Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

louis · 2012-01-12 18:59:23

Looks like there was a tipping point today.

NASA have released a video confirming the reality of Low Nuclear Energy Reactions (LENR) - sometimes known as cold fusion (but probably not correctly).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxeKeuh_2Bw

It has been confirmed that the scientist featured sought and obtained a patent for the technology on behalf of NASA. This despite the US Patent Office's previous refusal to patent cold fusion technologies because of alleged violation of laws of nature.

The upshot is likely to be that our interesting debates on fission versus solar are at an end! Well certainly in the longer term.

LENR is safe (enough) and compact. Not only that, I think we will be able to build 95% plus of the device on Mars with ISRU materials.

The fuel mass is trivial, although the equipment itself is fairly bulky. We could pre-land units ready for the arrival of the first colonists.

If we are going to want to grow food, we may need to wait until we are able to make the units on Mars...(because of the mass that needs to be transferred) so there may be a residual argument over that. We may need to build up more slowly unless we start off with solar or nuclear fission.

Rune · 2012-01-12 20:25:23

Correction: a video on youtube says that. Big difference.

louis wrote:

It has been confirmed

By whom?

Rune. Really?

louis · 2012-01-12 20:50:58

Rune wrote:

Correction: a video on youtube says that. Big difference.
louis wrote:
It has been confirmed
By whom?

Rune. Really?

Er - no...the video is on the official NASA website. (Technology Gateway section I believe).

And there is an approved patent.

And there are plenty of peer reviewed papers saying LENR exists anyway.

But this is the first time NASA have put this to the fore in such an official way. It's the scientist Jospeh Zawodny from the Langley Research Centre who makes the claims in the video. But several other NASA scientists have said much the same thing.

What's your problem with this good news?

The fight has gone out of the sceptics on the E cat websites. The game is up for them.

Glandu · 2012-01-13 05:21:01

Couldn't find the link on NASA website. I smell a trap(not from you, Louis). Maybe I'm wrong. But the scientific training I did receive did include a lot of "double, triple check it, wether you sure it's true, or wrong".

Single Youtube link is not enough.

louis · 2012-01-13 07:24:53

Glandu wrote:

Couldn't find the link on NASA website. I smell a trap(not from you, Louis). Maybe I'm wrong. But the scientific training I did receive did include a lot of "double, triple check it, wether you sure it's true, or wrong".
Single Youtube link is not enough.

Your olfactory mechanisms are not up to scratch.

This is all genuine. Unfortunately I couldn't use that link either but it was working yesterday.

In lieu of that, here's the patent application - it's been approved now.

http://www.google.com/patents/US2011025 … sQKlhLTpAw

This is so big!

Decimator · 2012-01-13 11:46:44

So how does it work?

Rune · 2012-01-13 12:01:05

I am sorry to wake you up louis, but there's not an ounce of veracity on all this. In fact, it smells very much like plain deception. The only thing that site (http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/) had from NASA is the logo. The official Langley page is this. Try to find anything about any new energy source there (that they are supposedly developing!). The scientist you mentioned does indeed work there, but the video you showed is so heavily edited (by a guy using a voice synthesizer no less!) he could be talking about anything. A video which, by the way, hasn't even been posted on Langley's youtube channel. They do indeed have one.

Rune. You have been fooled, and it's not even funny. Sorry.

Midoshi · 2012-01-13 13:03:57

Let me preface this by saying that, with my background in both physics and engineering, I'm generally very skeptical of any "cold fusion" breakthrough claims. But that is not what this video is about.

It is true that NASA is pursuing LENR research (as is the US Navy and DARPA). Also, the website and video do appear to be legitimate. The technologygateway.nasa.gov website is a subdomain of nasa.gov, and in any event it is an officially authorized United States government website because of the .gov top-level domain. You can navigate to it from the NASA homepage by doing a search for "LENR":
http://search.nasa.gov/search/search?q=lenr

The first search result is the video:
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media … /lenr.html

If you want a general overview of the history and some more respectable attempts at LENR, there is a nice presentation here (made by staff at the Glenn Research Center, not Langley):
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/Phy … C_2011.pdf

Edit: I have split off my best guess as to what the NASA research is doing into another post below.

Last edited by Midoshi (2012-01-13 13:06:11)

Midoshi · 2012-01-13 13:06:22

The basic difficulty in all forms of fusion is to bring two positively charged nuclei close enough together that the nuclear binding force can overcome the electrostatic repulsion. In "hot" fusion this is done simply by giving the nuclei large enough velocities (temperature) that they get close enough during random collisions in the plasma. Attempts at "cold" fusion are simply trying to get nuclei close enough together, generally by chemical instead of thermal means.

