arrived just in time for the break. Never mind, I was treated to an advance showing of one of the talks yesterday. I have to admit, I was sceptical, but this is pretty cool stuff. As Frank Gordon, one of the cold fusion scientists said to me, "this actually looks like real science" - and he's right.
In spite of all the disdain that the field is treated with, the cold fusion people I met were all very positive cheerful people, all completely convinced by their research and with what look like compelling arguments. Even the programme chair for this session (not a cold fusion scientist) told me that he was impressed by the results being presented. He's keeping an open mind on the matter. That's quite a way for the field to come since it was laughed almost out of existance in 1989. Gordon was keen to tell me that since they have been quietly plugging away at their work they have not come under attack in the same way Pons and Fleischmann did. "The silence has been deafening" he said.
Cold fusion? I don't know, but the evidence that something weird is happening is there. Maybe it's time to think about this again...
Comments
Contrary to most of the existing “cold fusion” scientists, we believe that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed below. No “new physics” is involved, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not “cold fusion” and never was.
L. Larsen, Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University
"Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces"
Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006)
"Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269
"Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472
"Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059
Posted by: Lewis G. Larsen | March 29, 2007 07:59 PM
I assume no one is presenting any mechanism to produce more energy out than was put in? Shouldn't it be fairly "easy" to detect fusion, if it occurs?
Posted by: mhh | March 30, 2007 02:34 AM
In 2004, I independently developed a theory that reverse beta processes can be enhanced in some transition metal hydride lattices. I developed this theory on the basis of the collective electric and magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons with the metal hydride lattice and the resulting disruption of gamma exchange between electrons and protons, preventing the formation of the hydrogenous state in the lattice but allowing the exchange of W (positive) particle via the weak interaction for reverse beta processes in such metal hydride lattices. Analogous, reverse beta processes occur in neutron stars under the tremendous stellar gravity, which disrupts the gamma exchange, allowing the neutron formation. I postulated that in some transition metal hydrides such reverse beta processes are extremely slow but external magnetic and electric fields can accelerate the reverse beta processes. In particular, I reasoned that strong magnetization of the transition metal hydride both intrinsically and externally can by antisymmetry accumulate, concentrate and organize collective motions of lattice electrons and protons in the metal hydride for the enhanced reverse beta processes. Furthermore, on the basis of demonstrated spatial asymmetry for weak processes by Lee and Yang (Nobel Prize 1957), I postulated that the magnetization of the transition metal hydride lattice would orient and organize the orbital motions of the electrons and protons for higher probability of their formation of neutrons by reverse beta processes. Therefore, the activation of a magnetized transition metal hydride via high temperatures and high pressures, laser irradiation or electric currents can result in reverse beta processes and the other nuclear reactions by the capture of the generated neutrons by the surrounding elements.
I was able to publish an article on this subject after two years of effort. This article was entitled: "Magnetocatalytic adiabatic spin torque orbital transformations for novel chemical and catalytic reaction dynamics: The Little Effect".
http://www.academicjournals.org/ijps/contents/2006cont/Dec.htm
I submitted a patent in April 2005 on this process.
On the basis of this theory, I accounted for such phenomena as possible planetary nuclear reactions in the interior of the earth and other planets, and novel observations of anomalous phenomena during electrolysis of transition metal hydrides. This theory is consistent with the spatial asymmetry of the beta process and the greater stability of neutrons in the nucleus.
Posted by: Reginald B. Little | April 2, 2007 03:19 PM
Hi Katharine,
Thanks for a great job in covering this subject. We've been reporting on the Widom-Larsen theory for a few years. You might want to let readers know of our comprehensive ongoing analysis of this theory. It can be found at http://newenergytimes.com/wltheory.
Best regards,
Steven Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
Posted by: Steven Krivit | April 24, 2007 06:21 PM
I am just a layman, so what I don't understand is-
If it is cold fusion, it could be one of the greatest gift to the world has seen.
Why would anyone dismiss this research on speculation? All I see above are words like "assume","postulated","resoned", "believe". Isn't this work to important to dismiss without KNOWING the exact process that is taking place?
Posted by: Ron Derkis | August 2, 2007 05:24 PM
Seems like Larsen shoudl have been citing Reginald... and Krivit examining Reginalds work.....lets have some further controversy!
Posted by: john | August 20, 2007 03:59 PM
A discussion between the journalist Steve Krivit and the nuclear chemist Andre Mitch can be seen in the link;
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0
where Mitch shows to Krivit that cold fusion is theoretically impossible
Posted by: WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI | December 1, 2007 03:41 AM