Cold nuclear fusion - myth or reality. Cold Fusion: The Most Famous Physics Fraud

Cold fusion- the assumed possibility of carrying out a nuclear fusion reaction in chemical (atomic-molecular) systems without significant heating of the working substance. Known nuclear fusion reactions occur at temperatures of millions of kelvins.

In foreign literature it is also known under the names:

1. low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR, low-energy nuclear reactions)
2. chemically assisted nuclear reactions (CANR)

Many reports and extensive databases about the successful implementation of the experiment subsequently turned out to be either “newspaper ducks” or the result of incorrectly conducted experiments. The leading laboratories in the world were unable to repeat a single similar experiment, and if they repeated it, it turned out that the authors of the experiment, as narrow specialists, incorrectly interpreted the result obtained or performed the experiment incorrectly, did not carry out the necessary measurements, etc. There is also a version that all development of this direction is deliberately sabotaged by the secret world government. Since the CNF will solve the problem of limited resources and destroy many levers of economic pressure.

History of the emergence of chemical nuclear weapons

The assumption about the possibility of cold nuclear fusion (CNF) has not yet been confirmed and is the subject of constant speculation, but this area of ​​science is still being actively studied.

CNS in the cells of a living organism

The most famous works on "transmutation" by Louis Kervran ( English), published in 1935, 1955 and 1975. However, it later turned out that Louis Kervran did not actually exist (perhaps it was a pseudonym), and the results of his work were not confirmed. Many consider the very personality of Louis Kervran and some of his works to be an April Fool's joke by French physicists. In 2003, a book by Vladimir Ivanovich Vysotsky, head of the department of mathematics and theoretical radiophysics at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, was published, which claims that new evidence of “biological transmutation” has been found.

CNF in an electrolytic cell

The report by chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons about CNS - the transformation of deuterium into tritium or helium under electrolysis conditions on a palladium electrode, which appeared in March 1989, caused a lot of noise, but also was not confirmed, despite repeated checks.

Experimental details

Cold fusion experiments typically include:

• a catalyst such as nickel or palladium, in the form of thin films, powder or sponge;
• “working fluid” containing tritium and/or deuterium and/or hydrogen in liquid, gaseous or plasma state;
• “excitation” of nuclear transformations of hydrogen isotopes by “pumping” the “working fluid” with energy - through heating, mechanical pressure, exposure to a laser beam(s), acoustic waves, electromagnetic field or electric current.

A fairly popular experimental setup for a cold fusion chamber consists of palladium electrodes immersed in an electrolyte containing heavy or superheavy water. Electrolysis chambers can be open or closed. In open chamber systems, gaseous electrolysis products leave the working volume, which makes it difficult to calculate the balance of energy received/expended. In experiments with closed cameras electrolysis products are utilized, for example, by catalytic recombination in special parts of the system. Experimenters generally strive to ensure a steady release of heat by a continuous supply of electrolyte. Experiments such as “heat after death” are also carried out, in which excess (due to supposed nuclear fusion) energy release is controlled after turning off the current.

Cold fusion - third attempt

CYAS at the University of Bologna

In January 2011, Andrea Rossi (Bologna, Italy) tested a pilot chemical nuclear reactor installation for converting nickel into copper with the participation of hydrogen, and on October 28, 2011, he demonstrated an industrial installation for 1 MW to journalists from well-known media and a customer from the United States.

International conferences on CNF

see also

Notes

Links

• V. A. Tsarev, Low-temperature nuclear fusion, “Advances in Physical Sciences”, November 1990.
• Kuzmin R.N., Shvilkin B.N. Cold nuclear fusion. - 2nd ed. - M.: Knowledge, 1989. - 64 p.
• documentary about the history of the development of cold fusion technology
• Cold nuclear fusion - scientific sensation or farce?, Membrana, 03/07/2002.
• Cold thermonuclear fusion is still a farce, Membrana, 07/22/2002.
• A fusion reactor in the palm of your hand drives deuterons into the mane, Membrana, 04/28/2005.
• An encouraging experiment on cold nuclear fusion was carried out, Membrana, 05/28/2008.
• Italian physicists are going to demonstrate a finished cold fusion reactor, Eye of the Planet, 01/14/2011.
• Cold fusion was realized in the Apennines. The Italians presented the world with a functioning cold fusion reactor. "Nezavisimaya Gazeta", 01/17/2011.
• Is there an energy paradise ahead? "Noosphere", 08/10/2011. (unavailable link)
• Great October Energy Revolution. "Membrana.ru", 10.29.2011.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Wikipedia

The sun is a natural thermonuclear reactor. Controlled thermonuclear fusion (CTF) is the synthesis of heavier atomic nuclei from lighter ones in order to obtain energy, which, unlike explosive thermonuclear fusion (and ... Wikipedia

This article is about a non-academic area of ​​research. Please edit the article so that this is clear both from its first sentences and from the subsequent text. Details in the article and on the talk page... Wikipedia

And falsification scientific research scientific coordination organization under the Presidium Russian Academy Sci. Established in 1998 on the initiative of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vitaly Ginzburg. The commission develops recommendations to the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences... ... Wikipedia

The Commission to Combat Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research is a scientific coordination organization under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Established in 1998 on the initiative of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vitaly Ginzburg. The commission develops... ... Wikipedia

The Commission to Combat Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences was formed in 1998 on the initiative of Academician Vitaly Ginzburg. The commission develops recommendations to the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences on controversial issues... ... Wikipedia

A list of unsolved problems of modern physics is given. Some of these problems are theoretical in nature, which means that existing theories are unable to explain certain observed phenomena or experimental... ... Wikipedia

CNF- cold nuclear fusion... Dictionary of abbreviations and abbreviations

July 24th, 2016

On March 23, 1989, the University of Utah announced in a press release that "two scientists have launched a self-sustaining nuclear fusion reaction at room temperature." University President Chase Peterson said this landmark achievement is comparable only to the mastery of fire, the discovery of electricity and the domestication of plants. State legislators urgently allocated $5 million to establish the National Cold Fusion Institute, and the university asked the US Congress for another 25 million. Thus began one of the most notorious scientific scandals of the 20th century. The press and television instantly spread the news around the world.

The scientists who made the sensational statement seemed to have a solid reputation and were completely trustworthy. A member of the Royal Society and ex-president of the International Society of Electrochemistry, Martin Fleischman, who moved to the United States from Great Britain, had international fame earned by his participation in the discovery of surface-enhanced Raman scattering of light. Co-author of the discovery, Stanley Pons, headed the chemistry department at the University of Utah.

So what is this all, myth or reality?

Source of cheap energy

Fleischmann and Pons claimed that they caused deuterium nuclei to fuse with each other at ordinary temperatures and pressures. Their “cold fusion reactor” was a calorimeter containing an aqueous salt solution through which an electric current was passed. True, the water was not simple, but heavy, D2O, the cathode was made of palladium, and the dissolved salt included lithium and deuterium. A direct current was continuously passed through the solution for months, so that oxygen was released at the anode and heavy hydrogen at the cathode. Fleischman and Pons allegedly discovered that the temperature of the electrolyte periodically increased by tens of degrees, and sometimes more, although the power source provided stable power. They explained this by the supply of intranuclear energy released during the fusion of deuterium nuclei.

Palladium has a unique ability to absorb hydrogen. Fleischmann and Pons believed that inside the crystal lattice of this metal, deuterium atoms come so close together that their nuclei merge into the nuclei of the main isotope helium. This process occurs with the release of energy, which, according to their hypothesis, heats the electrolyte. The explanation was captivating in its simplicity and completely convinced politicians, journalists and even chemists.

Physicists clarify

However, nuclear physicists and plasma physicists were in no hurry to beat the kettledrums. They knew very well that two deuterons, in principle, could give rise to a helium-4 nucleus and a high-energy gamma quantum, but the chances of such an outcome are extremely small. Even if deuterons enter into a nuclear reaction, it almost certainly ends with the creation of a tritium nucleus and a proton, or the emergence of a neutron and a helium-3 nucleus, and the probabilities of these transformations are approximately the same. If nuclear fusion really occurs inside palladium, then it should generate big number neutrons of a very certain energy (about 2.45 MeV). They are not difficult to detect either directly (using neutron detectors) or indirectly (since the collision of such a neutron with a heavy hydrogen nucleus should produce a gamma quantum with an energy of 2.22 MeV, which is again detectable). In general, the hypothesis of Fleischmann and Pons could be confirmed using standard radiometric equipment.

However, nothing came of this. Fleishman used connections at home and convinced employees of the British nuclear center in Harwell to check his “reactor” for the generation of neutrons. Harwell had ultra-sensitive detectors for these particles, but they showed nothing! The search for gamma rays of the appropriate energy also turned out to be a failure. Physicists from the University of Utah came to the same conclusion. MIT researchers tried to reproduce the experiments of Fleischmann and Pons, but again to no avail. It should not be surprising, therefore, that the bid for a great discovery suffered a crushing defeat at the American Physical Society (APS) conference, which took place in Baltimore on May 1 of that year.

Sic transit gloria mundi

Pons and Fleishman never recovered from this blow. A devastating article appeared in the New York Times, and by the end of May the scientific community had come to the conclusion that the claims of the Utah chemists were either a manifestation of extreme incompetence or simple fraud.

But there were also dissidents, even among the scientific elite. The eccentric Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger, one of the creators of quantum electrodynamics, believed so much in the discovery of the Salt Lake City chemists that he revoked his membership in the AFO in protest.

Nevertheless, the academic careers of Fleischmann and Pons ended quickly and ingloriously. In 1992, they left the University of Utah and continued their work in France with Japanese money until they lost this funding as well. Fleishman returned to England, where he lives in retirement. Pons renounced his American citizenship and settled in France.