One scientifically legitimate method is to use muons instead of electrons to arrange the nuclei into exotic molecules. The muons are about 200 times heavier than the electrons they replace, which acts to make these exotic atoms in these molecules much smaller than their generic counterparts. The smaller atoms allow the nuclei to get much closer than usual, close enough to significantly raise the probability of nuclear fusion. The problem with this being a useful LENR method is that muons are fairly unstable and you can't get more than a few nuclei fusions out of them before they decay. And you can't just make more muons because it takes too much energy.

The patent that louis linked to appears to be taking an approach similar to muon catalyzed fusion. There is a strange phenomenon where under certain conditions electrons in crystals can appear to be hundreds to thousands of times heavier than normal. These so-called "heavy electrons" have been known about for decades, but we still don't fully understand it. It is thought the electrons' motions are impeded by the crystal lattice, so they move more slowly than you would expect, i.e. they appear to have more mass. As to how this relates to the LENR work at NASA, my best guess would be that they are trying to use these heavy electrons like muons to chemically bind fuel nuclei embedded in the lattice closer together and greatly increase their potential for fusion.

The video seems like a different line of research, however. It reminds me more of the CNO cycle in stars, or the Ne-Na chain that I've seen proposed. Except that, instead of adding protons until the nucleus alpha decays they are adding neutrons until the nucleus beta decays (granted there are some beta decays along the way in the CNO cycle too). That's a nuclear reaction, but it's more like fission than fusion in a lot of ways.

That all said, there is no evidence of a practical breakthrough here. This is all at most modest, nondescript public outreach about the research they are pursuing. There are plenty of patents for fusion methods that are not actually usable for some reason or other. The method this group at NASA is currently pursing seems to have potential, but it is still at the basic research level.

Last edited by Midoshi (2012-01-13 13:56:59)

louis · 2012-01-13 14:03:29

Thanks for confirming the bona fides of the video and patent (granted in October 2011 I think), Midoshi.

On this occasion, Rune, your knee-jerk scepticism was not warranted.

I don't think anyone knows how far advanced NASA are. I think it's a bit more than basic research. The impression gained from the various sites discussing this is that they probably have a prototype for a domestic unit.

Andrea Rossi meanwhile claims he is nearly ready to start mass production of one million a year with an (incredibly low) price of $50 per Kw of unit. He is supposed to be working with National Instruments on getting good control over the reaction and with Home Depot as a general distributor.

There is also a company in Greece (Defkalion) that claims it is close to starting production of domestic units. Others including Piantelli and Cenali (spelling) are on the trail as well and claiming big energy gains.

As often happens, the science is lagging behind the experimentation and engineering.

Terraformer · 2012-01-13 16:14:16

Midoshi - that was my thought about the reaction. It's possible that E-Cat could work, though I'm not going to place any money on that, or base my space fantasies on it until it's proven.

louis · 2012-01-13 17:44:19

Midoshi -

This whole saga makes a fascinating case history showing the way politics, commerce, science and special interests interact. The ideal of virginal science remaining unsullied by non-objective factors is difficult to maintain.

The case of cold fusion/LENR raises a lot of questions. The way the original discoverers of anomalous heat reactions had their professional reputations dragged through the mud when other teams WERE replicating their results was outrageous. I salute those brave scientists who have carried on the good work despite the dangers to their professional reputations.

We will see whether Rossi has solved the problems of commercialising LENR but if does he certainly deserves the Nobel prize along with his partner Focardi. Will he get it? I very much doubt it.

Some commentators on the net are arguing that NASA's patent application and promotion of the W-L theory (which makes this a non-fusion process) is part of a damage-limitation exercise because they now Rossi has an operational device.

Terraformer -

I am making a judgement on this. There is a lot going on and I have been following the story for a year now. NASA are obviously the ones to know whether this can be harnessed for space exploration. I suspect that in terms of the Moon and Mars the answer is already a big yes.

Decimator · 2012-01-13 18:17:52

All this argument is great and all, but how does it work?

louis · 2012-01-13 19:32:51

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Par … 0110255645

Take a look at the patent - you'll probably understand it better than I do.

Decimator · 2012-01-13 19:39:52

Not really, "surface plasmon polaritons" tells me no more than "negative antimass polaron generator."

louis · 2012-01-13 20:37:15

Decimator wrote:

Not really, "surface plasmon polaritons" tells me no more than "negative antimass polaron generator."

Are you saying NASA are perpetrating a fraud on the public?

Obviously they're not going to write down the formulae for Beijing, Moscow and Tehran to copy.

