# Cold fusion is back. Comments? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 23, 2011, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440 "2011-04-23T05:25:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/21 "2011-04-23T13:19:26Z")
Although I don’t believe it either, let me point out that reactionless motion is impossible according to Newton, but has been shown to be possible in general relativity. The trick is you need a large tidal force (say near a black hole) to actually use it. This is different of course since it has been claimed to work. For all we know, perpetual motion will be possible because of some physics we don’t understand. 'Tis best to keep an open (but skeptical) mind about these things. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/22 "2011-04-23T13:43:55Z")
If that is the real deal or not is still to be seen, but what I find most interesting is the reaction of most in the scientific community, that of basically near universal automatic dismissal because of some ‘law’ (of physics) that they drew up to try to explain something they have no idea of. And how that law is preventing research and funding. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/23 "2011-04-23T13:53:28Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > …wait, they figured that out? That bastard Fermat did it first. But he wasn’t kind enough to leave any simple directions us normal guys could use. Apparently some other famous math guy recently rediscovered a very complicated way to do it as well. But its still beyond the reach of us mere mortals. Thanks for nothing Fermat! I “like” the idea of cold fusion. Not that this is likely to pan out either. But I do think its good that it got the ball rolling many years ago for thinking outside the box on how to possibly achieve fusion. Sometimes accepting what was thought impossible or very very hard might be doable gets people to think about alternate ways to achieve something that nobody has even bothered to think about. ---
**Author:** ![Uncertain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Uncertain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncertain)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/24 "2011-04-23T14:01:06Z")
Sounds like a lot of Bologna to me. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/25 "2011-04-23T14:47:37Z")
Power source of the future, and it always will be. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/26 "2011-04-23T15:47:16Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Translation (from comments section of article) of video interview. > > Transcript: > This test will demonstrate that we were able to heat the water, therefore thermal energy which can be transformed into electricity with extremely low costs. > [..] You will not find it this on textbooks as many people think it’s not even possible. > Interviewer: what happens in here? > Physicist: hydrogen atoms are separated from their electrons and protons, but to answer I should use a simpler language [ed. I call BS at this point] I didn’t read the rest of the hand waving, but I wanted to point out that there is nothing nonsensical here. It is precisely what happens when hydrogen is adsorbed into a catalyst. The valence electrons in a catalyst like nickel are all part of the conduction band. They are not attached to any specific atom. When a hydrogen atom gets adsorbed, it’s electron becomes part of the conduction band. It separates from the proton. The proton then tunnels through the catalyst pretty freely. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/27 "2011-04-23T15:58:03Z")
Weren’t a lot of the problems that Pons & Fleischmann had were difficulties in getting platinum electrodes of the required purity and solidity, that the experimental setup was unusually finicky? Further, [didn’t the U.S. Navy at their labs in San Diego](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510589,00.html) get some breakthroughs by therefore constructing the electrodes via a CVD or PVD process? (the link was one of the first that came up in Google) Granted, I didn’t hear anything more about it, and you’d think that we would if there actually was anything to it. I thought the consensus was that there was something weird going on in P&L’s lab—that it probably wasn’t fusion, and probably was just bad lab technique/experimental design—but there was a small chance that they’d stumbled into something odd. I think they were screw-ups who initially overpromoted their findings. The revolutionary possibilities if they were right led to the massive overexposure they received. Calling a screw-up with shoddy lab technique a "fraud"demeans that term, IMHO. I don’t see in their conduct the bad intent necessary for that, as opposed to the actions of someone like [Jan Hendrik Schön](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal) or [Andrew Wakefield](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield). Then again, I haven’t followed their actions as closely as some of you have. You’d think after 20-30 years there’d be some breakthrough though… ---