Pyroelectric cold fusion

Cold nuclear fusion on desktop devices is not only possible, but also implemented, and in several versions. So, in 2005, researchers from the University of California at Los Angeles managed to launch a similar reaction in a container with deuterium, inside of which an electrostatic field was created. Its source was a tungsten needle connected to a pyroelectric lithium tantalate crystal, upon cooling and subsequent heating of which a potential difference of 100−120 kV was created. A field of about 25 GV/m completely ionized the deuterium atoms and accelerated its nuclei so much that when they collided with an erbium deuteride target, they gave rise to helium-3 nuclei and neutrons. The peak neutron flux was on the order of 900 neutrons per second (several hundred times higher than typical background values). Although such a system has prospects as a neutron generator, it is impossible to talk about it as an energy source. Such devices consume much more energy than they generate: in experiments by Californian scientists, approximately 10-8 J were released in one cooling-heating cycle lasting several minutes (11 orders of magnitude less than what is needed to heat a glass of water by 1°C).

The story doesn't end there.

At the beginning of 2011, interest in cold thermonuclear fusion, or, as domestic physicists call it, cold thermonuclear fusion, flared up again in the world of science. The reason for this excitement was the demonstration by Italian scientists Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi from the University of Bologna of an unusual installation in which, according to its developers, this synthesis is carried out quite easily.

IN general outline This is how this device works. Nickel nanopowder and an ordinary hydrogen isotope are placed in a metal tube with an electric heater. Next, a pressure of about 80 atmospheres is built up. When initially heated to a high temperature (hundreds of degrees), as scientists say, some of the H2 molecules are divided into atomic hydrogen, which then enters into a nuclear reaction with nickel.

As a result of this reaction, a copper isotope is generated, as well as a large amount of thermal energy. Andrea Rossi explained that when they first tested the device, they received about 10-12 kilowatts of output from it, while the system required an average of 600-700 watts of input (meaning the electricity that enters the device when it is plugged in). . It turned out that energy production in in this case was many times higher than the costs, but this was exactly the effect that was expected from cold thermonuclear fusion at one time.

However, according to the developers, not all hydrogen and nickel react in this device, but only a very small fraction of them. However, scientists are confident that what is happening inside is precisely nuclear reactions. They consider the proof of this: the appearance of copper in greater quantities than could constitute an impurity in the original “fuel” (that is, nickel); the absence of a large (that is, measurable) consumption of hydrogen (since it could act as fuel in a chemical reaction); generated thermal radiation; and, of course, the energy balance itself.

So, did Italian physicists really manage to achieve thermonuclear fusion at low temperatures(hundreds of degrees Celsius are nothing for such reactions, which usually occur at millions of degrees Kelvin!)? It is difficult to say, since so far all peer-reviewed scientific journals have even rejected the articles of its authors. The skepticism of many scientists is quite understandable - for many years the words “cold fusion” have caused physicists to smile and associate them with perpetual motion. In addition, the authors of the device themselves honestly admit that fine details his works still remain beyond their understanding.

What is this elusive cold thermonuclear fusion, the possibility of which many scientists have been trying to prove for decades? In order to understand the essence of this reaction, as well as the prospects of such research, let's first talk about what thermonuclear fusion is in general. This term refers to the process in which the synthesis of heavier atomic nuclei from lighter ones occurs. In this case, a huge amount of energy is released, much more than during nuclear reactions of the decay of radioactive elements.

Similar processes constantly occur on the Sun and other stars, which is why they can emit both light and heat. For example, every second our Sun emits energy equivalent to four million tons of mass into outer space. This energy is created by the fusion of four hydrogen nuclei (in other words, protons) into a helium nucleus. At the same time, as a result of the transformation of one gram of protons, 20 million times more energy is released than during the combustion of a gram of coal. Agree, this is very impressive.

But can't people create a reactor like the Sun in order to produce large amounts of energy for their needs? Theoretically, of course, they can, since a direct ban on such a device is not established by any of the laws of physics. However, this is quite difficult to do, and here's why: this synthesis requires very high temperatures and the same unrealistically high pressure. Therefore, the creation of a classical thermonuclear reactor turns out to be economically unprofitable - in order to launch it, it will be necessary to spend much more energy than it can produce over the next few years of operation.

Returning to the Italian discoverers, we have to admit that the “scientists” themselves do not inspire much confidence, either with their past achievements or their current position. The name Sergio Focardi has until now been known to few people, but thanks to his academic title of professor, there is at least no doubt about his involvement in science. But the same can’t be said about fellow opener Andrea Rossi. At the moment, Andrea is an employee of a certain American corporation Leonardo Corp, and at one time he distinguished himself only by being brought to court for tax evasion and smuggling silver from Switzerland. But the “bad” news for supporters of cold thermonuclear fusion did not end there. It turned out that the scientific journal Journal of Nuclear Physics, in which the Italians published articles about their discovery, is in fact more of a blog than an incomplete journal. And, in addition, its owners turned out to be none other than already familiar Italians Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi. But publication in serious scientific publications serves as confirmation of the “plausibility” of the discovery.

Not stopping there, and digging even deeper, the journalists also found out that the idea of ​​the presented project belonged to a completely different person - the Italian scientist Francesco Piantelli. It seems that this is where another sensation ended ingloriously, and the world once again lost its “perpetual motion machine.” But as the Italians console themselves, not without irony, if this is just a fiction, then at least it is not without wit, because it is one thing to play a prank on acquaintances and quite another to try to fool the whole world.

Currently, all rights to this device belong to the American company Industrial Heat, where Rossi heads all research and development activities regarding the reactor.

There are low temperature (E-Cat) and high temperature (Hot Cat) versions of the reactor. The first is for temperatures of about 100-200 °C, the second is for temperatures of about 800-1400 °C. The company has now sold a 1MW low temperature reactor to an unnamed customer for commercial use, and on this reactor in particular, Industrial Heat is conducting testing and debugging in order to begin full-scale industrial production similar energy blocks. As Andrea Rossi states, the reactor works mainly due to the reaction between nickel and hydrogen, during which the transmutation of nickel isotopes occurs, releasing a large amount of heat. Those. Some nickel isotopes transform into other isotopes. Nevertheless, a number of independent tests were carried out, the most informative of which was the test of a high-temperature version of the reactor in the Swiss city of Lugano. This test has already been written about .

Back in 2012 it was reported that The first cold fusion unit of Rossi was sold.

On December 27, the E-Cat World website published an article about independent reproduction of the Rossi reactor in Russia . The same article contains a link to the report“Research of an analogue of the high-temperature heat generator of Russia” by physicist Alexander Georgievich Parkhomov . The report was prepared for the All-Russian physical seminar“Cold Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightning”, which took place on September 25, 2014 in Russian University Friendship between nations.

In the report, the author presented his version of the Rossi reactor, data on its internal structure and tests performed. The main conclusion: the reactor actually releases more energy than it consumes. The ratio of heat generated to energy consumed was 2.58. Moreover, the reactor operated for about 8 minutes without any input power at all, after the supply wire burned out, while producing about a kilowatt of output thermal power.

In 2015 A.G. Parkhomov managed to make a long-running reactor with pressure measurement. Since 23:30 on March 16, the temperature is still high. Photo of the reactor.

Finally, we managed to make a long-running reactor. The temperature of 1200°C was reached at 23:30 on March 16 after 12 hours of gradual heating and is still holding. Heater power 300 W, COP=3.
For the first time, it was possible to successfully install a pressure gauge into the installation. With slow heating, a maximum pressure of 5 bar was reached at 200°C, then the pressure decreased and at a temperature of about 1000°C it became negative. The strongest vacuum of about 0.5 bar was at a temperature of 1150°C.

During long-term continuous operation, it is not possible to add water around the clock. Therefore, it was necessary to abandon the calorimetry used in previous experiments, based on measuring the mass of evaporated water. The determination of the thermal coefficient in this experiment is carried out by comparing the power consumed by the electric heater with and without fuel mixture. Without fuel, a temperature of 1200°C is reached at a power of about 1070 W. In the presence of fuel (630 mg of nickel + 60 mg of lithium aluminum hydride), this temperature is reached at a power of about 330 W. Thus, the reactor produces about 700 W of excess power (COP ~ 3.2). (Explanation by A.G. Parkhomov, a more accurate COP value requires a more detailed calculation)

sources

Academician Evgeniy Alexandrov

1. Introduction.
The release of energy during the fusion of light nuclei constitutes the content of one of the two branches of nuclear energy, which has so far been implemented only in the weapons direction in the form of a hydrogen bomb - in contrast to the second direction associated with the chain reaction of fission of heavy nuclei, which is used both in weapons embodiment, and as a widely developed industrial source of thermal energy. At the same time, the process of fusion of light nuclei is associated with optimistic hopes of creating peaceful nuclear energy with unlimited raw material base. However, the project of a controlled thermonuclear reactor, put forward by Kurchatov 60 years ago, today seems, perhaps, to be an even more distant prospect than it was seen at the beginning of these studies. In the thermonuclear reactor it is planned to carry out the synthesis of deuterium and tritium nuclei in the process of collision of nuclei in a plasma heated to many tens of millions of degrees. The high kinetic energy of colliding nuclei should ensure overcoming the Coulomb barrier. However, in principle, the potential barrier to an exothermic reaction can be overcome without the use of high temperatures and/or high pressures, using catalytic approaches, as is well known in chemistry and, especially, in biochemistry. This approach to the implementation of the fusion reaction of deuterium nuclei was implemented in a series of works on the so-called “muon catalysis”, a review of which is devoted to a detailed work. The process is based on the formation of a molecular ion consisting of two deuterons bound instead of an electron by a muon - an unstable particle with the charge of an electron and with a mass of ~200 electron masses. The muon pulls together the deuteron nuclei, bringing them closer to a distance of about 10 -12 m, which makes tunneling overcoming the Coulomb barrier and fusion of nuclei highly probable (about 10 8 s -1). Despite the great successes of this direction, it turned out to be a dead end with regard to the prospects for extracting nuclear energy due to the unprofitability of the process: the energy obtained along these paths does not pay for the costs of producing muons.
In addition to the very real mechanism of muon catalysis, over the past three decades, reports have repeatedly appeared about the supposedly successful demonstration of cold fusion in the conditions of interaction of hydrogen isotope nuclei inside a metal matrix or on the surface of a solid. The first reports of this kind were associated with the names of Fleischmann, Pons and Hawkins, who studied the features of electrolysis heavy water in a palladium cathode facility, continuing electrochemical research with hydrogen isotopes undertaken in the early 1980s. Fleischman and Pons discovered excessive heat release during the electrolysis of heavy water and wondered whether this was a consequence of nuclear fusion reactions in two possible ways:

2 D + 2 D -> 3 T(1.01 MeV) + 1 H(3.02 MeV)
Or (1)
2 D + 2 D -> 3 He(0.82 MeV) + n(2.45 MeV)

These works generated great enthusiasm and a series of testing works with variable and unstable results. (In one of the recent works of this kind (), for example, an explosion of a facility, presumably of a nuclear nature, was reported!) However, over time, the scientific community formed the impression that the conclusions about the observation of “cold fusion” were dubious, mainly due to the lack of neutron output or their excess is too small above the background level. This has not stopped proponents of searching for “catalytic” approaches to “cold fusion.” Experiencing great difficulty in publishing the results of their research in respectable journals, they began to gather at regular conferences with autonomous publication of materials. In 2003, the tenth international conference on “cold fusion” took place, after which these meetings changed their names. In 2002, under the auspices of SpaceandNavalWarfareSystemsCommand (SPAWAR), a two-volume collection of articles was published in the USA. Edmund Storm's updated review of A Student's Guide to Cold Fusion was republished in 2012, containing 338 references - available online. Today, this area of ​​work is most often referred to by the abbreviation LENR – LowEnergyNuclearReactions.

Let us note that public confidence in the results of these studies is further undermined by individual propaganda releases in the media of reports about more than dubious sensations on this front. In Russia, there is still mass production of so-called “vortex generators” of heat (electro-mechanical water heaters) with a turnover of about billions of rubles per year. Manufacturers of these units assure consumers that these devices produce heat on average one and a half times more than they consume electricity. To explain the excess energy, they resort, among other things, to talk about cold fusion, supposedly occurring in cavitation bubbles that arise in water mills. Currently very popular in the media are reports about the Italian inventor Andrea Rossi (“with a complex biography,” as S.P. Kapitsa once said about V.I. Petrik), who demonstrates to television crews an installation that performs the catalytic transformation (transmutation) of nickel into copper due, allegedly, to the fusion of copper nuclei with hydrogen protons, releasing energy at the kilowatt level. Details of the device are kept secret, but it is reported that the basis of the reactor is a ceramic tube filled with nickel powder with secret additives, which is heated by current while being cooled by flowing water. Hydrogen gas is supplied to the tube. In this case, excess heat release with power at the level of several kilowatts is detected. Rossi promises to show a generator with a power of ~1 MW in the near future (in 2012!). The University of Bologna, on whose territory all this is unfolding, gives some respectability to this venture (with a distinct flavor of scam). (In 2012, this university stopped collaborating with Rossi).

2. New experiments on “metal-crystalline catalysis”.
Over the past ten years, the search for conditions for the occurrence of “cold fusion” has shifted from electrochemical experiments and electrical heating of samples to “dry” experiments in which deuterium nuclei penetrate into the crystal structure of transition element metals - palladium, nickel, platinum. These experiments are relatively simple and appear to be more reproducible than those previously mentioned. Interest in these works has been attracted by a recent publication in which an attempt is made to theoretically explain by cold nuclear fusion the phenomenon of excess heat production during the deuteration of metals in the absence of the emission of neutrons and gamma rays, which would seem necessary for such fusion.
Unlike the collision of “naked” nuclei in a hot plasma, where the collision energy must overcome the Coulomb barrier that prevents the fusion of nuclei, when a deuterium nucleus penetrates the crystal lattice of a metal, the Coulomb barrier between the nuclei is modified by the screening effect of electrons of atomic shells and conduction electrons. A.N. Egorov draws attention to the specific “looseness” of the deuteron nucleus, the volume of which is 125 times greater than the volume of the proton. The electron of an atom in the S state has the maximum probability of ending up inside the nucleus, which leads to the effective disappearance of the charge of the nucleus, which in this case is sometimes called a "dineutron". We can say that the deuterium atom is part of the time in such a “folded” compact state in which it is able to penetrate into other nuclei - including the nucleus of another deuteron. An additional factor influencing the probability of nuclei approaching each other in a crystal lattice is vibrations.
Without reproducing the considerations expressed in, let us consider some of the available experimental substantiations of the hypothesis about the occurrence of cold nuclear fusion during the deuteration of transition metals. There are quite detailed description experimental techniques of the Japanese group led by Professor Yoshiaki Arata (Osaka University). The Arata installation diagram is shown in Fig. 1:

Fig1. Here are 2 containers from of stainless steel, containing “sample” 1, which is, in particular, a backfill (in a palladium capsule) of zirconium oxide coated with palladium (ZrO 2 -Pd); T in and T s are the positions of thermocouples that measure the temperature of the sample and container, respectively.
Before the start of the experiment, the container is warmed up and pumped out (degassed). After cooling it to room temperature a slow injection of hydrogen (H 2) or deuterium (D 2) from a cylinder with a pressure of about 100 atmospheres begins. In this case, the pressure in the container and the temperature at two selected points are controlled. During the first tens of minutes of inlet, the pressure inside the container remains close to zero due to the intense absorption of gas by the powder. In this case, the sample quickly heats up, reaching a maximum (60-70 0 C) after 15-18 minutes, after which the sample begins to cool. Soon after this (about 20 minutes), a monotonous increase in gas pressure inside the container begins.
The authors point out that the dynamics of the process are noticeably different in cases of hydrogen and deuterium infusion. When hydrogen is injected (Fig. 2), a maximum temperature of 610C is reached at the 15th minute, after which cooling begins.
When deuterium is injected (Fig. 3), the maximum temperature is ten degrees higher (71 0 C) and is reached somewhat later - at ~ 18 minutes. The cooling dynamics also reveal some differences in these two cases: in the case of hydrogen infusion, the temperatures of the sample and container (T in and T s) begin to approach earlier. Thus, 250 minutes after the start of hydrogen infusion, the sample temperature does not differ from the temperature of the container and exceeds the ambient temperature by 1 0 C. In the case of deuterium infusion, the sample temperature after the same 250 minutes noticeably (~ 1 0 C) exceeds the temperature container and approximately 4 0 C ambient temperature.

Fig. 2 Change in time of pressure H 2 inside the container and temperatures T in and T s.

Rice. 3 Change in time of pressure D 2 and temperatures T in and T s.

The authors claim that the observed differences are reproducible. Beyond these differences, the observed rapid heating of the powder is explained by the energy of the chemical interaction of hydrogen/deuterium with the metal, during which hydride-metallic compounds are formed. The authors interpret the difference in the processes in the case of hydrogen and deuterium as evidence of the occurrence in the second case (with a very low probability, of course) of the fusion reaction of deuterium nuclei according to the scheme 2 D+ 2 D = 4 He + ~ 24 MeV. Such a reaction is completely incredible (about 10 -6 compared to reactions (1)) in the collision of “naked” nuclei due to the need to satisfy the laws of conservation of momentum and angular momentum. However, under solid-state conditions, such a reaction may be dominant. It is significant that this reaction does not produce fast particles, the absence (or deficiency) of which has invariably been considered as a decisive argument against the hypothesis of nuclear fusion. Of course, the question remains about the channel for the release of fusion energy. According to Tsyganov, in solid state conditions, processes of gamma quantum fragmentation into low-frequency electromagnetic and phonon excitations are possible.
Again, without delving into the theoretical justification of the hypothesis, let us return to its experimental justification.
As additional evidence, graphs of the cooling of the “reaction” zone at a later time (beyond 250 minutes), obtained with a higher temperature resolution and for different “backfilling” of the working fluid, are offered.
The figure shows that in the case of hydrogen infusion, starting from the 500th minute, the temperatures of the sample and container are compared with room temperature. In contrast, when deuterium is injected, by the 3000th minute a stationary excess of the sample temperature over the temperature of the container is established, which, in turn, turns out to be noticeably warmer than room temperature (by ~ 1.5 0 C for the case of the ZrO 2 -Pd sample).

Rice. 4 The time count starts from the three hundredth minute of the previous charts.

Another important evidence in favor of nuclear fusion was the appearance of helium-4 as a reaction product. This issue has received considerable attention. First of all, the authors took measures to eliminate traces of helium in the released gases. For this purpose, an influx of H 2 /D 2 was used by diffusion through the palladium wall. As is known, palladium is highly permeable to hydrogen and deuterium and poorly permeable to helium. (The inlet through the diaphragm additionally slowed down the flow of gases into the reaction volume). After the reactor cooled, the gas in it was analyzed for the presence of helium. It is stated that helium was detected when deuterium was injected and was absent when hydrogen was injected. The analysis was carried out by mass spectrometry. (A quadrupole mass spectrograph was used).

On Fig. 7 presents the results of the analysis. When H2 was injected, neither helium nor deuterium was found in either the gas or the working substance (left column). When D2 was injected, helium was detected in both the gas and the working substance (top right - in the gas, bottom right - in the solid matter). (Mass spectrometrically, helium is almost identical to the molecular ion of deuterium).