Midoshi · 2012-01-13 21:45:41

Reading the "Description of the Related Art" part of the patent makes it pretty clear what the idea is. I'll try to explain it as best I can for those not familiar with the technical jargon:

You start with a "surface plasmon polariton" (SPP), which is basically a photon trapped at the interface between a dielectric (i.e. an insulator) and a metal because of coherent electron oscillations in the material ("coherent" just means large groups of electrons are oscillating at the same frequency at the same time). The photon can move freely across the interface surface, sort of like it would through a fiber optic cable. You tune this system so that the oscillation frequency coincides with a proton or deuteron lattice resonance. That way the SPP can readily share energy with the proton/deuteron. It seems that this coupling provides the conditions for producing those "heavy electrons" I mentioned in an earlier post. The heavy electrons can then get captured by protons, which turn into neutrons (this doesn't happen with normal electrons, you would just get hydrogen atoms). These neutrons then float off and lodge themselves in the nuclei of some heavier atoms which then decay radioactively and release energy (the whole point of the contraption).

If you want to read more about the process, you can read a paper on it by Widom & Larsen which was published in The European Physical Journal C in 2005.

"Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces"

Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions in metallic hydride system surfaces are discussed. Weak interaction catalysis initially occurs when neutrons (along with neutrinos) are produced from the protons which capture "heavy'' electrons. Surface electron masses are shifted upwards by localized condensed matter electromagnetic fields. Condensed matter quantum electrodynamic processes may also shift the densities of final states allowing an appreciable production of extremely low momentum neutrons which are thereby efficiently absorbed by nearby nuclei. No Coulomb barriers exist for the weak interaction neutron production or other resulting catalytic processes.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2006-02479-8 (official publisher version, behind paywall)
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505026 (free pre-print version)

Decimator · 2012-01-13 22:09:05

louis wrote:

Are you saying NASA are perpetrating a fraud on the public?
Obviously they're not going to write down the formulae for Beijing, Moscow and Tehran to copy.

You need to be less defensive.

Midoshi wrote:

a comprehensible explanation

Thank you, now I have some understanding of what this is about.

louis · 2012-01-13 22:50:29

I don't think I was being defensive Decimator - it's not me who's making the claim, it's NASA. I was trying to establish if you were making a point. Perhaps you weren't.

I really don't think NASA would make such specific claims about such a matter that impinges on national security and global poliitics without being absolutely sure that the patented technology works - and not only that, but that it is indeed easily applied to a variety of everyday uses. That is my considered opinion. Whether their explanation of the process is correct is as I understand it a matter of some dispute. Some commentators think they have flagged up the Widom & Larsen thesis (not cold fusion) because they want to avoid public scrutiny of their role in suppressing the original cold fusion research by Pons and Fleischmann. Knowing the way these things work, I wouldn't entirely discount that possibility. Remember, that research was back in 1988. We know that lots of researchers at NASA have been convinced of LENR for many years, stretching back to that era...Have NASA been sitting on the research preventing it being applied?

Terraformer · 2012-01-14 07:13:50

Tbf, i don't like the way a government agency has got a patent that was refused to Rossi... that just smells corrupt. Probably the government looking to cover their bases in case it does turn out to work...

louis · 2012-01-14 08:11:41

Terraformer wrote:

Tbf, i don't like the way a government agency has got a patent that was refused to Rossi... that just smells corrupt. Probably the government looking to cover their bases in case it does turn out to work...

It does sound odd...and I think this is partly why they are pressing the W-L theory so much, because they had to get over the "violation of known laws of physics" rule. Again, that's why people are sceptical about the W-L theory.

Hey-ho...the main thing is we know LENR is real. What a tremendous advance for humanity - safe, clean, inexhaustible energy (with a useful by-product as well possibly - copper). Does it get any better? Whether it really can be harnessed cheaply remains to be seen.

Rune · 2012-01-14 14:30:07

Midoshi wrote:

Reading the "Description of the Related Art" part of the patent makes it pretty clear what the idea is. I'll try to explain it as best I can for those not familiar with the technical jargon:
You start with a "surface plasmon polariton" (SPP), which is basically a photon trapped at the interface between a dielectric (i.e. an insulator) and a metal because of coherent electron oscillations in the material ("coherent" just means large groups of electrons are oscillating at the same frequency at the same time). The photon can move freely across the interface surface, sort of like it would through a fiber optic cable. You tune this system so that the oscillation frequency coincides with a proton or deuteron lattice resonance. That way the SPP can readily share energy with the proton/deuteron. It seems that this coupling provides the conditions for producing those "heavy electrons" I mentioned in an earlier post. The heavy electrons can then get captured by protons, which turn into neutrons (this doesn't happen with normal electrons, you would just get hydrogen atoms). These neutrons then float off and lodge themselves in the nuclei of some heavier atoms which then decay radioactively and release energy (the whole point of the contraption).
If you want to read more about the process, you can read a paper on it by Widom & Larsen which was published in The European Physical Journal C in 2005.
"Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces"
Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions in metallic hydride system surfaces are discussed. Weak interaction catalysis initially occurs when neutrons (along with neutrinos) are produced from the protons which capture "heavy'' electrons. Surface electron masses are shifted upwards by localized condensed matter electromagnetic fields. Condensed matter quantum electrodynamic processes may also shift the densities of final states allowing an appreciable production of extremely low momentum neutrons which are thereby efficiently absorbed by nearby nuclei. No Coulomb barriers exist for the weak interaction neutron production or other resulting catalytic processes.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2006-02479-8 (official publisher version, behind paywall)
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505026 (free pre-print version)

That, at first glance, seems to be a very complicated way of achieving nuclear fission. And it's got to create radioactive material, of course, if it is (slow neutrons, decay... yeah, radiation for sure). Is it expected to have any benefits at all? I imagine the only point is that all of that can happen at sub-critical concentrations of non-nuclear (at the start) materials, right? Oh, and the nice science, of course.

Rune. I don't think that is what that Rossi guy is doing, at all.

louis · 2012-01-14 14:35:36

Why don't you think Rossi is doing anything like this? He worked with Focardi. Focardi's no idiot - he has been at the forefront of LENR development.

Was it a slip of the key when you referred to fission, not fusion?

The LENR proponents indicate gamma ray radiation is produced whilst the process is taking place, hence the need for some lead lining protection. But the quantities are not very lethal as far as I understand.

JoshNH4H · 2012-01-14 22:38:53

I was under the impression that the government, and specifically NASA, wasn't really into filing for patents. The NASA policy on the matter can be found here, though I can't really parse the legalese well enough to say if this is true or not.

I would add that the one scientist working on this does not constitute the scientific community. I'd like to see more verification. If such is forthcoming, specifically on Rossi's device, I have a hat to eat.

I don't believe it was a mis-type to say that this is more like fission than fusion. Actually, production of neutrons leading to transmutations in this way is really neither. I would expect that production of energy in this manner would lead to significant releases of radiation, as well as of neutrons which would not necessarily impact with the metal in which they are produced.

Midoshi, I'm not quite clear on how these electrons have "more mass" just from being held in place by the crystal lattice. Now, obviously I am no expert on this, but it would seem to me that a confined electron would just be a confined electron, not necessarily a more massive one.

Midoshi · 2012-01-15 00:00:01

JoshNH4H wrote:

I'm not quite clear on how these electrons have "more mass" just from being held in place by the crystal lattice. Now, obviously I am no expert on this, but it would seem to me that a confined electron would just be a confined electron, not necessarily a more massive one.

And you wouldn't expect the particular properties of a crystal lattice to be able to allow electrons to move with virtually zero resistance either, right? Actually, the similarities to superconductivity are more than passing; the physics are highly intertwined:

Scientists Shed Light on Heavy Electrons, Suggest New View of Superconductivity
http://www.physorg.com/news136648330.html

If anything, it seems you took issue with the semantics I used to describe how the lattice "weighs down" the electron. Please realize there is no true analogy I can make as to what is happening, and it was my attempt at presenting it in a way that could give even a layman some idea of what is going on.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2012-01-12 18:59:23

Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#2 2012-01-12 20:25:23

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#3 2012-01-12 20:50:58

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#4 2012-01-13 05:21:01

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#5 2012-01-13 07:24:53

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#6 2012-01-13 11:46:44

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#7 2012-01-13 12:01:05

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#8 2012-01-13 13:03:57

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#9 2012-01-13 13:06:22

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#10 2012-01-13 14:03:29

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#11 2012-01-13 16:14:16

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#12 2012-01-13 17:44:19

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#13 2012-01-13 18:17:52

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#14 2012-01-13 19:32:51

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#15 2012-01-13 19:39:52

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#16 2012-01-13 20:37:15

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#17 2012-01-13 21:45:41

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#18 2012-01-13 22:09:05

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#19 2012-01-13 22:50:29

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#20 2012-01-14 07:13:50

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#21 2012-01-14 08:11:41

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#22 2012-01-14 14:30:07

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#23 2012-01-14 14:35:36

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#24 2012-01-14 22:38:53

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

#25 2012-01-15 00:00:01

Re: Cold fusion (LENR) is for real - NASA says so

Board footer