**Author:** ![TNWPsycho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@TNWPsycho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TNWPsycho)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/28 "2011-04-23T16:03:37Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Although I don’t believe it either, let me point out that reactionless motion is impossible according to Newton, but has been shown to be possible in general relativity. The trick is you need a large tidal force (say near a black hole) to actually use it. This is different of course since it has been claimed to work.. Am i missing something? Isnt the black hole the force that is acting on the object? So reallyforce is still applied in one way or another. ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/29 "2011-04-23T16:11:57Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > You’d think after 20-30 years there’d be some breakthrough though… Well, if you compare Cold Fusion with Hot Fusion, things are not such bad :rolleyes: In Hot Fusion scientists have been working on a prototype during 60 years… and we are still have to wait another 30 to see something practical out of it. If it works, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/30 "2011-04-23T16:21:22Z")
> [@pinguin](#): > > Well, if you compare Cold Fusion with Hot Fusion, things are not such bad :rolleyes: In Hot Fusion scientists have been working on a prototype during 60 years… and we are still have to wait another 30 to see something practical out of it. If it works, of course. Yeah, but we at least have a theory that works (and some very practical one-off demonstrators, 100 kilotons and up…); the rest is “just” engineering. I don’t think we even have a good theory to explain cold fusion, if indeed it was actually going on. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/31 "2011-04-23T17:50:04Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Although I don’t believe it either, let me point out that reactionless motion is impossible according to Newton, but has been shown to be possible in general relativity. The trick is you need a large tidal force (say near a black hole) to actually use it. This is different of course since it has been claimed to work. > > For all we know, perpetual motion will be possible because of some physics we don’t understand. 'Tis best to keep an open (but skeptical) mind about these things. > [@TNWPsycho](#): > > Am i missing something? Isnt the black hole the force that is acting on the object? So reallyforce is still applied in one way or another. [Here is a Scientific American article](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=surprises-from-general-relativity) on how General Relativity theoretically allows for reactionless acceleration. In practice, it’s like gravity waves: you would need to oscillate a neutron-star dense mass at close to the speed of light in a near- event horizon strength gravity field to see any measurable motion. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/32 "2011-04-23T18:16:02Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > In practice, it’s like gravity waves: you would need to oscillate a neutron-star dense mass at close to the speed of light in a near- event horizon strength gravity field to see any measurable motion. So, it’s just an engineering problem? 😉 Tris ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/33 "2011-04-23T18:39:03Z")
> [@pinguin](#): > > Well, if you compare Cold Fusion with Hot Fusion, things are not such bad :rolleyes: In Hot Fusion scientists have been working on a prototype during 60 years… and we are still have to wait another 30 to see something practical out of it. If it works, of course. I think you don’t understand the current status of fusion research. We can consistently produce hot fusion. What we can’t do is produce hot fusion that consistently generates more electricity than it consumes. The “60 years” is about producing a working generator - not about demonstrating that we can even generate hot fusion (we can, if it isn’t clear). By contrast, there hasn’t yet been a research group that can consistently generate cold fusion, much less produce a generator design for it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/34 "2011-04-23T20:00:12Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Has there ever been a physical phenomenon that was at first extremely poorly reproducable, until people finally figured out the “trick” to making it happen regularly? Induced nuclear fission, as opposed to natural decay? Originally I understand nuclear energy was considered a horribly impractical idea, because you’d either have to individually break every atomic nucleus one by one with an accelerator or have some magic “make atoms decay” field. Then the idea of a chain reaction came along, and fission power goes from being Astounding Super Science to within the capabilities of mere 20th century engineering. > [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > By contrast, there hasn’t yet been a research group that can consistently generate cold fusion, much less produce a generator design for it. As I pointed out above, [we have](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion). The technology just isn’t useful for energy generation barring a breakthrough or two. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/35 "2011-04-23T20:13:49Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Has there ever been a physical phenomenon that was at first extremely poorly reproducable, until people finally figured out the “trick” to making it happen regularly? Arguably, beer brewing also falls under this category. Before Pasteur came around and figured out what all the micro-organisms were doing, brewers had to save a bit of the old yeast sediment from previous batches to use in the next. These would occasionally fail. They’d also rely on natural, often air-borne yeasts if they had no other source. Of course, they didn’t realize what was really happening, but it would work with regularity, if not perfect reliability. Now that we know yeast is involved, we don’t have to deal with beer batches that don’t ferment. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/36 "2011-04-23T20:55:01Z")