The next slide is taken from Arata's (non-English speaking!) presentation. It contains some numerical data related to the experiments and estimates. These data are not entirely clear.
The first line apparently contains an estimate in moles of heavy hydrogen absorbed by the powder, D 2 .
The meaning of the second line seems to boil down to estimating the adsorption energy of 1700 cm 3 D 2 on palladium.
The third line appears to contain an estimate of the “excess heat” associated with nuclear fusion – 29.2...30 kJ.
The fourth line clearly refers to the estimate of the number of synthesized 4 He atoms - 3*10 17 . (This number of helium atoms created should correspond to a much greater heat release than indicated in line 3: (3*10 17) - (2.4*10 7 eV) = 1.1*10 13 erg. = 1.1 MJ.).
The fifth line represents an estimate of the ratio of the number of synthesized helium atoms to the number of palladium atoms - 6.8*10 -6. The sixth line is the ratio of the numbers of synthesized helium atoms and adsorbed deuterium atoms: 4.3*10 -6.

3. On the prospects for independent verification of reports on “metal-crystalline nuclear catalysis.”
The experiments described appear to be relatively easy to reproduce, since they do not require large capital investments or the use of ultra-modern research methods. The main difficulty appears to be related to the lack of information about the structure of the working substance and the technology for its production.
When describing the working substance, the expression “nano-powder” is used: “ZrO 2 -nano-Pd sample powders, a matrix of zirconium oxide containing palladium nanoparticles” and, at the same time, the expression “alloys” is used: “ZrO 2 Pd alloy, Pd-Zr -Ni alloy.” One must think that the composition and structure of these “powders” - “alloys” play key role in observed phenomena. Indeed, in Fig. 4 one can see significant differences in the dynamics of late cooling of these two samples. They reveal even greater differences in the dynamics of temperature changes during the period of saturation with deuterium. The corresponding figure is reproduced below, which must be compared with a similar figure 3, where the “nuclear fuel” was ZrO 2 Pd alloy powder. It can be seen that the heating period of the Pd-Zr-Ni alloy lasts much longer (almost 10 times), the temperature rise is significantly less, and its decline is much slower. However direct comparison this drawing from fig. 3 is hardly possible, bearing in mind, in particular, the difference in the masses of the “working substance”: 7 G - ZrO 2 Pd and 18.4 G - Pd-Zr-Ni.
Additional details regarding working powders can be found in the literature, in particular in.

4. Conclusion
It seems obvious that independent reproduction of experiments already performed would have great importance for any result.
What modifications could be made to the experiments already done?
It seems important to focus primarily not on measurements of excess heat release (since the accuracy of such measurements is low), but on the most reliable detection of the appearance of helium as the most striking evidence of the occurrence of a nuclear fusion reaction.
One should try to control the amount of helium in the reactor over time, which was not done by Japanese researchers. This is especially interesting considering the graph in Fig. 4, from which it can be assumed that the process of helium synthesis in the reactor continues indefinitely after deuterium is introduced into it.
It seems important to study the dependence of the described processes on the reactor temperature, since theoretical constructions take into account molecular vibrations. (One can imagine that as the temperature of the reactor increases, the probability of nuclear fusion increases.)
How does Yoshiaki Arata (and E.N. Tsyganov) interpret the appearance of excess heat?
They believe that in the crystal lattice of the metal there occurs (with a very low probability) the fusion of deuterium nuclei into helium nuclei, a process that is practically impossible during the collision of “naked” nuclei in plasma. A special feature of this reaction is the absence of neutrons - a clean process! (the question of the mechanism of transfer of the excitation energy of the helium nucleus into heat remains open).
Looks like I need to check it out!

Cited literature.
1. D. V. Balin, V. A. Ganzha, S. M. Kozlov, E. M. Maev, G. E. Petrov, M. A. Soroka, G. N. Schapkin, G. G. Semenchuk, V. A. Trofimov, A. A. Vasiliev, A. A. Vorobyov, N. I. Voropaev, C. Petitjean, B. Gartnerc, B. Laussc, 1, J. Marton, J. Zmeskal, T. Case, K. M. Crowe, P. Kammel, F. J. Hartmann M. P. Faifman, High precesion study of muon catalyzed fusionin D 2 and HD gases, Physics of elementary particles and the atomic nucleus, 2011, vol. 42, issue 2.
2. Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. 261: p. 301 and errata in Vol. 263.
3. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons. M.W. Anderson. L.J. Li, M. Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem. 287 (1990) 293.
4. S. Pons, M. Fleischmann, J. Chim. Phys. 93 (1996) 711.
5. W.M. Mueller, J.P. Blackledge and G.G. Libowitz, Metal Hydrides, Academic Press, New York, 1968; G. Bambakadis (Ed.), Metal Hydrides, Plenum Press, New York, 1981.
6. Jean-Paul Biberian, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 2 (2009) 1–6
7. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf
8. E.B. Aleksandrov “Miracle mixer or the new coming of the perpetual motion machine”, collection “In Defense of Science”, No. 6, 2011.
9. http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm; http://mykola.ru/archives/2740;
http://www.atomic-energy.ru/smi/2011/11/09/28437
10. E.N. Tsyganov, “COLD NUCLEAR fusion”, NUCLEAR PHYSICS, 2012, volume 75, no. 2, p. 174–180
11. A.I. Egorov, PNPI, private communication.
12. Y. Arata and Y. Zhang, “The Establishment of Solid Nuclear Fusion Reactor,” J. High Temp. Soc. 34, pp. 85-93 (2008). (Article on Japanese, abstract in English). A presentation of these experiments in English is available at
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml#...
Under the Hood: The Arata-Zhang Osaka University LENR Demonstration
By Steven B. Krivit

April 28, 2012
International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Symposium, ILENRS-12
The College of William and Mary, Sadler Center, Williamsburg, Virginia
July 1-3, 2012
13. Publication regarding the technology for obtaining a working powder matrix:
“Hydrogen absorption of nanoscale Pd particles embedded in ZrO2 matrix prepared from Zr-Pd amorphous alloys.”
Shin-ichi Yamaura, Ken-ichiro Sasamori, Hisamichi Kimura, Akihisa Inoue, Yue Chang Zhang, Yoshiaki Arata, J. Mater. Res., Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 1329-1334, June 2002
This explanation seems initially untenable: nuclear fusion reactions are exothermic only under the condition that the mass of the nucleus of the final product remains less than the mass of the iron nucleus. Fusion of heavier nuclei requires energy expenditure. Nickel is heavier than iron. A.I. Egorov suggested that in A. Rossi’s installation a reaction takes place to synthesize helium from deuterium atoms, which are always present in hydrogen as a small impurity, with nickel playing the role of a catalyst, see below.

There is a good article on this topic in the magazine "Chemistry and Life" (No. 8, 2015)

ANDREEV S. N.
FORBIDDEN TRANSFORMATIONS OF ELEMENTS

Science has its forbidden topics, its taboos. Today, few scientists dare to study biofields, ultra-low doses, the structure of water... The areas are complex, turbid, and difficult to understand. It’s easy to lose your reputation here, being known as a pseudoscientist, and there’s no need to talk about getting a grant. In science it is impossible and dangerous to go beyond generally accepted ideas and encroach on dogmas. But it is the efforts of daredevils, ready to be different from everyone else, that sometimes pave new roads in knowledge.
We have observed more than once how, as science develops, dogmas begin to waver and gradually acquire the status of incomplete, preliminary knowledge. This happened more than once in biology. This was the case in physics. We see the same thing in chemistry. Before our eyes, the textbook truth “the composition and properties of a substance do not depend on the methods of its preparation” has collapsed under the onslaught of nanotechnology. It turned out that a substance in nanoform can radically change its properties - for example, gold will cease to be a noble metal.
Today we can state that there are a fair number of experiments, the results of which cannot be explained from the standpoint of generally accepted views. And the task of science is not to brush them aside, but to dig and try to get to the truth. The position “this cannot be, because it can never be” is convenient, of course, but it cannot explain anything. Moreover, incomprehensible, inexplicable experiments can become harbingers of discoveries in science, as has already happened. One of these hot topics, literally and figuratively, is the so-called low-energy nuclear reactions, which today are called LENR - Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction.
We asked Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Stepan Nikolaevich Andreev from the Institute of General Physics named after. A. M. Prokhorov RAS to acquaint us with the essence of the problem and with some scientific experiments carried out in Russian and Western laboratories and published in scientific journals. Experiments, the results of which we cannot yet explain.

REACTOR “E-CAT” ANDREA ROSSI

In mid-October 2014, the world scientific community was excited by the news - a report was released by Giuseppe Levi, a professor of physics at the University of Bologna, and co-authors on the results of testing the E-Cat reactor, created by the Italian inventor Andrea Rossi.
Let us recall that in 2011 A. Rossi presented to the public the installation on which he had been working for many years in collaboration with physicist Sergio Focardi. The reactor, called "E-Cat" (short for Energy Catalyzer), produced an abnormal amount of energy. Over the past four years, E-Cat has been tested by different groups of researchers as the scientific community insisted on independent review.
The reactor was a ceramic tube 20 cm long and 2 cm in diameter. Inside the reactor were located a fuel charge, heating elements and a thermocouple, the signal from which was supplied to the heating control unit. Power was supplied to the reactor from an electrical network with a voltage of 380 Volts through three heat-resistant wires, which heated red hot during operation of the reactor. The fuel consisted mainly of nickel powder (90%) and lithium aluminum hydride LiAlH4 (10%). When heated, lithium aluminum hydride decomposed and released hydrogen, which could be absorbed by nickel and enter into an exothermic reaction with it.
The inventor does not disclose how the reactor is designed. However, it is known that a fuel charge, heating elements and a thermocouple are located inside the ceramic tube. The surface of the tube is ribbed for better heat dissipation

