Cold Fusion Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ)
What is cold fusion?
Cold fusion was discovered by professors Stanley Pons
and Martin Fleischmann and announced in March 1989. It is a reaction
that occurs under certain conditions in supersaturated metal hydrides
(metals with lots of hydrogen or heavy hydrogen dissolved in them). It
produces excess heat, helium, and a very low level of neutrons. In
some experiments the host metal has been transmuted into other
elements. Cold fusion has been seen
with palladium, titanium, nickel and with some superconducting
ceramics.
What is excess heat?
Many chemical and nuclear processes are 'exothermic'
meaning they produce more energy out than you put in. For example,
when you strike a match, it burns until the fuel is exhausted,
producing energy. Some cold fusion devices produce energy the way a
burning match does: no energy is input, but a steady stream of heat is
produced. Other cold fusion devices require an external source of
electrical energy to keep the reaction going. The electrical energy
input into the system produces some heat, and the cold fusion reaction
produces additional or "excess" heat. For example, with
electrochemical cold fusion you might input 1 watt of power and get
out 3 watts, so 2 watts are excess. Some electrochemical systems get
much better performance than this, inputting a fraction of a watt and
outputting 400 to 500 watts.
Is cold fusion chemical, nuclear or something else?
Cold fusion cannot be a chemical process because it
consumes no chemical fuel and it produces no chemical ash. Cold fusion
cells contain mostly water, which is inert material that cannot burn
or undergo any other exothermic chemical reaction. Cells also contain
metal hydrides, which can produce a small amounts of chemical heat,
but cold fusion cells have produced hundreds of thousands of times
more energy per unit of mass than
any chemical cell could. For example, a cell containing 40 milligrams
(0.04 grams) of metal hydride, and no other potential chemical fuel,
produced 86 megajoules of energy over a two month period. The best
conventional chemical fuel is gasoline; only a few exotic rocket fuels
produce more energy per gram than gasoline, and they are not much
better. It would take 2,000 grams of gasoline to produce 86 megajoules
of energy, so the cold
fusion cell was 50,000 times better. Furthermore, no cold fusion cell
has ever shown any sign of petering out for lack of fuel. The cell
that produced 86 megajoules was deliberately turned off after two
months. If it has been left on it might have run for years, or
decades. Nobody knows how long it might go.
Cold fusion does produce nuclear ash: helium, a low
level of neutrons, and in some cases tritium and transmutations in the
host metal. It produces trillions of times fewer neutrons than plasma
fusion or fission, and most scientists believe that nothing resembling
plasma fusion can take place in a metal lattice, so if cold fusion is
a nuclear fusion or fission reaction, it must be very different than
any known reaction. It is not yet clear whether the helium, tritium
and other nuclear ash from cold fusion is sufficient to account for
all of the heat generated. If it is not, then perhaps this is a new
source of energy never observed before, which occasionally produces
nuclear reactions as a side effect.
If cold fusion cells are nuclear, why aren't they
extremely hot?
Many people think that because nuclear reactions produce
gigantic amounts of energy, that means they must be very hot, like the
inside of a fission reactor, or the sun. This is incorrect. A sample
impure radium or uranium that is undergoing fission might be cold to
the touch, or barely warm. These samples produce dangerous ionizing
radiation. The individual fission
reactions that occur atom by atom inside them produce millions of
electron volts (eV) of energy, whereas the atoms in a chemical
reaction release only a 3 or 4 electron volts at most. But atoms
undergoing nuclear reaction in the impure sample are few and far
between, whereas trillions of atoms in the chemical sample
simultaneously participate in the chemical reaction.
Although a nuclear reaction produces millions of times
more energy than a chemical reaction, in some cases the chemical
reaction produces much more power over a short period of time. This is
why a burning match is hotter than the impure sample of radium. The
radium remains warm for thousands of years, the match burns out in a
minute or two.
Okay, so what is the difference between power and
energy? What are watts, joules, kilowatt-hours and BTUs?
These may not be 'Frequently Asked Questions,' but they
ought to be, because power and energy are Frequently Confused
Concepts. Power is the rate of energy release at a given instant in
time. Energy is power integrated over time. Power is measured in
watts, kilowatts and horsepower. Energy is measured in joules
(watt-seconds) or kilowatt-hours. A power level of one watt that
continues for one second equals one joule; the
integrated energy from a 100-watt light that runs for 60 seconds
equals 6000 joules. 4.18 joules equal 1 calorie, which is enough
energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree
Celsius.