The theory of cold fusion, as I understand it, is that when heavy water is electrolyzed, with palladium elctrodes (what P&F used) the resultant hydrogen (actually, deuterium) would work its way into the matrix of the Palladium rod until the rod was over-saturated with D. This is nothing new; one theory for hydrogen-powered vehicles uses metal matrix instead of gas under serious pressure as a storage method. The theory was that in the confines of a dense metal the oversaturated Deuterium nuclei would more easily fuse. Deuterium fuses more easily than plain hydrogen, anyway. (Anothere recent “announcement” suggested compressing bubbles with sound waves could also produce the necessary pressure/Deuterium density) The flaw was that some researchers reported excess heat, some reported actually detecting neutrons. A D-D reaction produces He3 and a neutron and releases significant energy. Nobody that I recall reported consistent production of heat and neutrons. If you are claiming that you are producing regular fusion, you should find all the products of fusion - heat, He3, and neutrons - in measurable and consistent amounts. Nobody has demonstrated that. Many of the “we produced excess heat” experiments have been criticised for inexact measurements of energy-in-energy-out, since you are consistently pushing electricity through the system. A fusion reaction producing the alleged amount of heat should have been pumping out a adangerous level of neutron radiation. If you want to claim that all basic, known, and long-established particle physics is incorrect to explain the lack of neutrons - well, good luck with that. While you’re at it, argue Newton, Einstein and thermodynamics are incorrect too - it will gain you equal respect. If you plan to, you better have a device that anyone can build that anyone can then consistently violate the laws of physics. Claiming “it’s secret and anyone who doubts us is working for the oil compnaies and the science establishment” is not a good argument. Pons and Fleischman at least seemed somewhat sincere in suggesting that anyone could replicate their tests. The fact that nobody really did produce all the evidence of real fusion suggests they were honestly deluded. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/37 "2011-04-23T22:00:10Z")
Quoth **Chimera** : > [@](#): > > Every couple of years someone announces they’ve built a machine to turn garbage into oil, it really works and they’ve got all sorts of investors lined up. That can be done; the problem is just that it’s still more expensive than oil that’s pumped out of the ground. It could yet become practical, though, as the oil from the ground gets more expensive. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2011, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/38 "2011-04-24T02:47:15Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Has there ever been a physical phenomenon that was at first extremely poorly reproducable, until people finally figured out the “trick” to making it happen regularly? Perhaps this is a whoosh, but the answer would be yes, virtually every physical phenomenon that doesn’t just happen naturally in our environment. Just about anything that needs to be done in a lab, or needs a special machine (like, say, generating electricity) was poorly reproducible until someone figured out the “trick”. ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/39 "2011-04-24T03:13:10Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > I think you don’t understand the current status of fusion research. > > We can consistently produce hot fusion. What we can’t do is produce hot fusion that consistently generates more electricity than it consumes. The “60 years” is about producing a working generator - not about demonstrating that we can even generate hot fusion (we can, if it isn’t clear). > > By contrast, there hasn’t yet been a research group that can consistently generate cold fusion, much less produce a generator design for it. I do understand it. What I complain is why it is taking so long to get out of the lab and into the consumer. We need Fusion now! ---
**Author:** ![thelabdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@thelabdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelabdude)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440/40 "2011-04-24T03:27:46Z")
> [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](#): > > No it isn’t. Oh, I suspect exactly the same this time too. > [@DHMO](#): > > From the linked article: > > Whether or not they have had “plenty of time to fill out the patent paperwork,” most countries’ patent offices refuse to grant patents to Cold Fusion, as they feel it is no more patentable than perpetual motion. It is this lack of patentability which is engendering their reluctance to disclose the specifics of their process. > > Personally, I believe this, too, will be a flash-in-the-pan, and more research will reveal a flaw in their process. But I still feel it is wrong to summarily deny patent protection to a new device or process, and thereby stymie any attempts to replicate the results and either prove or disprove the assertions of the researchers. Well maybe for all my doubts. Let them patent their idea. It won’t be the only invalid, useless patent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cold-fusion-is-back-comments/579440.md?page=3)