The report stated that total The heat generated by the device during 32 days of continuous operation was about 6 GJ. Elementary estimates show that the energy content of the powder is more than a thousand times higher than the energy content of, for example, gasoline!
As a result of careful analyzes of the elemental and isotopic composition, experts reliably established that changes in the ratios of lithium and nickel isotopes appeared in the spent fuel. If in the original fuel the content of lithium isotopes coincided with natural ones: 6Li - 7.5%, 7Li - 92.5%, then in the spent fuel the 6Li content increased to 92%, and the 7Li content decreased to 8%. The distortions in the isotopic composition for nickel were equally strong. For example, the content of the nickel isotope 62Ni in the “ash” was 99%, although it was only 4% in the original fuel. The detected changes in the isotopic composition and anomalously high heat release indicated that nuclear processes may have occurred in the reactor. However, no signs of increased radioactivity characteristic of nuclear reactions were recorded either during operation of the device or after it was stopped.
The processes occurring in the reactor could not be nuclear fission reactions, since the fuel consisted of stable substances. Nuclear fusion reactions are also excluded, because from the point of view of modern nuclear physics, a temperature of 1400°C is negligible to overcome the forces of Coulomb repulsion of nuclei. That is why the use of the sensational term “cold thermonuclear” for this kind of process is a mistake that is misleading.
Probably, here we are faced with manifestations of a new type of reactions in which collective low-energy transformations of the nuclei of elements that make up the fuel occur. An estimate of the energies of such reactions gives a value of the order of 1-10 keV per nucleon, that is, they occupy an intermediate position between “ordinary” high-energy nuclear reactions (energies of more than 1 MeV per nucleon) and chemical reactions (energies of the order of 1 eV per atom).
So far, no one can satisfactorily explain the described phenomenon, and the hypotheses put forward by many authors do not stand up to criticism. To establish the physical mechanisms of the new phenomenon, it is necessary to carefully study the possible manifestations of such low-energy nuclear reactions in various experimental settings and generalize the data obtained. Moreover, a significant number of such unexplained facts have accumulated over many years. Here are just a few of them.

ELECTRIC EXPLOSION OF TUNGSTEN WIRE – BEGINNING OF THE XX CENTURY

In 1922, Clarence Irion and Gerald Wendt, employees of the chemical laboratory of the University of Chicago, published a paper devoted to the study of the electrical explosion of a tungsten wire in a vacuum (G.L. Wendt, C.E. Irion, Experimental Attempts to Decompose Tungsten at High Temperatures. "Journal of the American Chemical Society", 1922, 44, 1887-1894).
There is nothing exotic about an electric explosion. This phenomenon was discovered no less at the end of the 18th century, and in everyday life we ​​constantly observe it when light bulbs burn out due to a short circuit (incandescent light bulbs, of course). What happens during an electric explosion? If the current flowing through a metal wire is high, the metal begins to melt and evaporate. Plasma is formed near the surface of the wire. Heating occurs unevenly: “hot spots” appear in random places on the wire, where more heat is released, the temperature reaches peak values, and explosive destruction of the material occurs.
The most striking thing in this story is that scientists initially expected to experimentally detect the decomposition of tungsten into lighter chemical elements. In their intention, Airion and Wendt relied on the following facts already known at that time.
Firstly, in the visible spectrum of radiation from the Sun and other stars there are no characteristic optical lines belonging to heavy chemical elements. Secondly, the temperature on the surface of the Sun is about 6000°C. Consequently, they reasoned, atoms of heavy elements cannot exist at such temperatures. Thirdly, when a capacitor battery is discharged onto a metal wire, the temperature of the plasma formed during an electric explosion can reach 20,000°C.
Based on this, American scientists suggested that if a strong electric current is passed through a thin wire made of a heavy chemical element, for example, tungsten, and heated to temperatures comparable to the temperature of the Sun, then tungsten nuclei will appear in unstable condition and decompose into lighter elements. They carefully prepared and carried out the experiment brilliantly, using very simple means.
The electric explosion of a tungsten wire was carried out in a glass spherical flask (Fig. 2), by connecting a capacitor with a capacity of 0.1 microfarad, charged to a voltage of 35 kilovolts, to it. The wire was located between two fastening tungsten electrodes, soldered into the flask on two opposite sides. In addition, the flask had an additional “spectral” electrode, which served to ignite a plasma discharge in the gas formed after the electric explosion.
Some important technical details of the experiment should be noted. During its preparation, the flask was placed in an oven, where it was continuously heated at 300°C for 15 hours and all this time the gas was pumped out of it. Along with heating the flask, an electric current was passed through the tungsten wire, heating it to a temperature of 2000°C. After degassing, the glass pipe connecting the flask to the mercury pump was melted using a burner and sealed. The authors of the work claimed that the measures taken made it possible to maintain an extremely low pressure of residual gases in the flask for 12 hours. Therefore, when a high-voltage voltage of 50 kilovolts was applied between the “spectral” and fastening electrodes, there was no breakdown.
Irion and Wendt performed twenty-one electrical explosion experiments. As a result of each experiment, about 10^19 particles of an unknown gas were formed in the flask. Spectral analysis showed that it contained a characteristic line of helium-4. The authors suggested that helium is formed as a result of the alpha decay of tungsten induced by an electrical explosion. Let us recall that alpha particles appearing in the process of alpha decay are the nuclei of the 4He atom.
The publication of Irion and Wendt caused a great stir in the scientific community of that time. Rutherford himself took notice of this work. He expressed deep doubt that the voltage used in the experiment (35 kV) was high enough for electrons to induce nuclear reactions in the metal. Wanting to check the results of American scientists, Rutherford performed his experiment - he irradiated a tungsten target with an electron beam with an energy of 100 kiloelectronvolts. Rutherford did not find any traces of nuclear reactions in tungsten, about which he made a short report in the journal Nature in a rather harsh form. The scientific community took the side of Rutherford, the work of Irion and Wendt was recognized as erroneous and forgotten for many years.

ELECTRIC EXPLOSION OF TUNGSTEN WIRE: 90 YEARS LATER
Only 90 years later, a Russian scientific team under the leadership of Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Leonid Irbekovich Urutskoev began repeating the experiments of Airion and Wendt. Experiments equipped with modern experimental and diagnostic equipment were carried out in the legendary Sukhumi Institute of Physics and Technology in Abkhazia. The physicists named their installation “HELIOS” in honor of the guiding idea of ​​Airion and Wendt (Fig. 3). The quartz explosion chamber is located at the top of the installation and is connected to vacuum system- turbomolecular pump (colored blue). Four black cables run to the explosion chamber from a capacitor bank discharger with a capacity of 0.1 microfarads, which stands to the left of the installation. For an electric explosion, the battery was charged to 35-40 kilovolts. The diagnostic equipment used in the experiments (not shown in the figure) made it possible to study the spectral composition of the glow of the plasma that was formed during the electric explosion of the wire, as well as the chemical and elemental composition of the products of its decay.

Rice. 3. This is what the HELIOS installation looks like, in which L. I. Urutskoev’s group studied the explosion of a tungsten wire in a vacuum (2012 experiment)
The experiments of Urutskoev’s group confirmed the main conclusion of the work ninety years ago. Indeed, as a result of the electric explosion of tungsten, an excess amount of helium-4 atoms was formed (about 10^16 particles). If the tungsten wire was replaced with an iron one, then helium was not formed. Note that in experiments at the HELIOS installation, researchers recorded a thousand times fewer helium atoms than in the experiments of Airion and Wendt, although the “energy input” into the wire was approximately the same. What causes this difference remains to be seen.
During the electric explosion, the wire material was sprayed onto the inner surface of the explosion chamber. Mass spectrometric analysis showed that these solid residues were deficient in the tungsten-180 isotope, although its concentration in the original wire corresponded to the natural one. This fact may also indicate the possible alpha decay of tungsten or another nuclear process during the electric explosion of a wire (L. I. Urutskoev, A. A. Rukhadze, D. V. Filippov, A. O. Biryukov, etc. Study of the spectral composition of optical radiation during an electrical explosion of a tungsten wire. Brief messages on physics FIAN", 2012, 7, 13-18).