In U.S. industry, thermal energy is sometimes measured
in BTUs (British Thermal Units). A BTU is the energy it takes to raise
one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. One BTU equals 1,055 joules.
One horsepower equals 746 watts.
Why doesn't cold fusion produce dangerous ionizing
radiation and neutrons?
Nobody knows! This is one of the many unsolved
scientific mysteries of cold fusion. Some scientists think that
because the effect does not produce intense radiation, it cannot be a
nuclear process. (See the question above: "is cold fusion chemical,
nuclear or something else?") Others say the radiation is produced but
then somehow absorbed by the metal lattice. In
any case, it is a good thing cold fusion does not produce dangerous
ionizing radiation because if it did, cold fusion cells would require
elaborate shielding and cold fusion would be difficult, expensive and
dangerous to commercialize. From the scientific perspective the lack
of radiation and neutrons is puzzling and even annoying, but from the
point of view of business, commercialization, and the environment it
is a priceless advantage and a boon to mankind.
What is "hot" fusion (conventional, plasma fusion)?
Hot fusion is the kind of nuclear reaction that powers
the Sun and the stars. At temperatures of millions of degrees, the
nuclei of hydrogen atoms can overcome their natural tendency to repel
one another and join or fuse to form helium nuclei. This releases
enormous energy. Fusion is the opposite of fission, which is the
release of energy by splitting heavy
uranium or plutonium nuclei.
What is the present status of "hot" fusion?
Scientists the world over have spent more than four
decades and billions of dollars (an estimated $15 billion in the U.S.
alone) to investigate the possibility of mimicking with devices here
on Earth the fusion reactions of the stars. These are complex and
large machines that rely on high magnetic fields or powerful lasers to
compress and heat fusion fuel, typically the isotopes of hydrogen,
deuterium and tritium. The controlled hot fusion program has made
enormous strides, but all agree that the earliest possible time when
practical hot fusion devices might be available is about three decades
away. Hot fusion is a very tough engineering problem. Many engineers -
even those favorable to hot fusion - suggest that the "tokamak"
reactor approach being followed by the U.S. Department of Energy will
never result in commercially viable technology.
The U.S. hot fusion scientists now want to build a
gigantic, complex test reactor called ITER (International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), which might begin to operate in
2005. A commercial hot fusion power plant would not be on-line until
at least 2040. The annual budget for hot fusion research in the U.S.
regularly exceeds $500 million, and the program now
seek increased funding for ITER and other experiments.
How does cold fusion differ from hot fusion?
Cold fusion releases enormous quantities of energy in
the form of heat, not ionizing radiation, as in hot fusion. This heat
energy is hundreds to thousands of times what ordinary chemical
reactions could possibly yield. If "cold fusion" is a heretofore
unknown form of benign nuclear reaction - as most researchers in the
cold fusion field believe - there is more
potential cold fusion energy in a cubic mile of sea water than in all
of the oil reserves on earth. Cold fusion, in contrast to hot fusion,
occurs in relatively simple apparatus. Cold fusion reactions are not
at all like conventional hot fusion reactions. If they were, cold
fusion experimenters would be killed by massive flows of
radiation-neutrons and gamma rays.
Are there theories that can explain cold fusion?
Cold fusion researchers have attempted to find
theoretical models to explain the observed cold fusion effects: large
thermal energy releases, low-level nuclear phenomena, and the absence
of massive harmful radiation and other conventional nuclear effects.
There is yet no single, generally accepted theory that explains all
these phenomena. There is no doubt,
however, that the phenomena exist and will eventually be explained. It
is difficult to come up with a theory that fits all the data. The
explanation might lie in nuclear reactions, exotic "super-chemistry"
requiring some modifications to quantum mechanics, or something even
more bizarre (such as tapping of the zero-point energy of space at the
atomic level).
How do you put lots of hydrogen into metal?