Accelerating alpha decay with a laser
Low-energy nuclear reactions also include some processes that accelerate spontaneous nuclear transformations of radioactive elements. Interesting results in this area were obtained at the Institute of General Physics. A. M. Prokhorov RAS in the laboratory headed by Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Georgy Airatovich Shafeev. Scientists discovered an amazing effect: the alpha decay of uranium-238 was accelerated under the influence of laser radiation with a relatively low peak intensity of 10^12-10^13 W/cm2 (A.V. Simakin, G.A. Shafeev, Effect of laser irradiation of nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of uranium salts on the activity of nuclides. "Quantum Electronics", 2011, 41, 7, 614-618).
This is what the experiment looked like. A gold target was placed in a cuvette with an aqueous solution of uranium salt UO2Cl2 with a concentration of 5-35 mg/ml, which was irradiated with laser pulses with a wavelength of 532 nanometers, a duration of 150 picoseconds, and a repetition rate of 1 kilohertz for one hour. Under such conditions, the surface of the target partially melts, and the liquid in contact with it instantly boils. Vapor pressure sprays nanosized gold droplets from the target surface into the surrounding liquid, where they cool and turn into solid nanoparticles with a characteristic size of 10 nanometers. This process is called laser ablation in liquid and is widely used when it is necessary to prepare colloidal solutions of nanoparticles of various metals.
In Shafeev’s experiments, in one hour of irradiation of a gold target, 10^15 gold nanoparticles were formed in 1 cm3 of solution. The optical properties of such nanoparticles are radically different from the properties of a massive gold plate: they do not reflect light, but absorb it, and the electromagnetic field of a light wave near nanoparticles can be amplified 100-10,000 times and reach intra-atomic values!
The nuclei of uranium and its decay products (thorium, protactinium), which found themselves near these nanoparticles, were exposed to multiply enhanced laser electromagnetic fields. As a result, their radioactivity changed noticeably. In particular, the gamma activity of thorium-234 doubled. (The gamma activity of the samples before and after laser irradiation was measured with a semiconductor gamma spectrometer.) Since thorium-234 arises from the alpha decay of uranium-238, an increase in its gamma activity indicates an acceleration of the alpha decay of this uranium isotope. Note that the gamma activity of uranium-235 has not increased.
Scientists from the Institute of General Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences have discovered that laser radiation can accelerate not only the alpha decay, but also the beta decay of the radioactive isotope 137Cs - one of the main components of radioactive emissions and waste. In their experiments, they used a green copper vapor laser operating in a pulsed-periodic mode with a pulse duration of 15 nanoseconds, a pulse repetition rate of 15 kilohertz, and a peak intensity of 109 W/cm2. Laser radiation affected a gold target placed in a cuvette with an aqueous solution of 137Cs salt, the content of which in a 2 ml solution was approximately 20 picograms.
After two hours of irradiating the target, the researchers recorded that a colloidal solution with gold nanoparticles 30 nm in size formed in the cuvette (Fig. 4), and the gamma activity of cesium-137 (and, consequently, its concentration in the solution) decreased by 75%. The half-life of cesium-137 is about 30 years. This means that such a decrease in activity, which was obtained in a two-hour experiment, should occur in natural conditions for about 60 years. Dividing 60 years by two hours, we find that during laser exposure the decay rate increased approximately 260,000 times. Such a gigantic increase in the rate of beta decay would turn a cuvette with a cesium solution into most powerful source gamma radiation accompanying the normal beta decay of cesium-137. However, in reality this does not happen. Radiation measurements showed that the gamma activity of the salt solution does not increase (E.V. Barmina, A.V. Simakin, G.A. Shafeev, Laser-induced caesium-137 decay. “Quantum Electronics”, 2014, 44, 8, 791-792).
This fact suggests that when laser exposure The decay of cesium-137 does not proceed according to the most probable (94.6%) scenario under normal conditions with the emission of a gamma quantum with an energy of 662 keV, but according to another - non-radiative one. This is presumably direct beta decay with the formation of a nucleus of the stable isotope 137Ba, which under normal conditions occurs only in 5.4% of cases.
Why such a redistribution of probabilities occurs in the cesium beta decay reaction is still unclear. However, there are other independent studies confirming that accelerated decontamination of cesium-137 is possible even in living systems.

Low-energy nuclear reactions in living systems

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Alla Aleksandrovna Kornilova at the Faculty of Physics of Moscow State University has been searching for low-energy nuclear reactions in biological objects for more than twenty years. M. V. Lomonosov. The objects of the first experiments were bacterial cultures of Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, and Deinococcus radiodurans. They were placed in a nutrient medium depleted of iron, but containing manganese salt MnSO4 and heavy water D2O. Experiments showed that this system produced a deficient iron isotope - 57Fe (Vysotskii V. I., Kornilova A. A., Samoylenko I. I., Experimental discovery of the phenomenon of low-energy nuclear transmutation of isotopes (Mn55 to Fe57) in growing biological-logical cultures, “Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Cold Fusion", 1996, Japan, 2, 687-693).
According to the authors of the study, the 57Fe isotope appeared in growing bacterial cells as a result of the reaction 55Mn+ d = 57Fe (d is the nucleus of a deuterium atom, consisting of a proton and a neutron). A definite argument in favor of the proposed hypothesis is the fact that if heavy water is replaced with light water or manganese salt is excluded from the nutrient medium, then the bacteria do not produce the 57Fe isotope.
Having made sure that nuclear transformations of stable chemical elements are possible in microbiological cultures, A. A. Kornilova applied her method to the deactivation of long-lived radioactive isotopes (Vysotskii V. I., Kornilova A. A., Transmutation of stable isotopes and deactivation of radioactive waste in growing biological systems. " Annals of Nuclear Energy", 2013, 62, 626-633). This time, Kornilova worked not with monocultures of bacteria, but with a super-association of microorganisms of various types in order to increase their survival in aggressive environments. Each group of this community is maximally adapted to joint life activities, collective mutual assistance and mutual protection. As a result, superassociation is well adapted to the most different conditions external environment, including increased radiation. The typical maximum dose that conventional microbiological cultures can withstand is 30 kilorads, but superassociations can withstand several orders of magnitude more, and their metabolic activity is almost unimpaired.
Equal amounts of concentrated biomass of the above-mentioned microorganisms and 10 ml of a solution of cesium-137 salt in distilled water were placed in glass cuvettes. The initial gamma activity of the solution was 20,000 becquerels. Salts of vital microelements Ca, K and Na were additionally added to some cuvettes. Closed cuvettes were kept at 20°C and their gamma activity was measured every seven days using a high-precision detector.
Over one hundred days of the experiment in the control cuvette that did not contain microorganisms, the activity of cesium-137 decreased by 0.6%. In a cuvette additionally containing potassium salt - by 1%. The activity decreased most rapidly in the cuvette additionally containing a calcium salt. Here, gamma activity decreased by 24%, which is equivalent to reducing the half-life of cesium by 12 times!
The authors hypothesized that as a result of the vital activity of microorganisms, 137Cs is converted into 138Ba, a biochemical analogue of potassium. If there is little potassium in the nutrient medium, then the transformation of cesium into barium occurs rapidly; if there is a lot, then the transformation process is blocked. As for the role of calcium, it is simple. Thanks to its presence in the nutrient medium, the population of microorganisms grows rapidly and, therefore, consumes more potassium or its biochemical analogue - barium, that is, it pushes the transformation of cesium into barium.
What about reproducibility?
The question of the reproducibility of the experiments described above requires some clarification. The E-Cat reactor, captivating in its simplicity, is being reproduced by hundreds, if not thousands of enthusiastic inventors around the world. There are even special forums on the Internet where “replicators” exchange experiences and demonstrate their achievements (http://www.lenr-forum.com/). The Russian inventor Alexander Georgievich Parkhomov has achieved some success in this direction. He managed to design a heat generator operating on a mixture of nickel powder and lithium aluminum hydride, which provides an excess amount of energy (A.G. Parkhomov, Test results of a new version of an analogue of a high-temperature heat generator in Russia. “Journal of Emerging Directions of Science”, 2015, 8, 34- 39). However, unlike Rossi's experiments, it was not possible to detect distortions in the isotopic composition in the spent fuel.
Experiments on the electric explosion of tungsten wires, as well as on laser acceleration of the decay of radioactive elements, are much more complex from a technical point of view and can only be reproduced in serious scientific laboratories. In this regard, the question of the reproducibility of the experiment is replaced by the question of its repeatability. For experiments on low-energy nuclear reactions, a typical situation is when, under identical experimental conditions, the effect is either present or not. The fact is that it is not possible to control all the parameters of the process, including, apparently, the main one - which has not yet been identified. The search for the necessary modes is almost blind and takes many months and even years. Experimenters more than once had to change the basic design of the installation in the process of searching for the control parameter - that “knob” that needs to be “twisted” in order to achieve satisfactory repeatability. At the moment, the repeatability in the experiments described above is approximately 30%, that is, a positive result is obtained in every third experiment. Whether this is a lot or a little is for the reader to judge. One thing is clear: without creating an adequate theoretical model of the phenomena under study, it is unlikely that it will be possible to radically improve this parameter.

An attempt at interpretation

Despite convincing experimental results confirming the possibility of nuclear transformations of stable chemical elements, as well as acceleration of the decay of radioactive substances, the physical mechanisms of these processes are still unknown.
The main mystery of low-energy nuclear reactions is how positively charged nuclei, when approaching each other, overcome repulsive forces, the so-called Coulomb barrier. This typically requires temperatures of millions of degrees Celsius. It is obvious that in the experiments considered such temperatures are not achieved. Nevertheless, there is a non-zero probability that a particle that does not have sufficient kinetic energy to overcome the repulsive forces will nevertheless end up close to the nucleus and enter into a nuclear reaction with it.
This effect, called the tunnel effect, is of a purely quantum nature and is closely related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. According to this principle, a quantum particle (for example, an atomic nucleus) cannot have precisely specified coordinates and momentum at the same time. The product of uncertainties (irremovable random deviations from the exact value) of the coordinate and momentum is limited from below by a value proportional to Planck’s constant h. The same product determines the probability of tunneling through a potential barrier: the greater the product of the uncertainties of the particle’s position and momentum, the higher this probability.
The works of Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Professor Vladimir Ivanovich Manko and co-authors show that in certain states of a quantum particle (the so-called coherent correlated states), the product of uncertainties can exceed Planck’s constant by several orders of magnitude. Consequently, for quantum particles in such states the probability of overcoming the Coulomb barrier will increase (V.V. Dodonov, V.I. Manko, Invariants and evolution of non-stationary quantum systems. “Proceedings of the Lebedev Physical Institute. Moscow: Nauka, 1987, v. 183, p. 286)".
If several nuclei of different chemical elements simultaneously find themselves in a coherent correlated state, then in this case some collective process may occur, leading to the redistribution of protons and neutrons between them. The probability of such a process will be greater, the smaller the difference in energies between the initial and final states of the ensemble of nuclei. It is this circumstance that apparently determines the intermediate position of low-energy nuclear reactions between chemical and “ordinary” nuclear reactions.
How are coherent correlated states formed? What causes nuclei to unite into ensembles and exchange nucleons? Which nuclei can and cannot participate in this process? There are no answers to these and many other questions yet. Theorists are only taking the first steps towards solving this interesting problem.
Therefore on at this stage The main role in the research of low-energy nuclear reactions should belong to experimenters and inventors. Systematic experimental and theoretical studies of this amazing phenomenon, a comprehensive analysis of the data obtained, and broad expert discussion are needed.
Understanding and mastering the mechanisms of low-energy nuclear reactions will help us in solving a variety of applied problems - creating cheap autonomous power plants, highly efficient technologies for decontaminating nuclear waste and converting chemical elements.

• Translation

This field is now called low-energy nuclear reactions, and it may be where real results are achieved - or it may turn out to be stubborn junk science

Dr. Martin Fleischman (right), an electrochemist, and Stanley Pons, chairman of the chemistry department at the University of Utah, answer questions from the Science and Technology Committee about their controversial work in cold fusion, April 26, 1989.

Howard J. Wilk - chemist, specialist in synthetic organics, already for a long time does not work in his specialty and lives in Philadelphia. Like many other pharmaceutical researchers, he fell victim to the drug industry's R&D cuts in recent years and now takes part-time jobs unrelated to science. With time on his hands, Wilk tracks the progress of New Jersey company Brilliant Light Power (BLP).

This is one of those companies that is developing processes that can be generally referred to as new energy extraction technologies. The movement is largely a resurrection of cold fusion, a short-lived 1980s phenomenon involving producing nuclear fusion in a simple benchtop electrolytic device that scientists quickly dismissed.

In 1991, BLP founder, Randall L. Mills, announced at a press conference in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the development of a theory in which an electron in hydrogen could transition from a normal, ground energy state to previously unknown, more stable, lower energy states. , with the release of huge amounts of energy. Mills called this strange new type compressed hydrogen, a "hydrino", and has since been working to develop a commercial device that harvests this energy.

Wilk studied Mills' theory, read papers and patents, and did his own calculations for hydrinos. Wilk even attended a demonstration at BLP grounds in Cranbury, New Jersey, where he discussed hydrino with Mills. After this, Wilk still can't decide whether Mills is a unrealistic genius, a raving scientist, or something in between.

The story begins in 1989, when electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons made the astonishing announcement at a University of Utah press conference that they had tamed the energy of nuclear fusion in an electrolytic cell.

When the researchers applied an electric current to the cell, they believed that deuterium atoms from the heavy water that penetrated the palladium cathode underwent a fusion reaction and generated helium atoms. The excess energy of the process was converted into heat. Fleischmann and Pons argued that this process could not be the result of any known chemical reaction, and added the term “cold fusion” to it.

After many months of investigation into their mysterious observations, however, the scientific community agreed that the effect was unstable or non-existent and that errors were made in the experiment. The research was scrapped, and cold fusion became synonymous with junk science.

Cold fusion and hydrino production are the holy grail for producing endless, cheap, and clean energy. Cold fusion has disappointed scientists. They wanted to believe in him, but their collective mind decided that it was a mistake. Part of the problem was the lack of a generally accepted theory to explain the proposed phenomenon - as physicists say, you cannot trust an experiment until it is confirmed by a theory.

Mills has his own theory, but many scientists don't believe it and consider hydrinos unlikely. The community rejected cold fusion and ignored Mills and his work. Mills did the same, trying not to fall into the shadow of cold fusion.

Meanwhile, the field of cold fusion changed its name to low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) and continues to exist. Some scientists continue to try to explain the Fleischmann-Pons effect. Others have rejected nuclear fusion but are exploring other possible processes that could explain the excess heat. Like Mills, they were attracted by the potential for commercial applications. They are mainly interested in energy production for industrial needs, households and transport.

The small number of companies created to try to bring new energy technologies to market have business models similar to those of any technology startup: identify new technology, try to patent the idea, generate investor interest, obtain funding, build prototypes, conduct demonstrations, announce dates for workers devices for sale. But in the new energy world, missing deadlines is the norm. No one has yet taken the final step of demonstrating a working device.

New theory

Mills grew up on a farm in Pennsylvania and received a degree in chemistry from Franklin and Marshall College. academic degree in medicine from Harvard University, and studied electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. As a student, he began developing a theory he called the "Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics", which he said was based on classical physics and proposed a new model of atoms and molecules that departed from the foundations of quantum physics.

It is generally accepted that a single electron of hydrogen darts around its nucleus, located in the most suitable orbit of the ground state. It is simply impossible to move a hydrogen electron closer to the nucleus. But Mills says it's possible.

Now a researcher at Airbus Defense & Space, he says he hasn't tracked Mills since 2007 because there was no clear evidence of excess energy in the experiments. "I doubt that any of the later experiments were scientifically selected," Rathke said.

“I think it is generally accepted that Dr. Mills's theory as the basis for his claims is controversial and not predictive,” Rathke continues. “One might ask, 'Could we have so fortunately stumbled upon an energy source that simply works by following the wrong theoretical approach?' "

In the 1990s, several researchers, including a team from the Lewis Research Center, independently reported replicating Mills' approach and generating excess heat. The NASA team wrote in the report that “the results are far from convincing” and did not say anything about hydrino.

Researchers have proposed possible electrochemical processes to explain the heat, including irregularities in the electrochemical cell, unknown exothermic chemical reactions, and recombination of separated hydrogen and oxygen atoms in water. The same arguments were made by critics of the Fleischmann-Pons experiments. But the NASA team clarified that researchers shouldn't discount the phenomenon, just in case Mills was onto something.

Mills speaks very quickly and can go on and on about technical details. In addition to predicting hydrinos, Mills claims that his theory can perfectly predict the location of any electron in a molecule using special molecular modeling software, and even in complex molecules such as DNA. Using standard quantum theory, scientists have a hard time predicting the exact behavior of anything more complex than a hydrogen atom. Mills also claims that his theory explains the phenomenon of the expansion of the Universe with acceleration, which cosmologists have not yet fully understood.

In addition, Mills says that hydrinos are created by the combustion of hydrogen in stars such as our Sun, and that they can be detected in the spectrum of starlight. Hydrogen is considered the most abundant element in the universe, but Mills argues that hydrino is dark matter, which cannot be found in the universe. Astrophysicists are surprised by such suggestions: "I've never heard of hydrinos," says Edward W. (Rocky) Kolb of the University of Chicago, an expert on the dark universe.

Mills reported successful isolation and characterization of hydrinos using standard spectroscopic techniques such as infrared, Raman, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. In addition, he said, hydrinos can undergo reactions that lead to the emergence of new types of materials with “amazing properties.” This includes conductors, which Mills says will revolutionize the world of electronic devices and batteries.

And although his statements contradict public opinion, Mills' ideas do not seem so exotic compared to other unusual components of the Universe. For example, muonium is a known short-lived exotic entity consisting of an antimuon (a positively charged particle similar to an electron) and an electron. Chemically, muonium behaves like an isotope of hydrogen, but is nine times lighter.

SunCell, hydrin fuel cell

Regardless of where hydrinos fall on the credibility scale, Mills said a decade ago that BLP had moved beyond scientific confirmation and was only interested in the commercial side of things. Over the years, BLP has raised more than $110 million in investments.

BLP's approach to creating hydrinos has manifested itself in a variety of ways. In early prototypes, Mills and his team used tungsten or nickel electrodes with an electrolytic solution of lithium or potassium. The supplied current split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and under the right conditions, lithium or potassium acted as a catalyst to absorb energy and collapse the electron orbit of hydrogen. The energy created by the transition from the ground atomic state to a lower energy state was released in the form of bright, high-temperature plasma. The associated heat was then used to create steam and power an electric generator.

BLP is currently testing a device called SunCell, which feeds hydrogen (from water) and an oxide catalyst into a spherical carbon reactor with two streams of molten silver. An electrical current applied to the silver triggers a plasma reaction to form hydrinos. The reactor's energy is captured by carbon, which acts as a "black body radiator." When it heats up to thousands of degrees, it emits energy in the form of visible light, which is captured by photovoltaic cells that convert the light into electricity.

When it comes to commercial developments, Mills sometimes comes across as paranoid and at other times like a practical businessman. He registered the trademark "Hydrino". And because its patents claim the invention of hydrino, BLP claims intellectual property for hydrino research. Because of this, the BLP prohibits other experimenters from conducting even basic research on hydrinos that could confirm or disprove their existence without first signing an intellectual property agreement. "We invite researchers, we want others to do this," Mills says. “But we need to protect our technology.”

Instead, Mills appointed authorized validators who claim to be able to confirm the functionality of BLP inventions. One of them is Bucknell University electrical engineer Professor Peter M. Jansson, who is paid to evaluate BLP technology through his consulting company, Integrated Systems. Jenson claims that compensation for his time “does not in any way affect my conclusions as independent researcher scientific discoveries." He adds that he has "disproved most of the findings" he has studied.

“BLP scientists are doing real science, and so far I have not found any errors in their methods and approaches,” says Jenson. – Over the years, I have seen many devices in BLP that are clearly capable of producing excess energy in meaningful quantities. I think it will take some time for the scientific community to accept and digest the possibility of the existence of low-energy states of hydrogen. In my opinion, Dr. Mills' work is undeniable." Jenson adds that BLP faces challenges in commercializing the technology, but the obstacles are business, not scientific.

In the meantime, BLP has held several demonstrations of its new prototypes for investors since 2014, and published videos on its website. But these events do not provide clear evidence that SunCell actually works.

In July, following one of its demonstrations, the company announced that the estimated cost of energy from SunCell is so low—1% to 10% of any other known form of energy—that the company is “going to provide self-contained, customized power supplies for virtually all stationary and mobile applications, not tied to the power grid or fuel energy sources." In other words, the company plans to build and lease SunCells or other devices to consumers, charging a daily fee, allowing them to go off the grid and stop buying gasoline or solar power while spending a fraction of the money.

“This is the end of the era of fire, the internal combustion engine and centralized systems energy supply,” says Mills. “Our technology will make all other forms of energy technology obsolete. Climate change problems will be solved." He adds that it appears BLP could begin production, to begin with MW plants, by the end of 2017.

What's in a name?

Despite the uncertainty surrounding Mills and the BLP, their story is only part of the larger saga of new energy. As the dust settled from Fleischmann-Pons's initial announcement, two researchers began studying what was right and what was wrong. They were joined by dozens of co-authors and independent researchers.