It isn't easy! That is one of the reasons cold fusion
remains difficult to replicate. The electrolyte, hydrogen or deuterium
gas must be kept free of impurities. The metal must be carefully
manufactured, cleaned, prepared and pre-treated. As the metal lattice
fills up, tremendous pressure is created,
which causes most metal samples to fracture. This prevents "high
loading" which is a necessary condition for cold fusion. Here are some
of the different methods have been used to achieve high loading:
.The original Pons-Fleischmann electrochemical process.
Heavy water solution with a current-carrying electrolyte such as
lithium deuteroxide (LiOD). Current is passed between a palladium or
palladium-alloy cathode and a platinum anode.
Which laboratories are getting positive results?
Several hundred laboratories around the world have
obtained positive cold fusion results. A partial list, which appeared
in Fire from Ice in 1991, is long outdated. In the spring of 1991, a
conference in the former Soviet Union revealed many more positive
results; at the Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion held in Como,
Italy, in July 1991, much more positive
evidence for cold fusion emerged. At the Third International
Conference on Cold Fusion in October, 1992, the evidence became
completely overwhelming. At the Fourth International Conference on
Cold Fusion (Maui, December, 1993), the field blossomed in many new
directions: new methods of generating excess power, and new
observations, especially the apparent transmutation of heavy elements
at low-energy. Research facilities reporting important cold fusion
results include:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)/Stanford
Research Institute (SRI)
Who is funding cold fusion research and development?
Major financial support for cold fusion research comes
from Japanese sources. In the Autumn of 1991, the Ministry of
International Trade and Industry organized a research consortium of
ten major Japanese corporations to advance research in cold fusion.
Prior to this, only the Ministry of Education was involved in this
research. This consortium is called "The New
Hydrogen Energy Panel" (NHEP). In the spring of 1992, as the
activities of the Panel became widely known, Japanese newspapers
reported that five other major Japanese corporations asked to be
included. In mid-1992, MITI announced a four-year, three billion yen
($24 million) program to advance cold fusion research, to be
administered by MITI's New Energy and Industrial Technology
Development Organization (NEDO). This money was to spent on special
expenses within the national laboratories, such as travel
and extra equipment purchases beyond the usual discretionary levels.
In 1995, the four year budget for this project was raised to $100
million. NEDO is sponsoring the Sixth International Conference on Cold
Fusion, in October 1996.
Is there a future for cold fusion?
Unfortunately, cold fusion has been widely attacked,
belittled and ignored in the U.S. and most of Europe, except Italy.
Funding for the research in the U.S. is all but non-existent. A few
independently wealthy U.S. scientists are working on it, and
"underground" research continues at many
laboratories. Fortunately, cold fusion research is not "Big Science."
It does not need massive installations, just relatively small-scale
dedicated work. Cold fusion energy development will dominantly be the
territory for private industry. There is no need for massive
government investment.
Probably the most difficult hurdle in trying to come to
terms with cold fusion is that it seems too fantastic, "too good to be
true" economically and socially, and too unexpected scientifically.
But the same was said about many other scientific revolutions, like
anesthetics, electric lighting, airplanes, antibiotics, space flight
and nuclear fission. Cold
fusion and allied discoveries will probably revolutionize the world in
ways we can barely begin to imagine. We believe that before the year
2000 there will be prototype cold fusion powered automobiles, home
heating systems, and compact electrical generating units. These
technologies will revolutionize the world as they speed the end of the
Fossil Fuel Age. People who think that such revolutionary changes
cannot happen have forgotten the lessons of history. We should
remember the sentiments of Michael Faraday, to whom we owe our
revolutionary electrically powered
civilization. He wrote: "Nothing is too wonderful to be true."
Source: Unknown
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Naval Weapons Center at China Lake
Naval Research Laboratory
Naval Ocean Systems Center
Texas A&M University
California State Polytechnic University
ENECO, Salt Lake City
Hokkaido National University
ENEA (Italy)
National Institute for Nuclear Physics (Italy)
Osaka National University
National Institute for Fusion Science, Nagoya
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay, India
IMRA Corporation (Toyota subsidiary)
NTT (Nippon Telephone and Telegraph company)
E-Quest Sciences (California)
Shell Recherche SA (France)
Tsinghua University (China)
University of Illinois at Urbana
Many other private research laboratories, most in Japan.