Many of these scientists and engineers, often self-funded, were interested less in commercial opportunities than in science: electrochemistry, metallurgy, calorimetry, mass spectrometry, and nuclear diagnostics. They continued to run experiments that produced excess heat, defined as the amount of energy produced by a system relative to the energy required to operate it. In some cases, nuclear anomalies were reported, such as the appearance of neutrinos, alpha particles (helium nuclei), isotopes of atoms and transmutations of some elements to others.

But ultimately, most researchers are looking for an explanation for what's happening, and would be happy if even a modest amount of heat were useful.

"LENRs are in an experimental phase and are not yet understood theoretically," says David J. Nagel, professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University. George Washington, and former manager on research at the Marine Research Laboratory. “Some results are simply inexplicable. Call it cold fusion, low-energy nuclear reactions, or whatever - there are plenty of names - we still don't know anything about it. But there is no doubt that nuclear reactions can be started using chemical energy.”

Nagel prefers to call the LENR phenomenon “lattice nuclear reactions,” since the phenomenon occurs in the crystal lattices of the electrode. An initial offshoot of this field focuses on introducing deuterium into a palladium electrode by applying high energy, Nagel explains. Researchers have reported that such electrochemical systems can produce up to 25 times more energy than they consume.

The other major offshoot of the field uses combinations of nickel and hydrogen, which produces up to 400 times more energy than it consumes. Nagel likes to compare these LENR technologies to the experimental international fusion reactor, based on well-known physics - the fusion of deuterium and tritium - which is being built in the south of France. The 20-year project costs $20 billion and aims to produce 10 times the energy consumed.

Nagel says the field of LENR is growing everywhere, and the main obstacles are a lack of funding and inconsistent results. For example, some researchers report that a certain threshold must be reached to trigger the reaction. It may require a minimal amount of deuterium or hydrogen to start, or the electrodes must be prepared with crystallographic orientation and surface morphology. The last requirement is common for heterogeneous catalysts used in gasoline purification and petrochemical production.

Nagel acknowledges that the commercial side of LENR also has problems. The prototypes being developed are, he says, “pretty crude,” and there has yet to be a company that has demonstrated a working prototype or made money from it.

E-Cat from Russia

One of the most striking attempts to put LENR on a commercial basis was made by engineer Andrea Rossi from Leonardo Corp, located in Miami. In 2011, Rossi and his colleagues announced at a press conference in Italy the construction of a benchtop "Energy Catalyst" reactor, or E-Cat, that produces excess energy in a process using nickel as a catalyst. To substantiate the invention, Rossi demonstrated the E-Cat to potential investors and the media, and commissioned independent tests.

Rossi claims that his E-Cat undergoes a self-sustaining process in which an incoming electrical current triggers the synthesis of hydrogen and lithium in the presence of a powder mixture of nickel, lithium and lithium aluminum hydride, resulting in an isotope of beryllium. Short-lived beryllium decays into two alpha particles, and the excess energy is released as heat. Some of the nickel turns into copper. Rossi talks about the absence of both waste and radiation outside the device.

Rossi's announcement gave scientists the same unpleasant feeling as cold fusion. Rossi is mistrusted by many people due to his controversial past. In Italy he was accused of fraud due to his previous business dealings. Rossi says the allegations are in the past and doesn't want to discuss them. He also once had a contract to create thermal systems for the US military, but the devices he supplied did not work to specifications.

In 2012, Rossi announced the creation of a 1 MW system suitable for heating large buildings. He also envisioned that by 2013 he would have a factory producing a million laptop-sized 10kW units annually for home use. But neither the factory nor these devices ever happened.

In 2014, Rossi licensed the technology to Industrial Heat, Cherokee's public investment firm that buys real estate and clears old industrial sites for new development. In 2015 CEO Cherokee, Tom Darden, a lawyer and environmental scientist by training, called Industrial Heat "a source of funding for the inventors of LENR."

Darden says Cherokee launched Industrial Heat because the investment firm believes the LENR technology is worthy of research. "We were willing to be wrong, we were willing to invest time and resources to see if this area could be useful in our mission to prevent [environmental] pollution," he says.

Meanwhile, Industrial Heat and Leonardo had a fight and are now suing each other over violations of the agreement. Rossi would receive $100 million if a one-year test of his 1 MW system was successful. Rossi says the test is complete, but Industrial Heat doesn't think so and fears the device isn't working.

Nagel says E-Cat has brought enthusiasm and hope to the NLNR field. He argued in 2012 that he believed Rossi was not a fraud, "but I don't like some of his approaches to testing." Nagel believed that Rossi should have acted more carefully and transparently. But at that time, Nagel himself believed that devices based on the LENR principle would appear on sale by 2013.

Rossi continues his research and has announced the development of other prototypes. But he doesn't say much about his work. He says 1 MW units are already in production and he has received the “necessary certifications” to sell them. Home devices, he said, are still awaiting certification.

Nagel says that after the elation surrounding Rossi's announcements subsided, the status quo has returned to NLNR. The availability of commercial LENR generators has been delayed by several years. And even if the device survives reproducibility issues and proves useful, its developers face an uphill battle with regulators and user acceptance.

But he remains optimistic. “LENR may become commercially available before it is fully understood, just like X-rays were,” he says. He has already equipped a laboratory at the University. George Washington for new experiments with nickel and hydrogen.

Scientific heritage

Many researchers who continue to work on LENR are already accomplished retired scientists. This is not easy for them, because for years their work has been returned unreviewed from mainstream journals, and their proposals to present at scientific conferences have been rejected. They are increasingly worried about the status of this area of ​​research as their time runs out. They want to either record their legacy in the scientific history of LENR, or at least reassure themselves that their instincts did not let them down.

“It was very unfortunate when cold fusion was first published in 1989 as new source fusion energy, not just some new scientific curiosity,” says electrochemist Melvin Miles. “Perhaps the research could proceed as usual, with more careful and precise study.”

A former researcher at the China Lake Air and Maritime Research Center, Miles sometimes worked with Fleischman, who died in 2012. Miles believes Fleischman and Pons were right. But to this day he does not know how to make a commercial energy source for a palladium-deuterium system, despite many experiments that have produced excess heat that correlates with helium production.

“Why would anyone continue to research or be interested in a topic that was declared a mistake 27 years ago? – asks Miles. “I am convinced that cold fusion will one day be recognized as another important discovery that has been long accepted, and that a theoretical platform will emerge to explain the experimental results.”

Nuclear physicist Ludwik Kowalski, professor emeritus at Montclair State University, agrees that cold fusion was the victim of a bad start. "I'm old enough to remember the effect the first announcement had on the scientific community and the public," Kowalski says. At times he collaborated with NLNR researchers, “but my three attempts to confirm the sensational claims were unsuccessful.”

Kowalski believes that the initial disgrace earned by the study resulted in a larger problem unbecoming of the scientific method. Whether the LENR researchers are fair or not, Kowalski still believes it is worth getting to the bottom of a clear yes or no verdict. But it won't be found as long as cold fusion researchers are considered "eccentric pseudoscientists," Kowalski says. “Progress is impossible and no one benefits when the results of honest research are not published and independently verified by other laboratories.”

Time will show

Even if Kowalski gets a definite answer to his question and the statements of the LENR researchers are confirmed, the road to commercialization of the technology will be full of obstacles. Many startups, even with reliable technology, fail for reasons unrelated to science: capitalization, liquidity flow, cost, production, insurance, uncompetitive prices, etc.

Take Sun Catalytix for example. The company emerged from MIT with the backing of solid science, but fell victim to commercial attacks before it hit the market. It was created to commercialize artificial photosynthesis, developed by chemist Daniel G. Nocera, now at Harvard, to efficiently convert water into hydrogen fuel using sunlight and an inexpensive catalyst.

Nocera dreamed that the hydrogen produced in this way could power simple fuel cells and power homes and villages in underserved regions of the world without access to the grid, allowing them to enjoy modern conveniences that improve their standard of living. But the development took much more money and time than it seemed at first. After four years, Sun Catalytix gave up trying to commercialize the technology, started making flow batteries, and then in 2014 it was bought by Lockheed Martin.

It is unknown whether the same obstacles hinder the development of companies involved in LENR. For example, Wilk, an organic chemist who has been following Mills' progress, is concerned about whether attempts to commercialize BLP are based on something real. He just needs to know if hydrino exists.

In 2014, Wilk asked Mills if he had isolated hydrino, and although Mills had already written in papers and patents that he had succeeded, he replied that such a thing had not yet been done and that it would be “a very big task.” But Wilk thinks differently. If the process creates liters of hydrine gas, it should be obvious. “Show us the hydrino!” Wilk demands.

Wilk says that Mills' world, and with it the world of other people involved in LENR, reminds him of one of Zeno's paradoxes, which speaks of the illusory nature of movement. “Every year they get halfway to commercialization, but will they ever get there?” Wilk came up with four explanations for the BLP: Mills' calculations are correct; This is a fraud; This is bad science; it is a pathological science, as Nobel laureate in physics Irving Langmuir called it.

Langmuir invented the term more than 50 years ago to describe the psychological process in which a scientist subconsciously withdraws from the scientific method and becomes so immersed in his or her pursuit that he develops an inability to look at things objectively and see what is real and what is not. Pathological science is “the science of things not being what they seem,” said Langmuir. In some cases, it develops in areas such as cold fusion/LENR, and does not give up, despite the fact that it is recognized as false by the majority of scientists.

"I hope they're right," Wilk says of Mills and the BLP. "Indeed. I don’t want to refute them, I’m just looking for the truth.” But if "pigs could fly," as Wilkes says, he would accept their data, theory and other predictions following from it. But he was never a believer. “I think if hydrinos existed, they would have been discovered in other laboratories or in nature many years ago.”

All discussions of cold fusion and LENR end exactly like this: they always come to the conclusion that no one has brought a working device to the market, and none of the prototypes can be commercialized in the near future. So time will be the final judge.

Tags:

Add tags