Is ‘Cold Fusion’ More Than Just Cold Confusion?

Page 1

Is ‘Cold Fusion’ More Than Just Cold Confusion?

September 22, 2010 Department of Physics and Astronomy

University of New Mexico

Rob DuncanUniversity of Missouri

Page 2

A Long History of ‘Cold Confusion’

• First report of a possible nuclear fusion in palladium loaded with heavy hydrogen: Berlin, Germany, September 17, 1926 by Professors Paneth and Peters, later retracted. (83 years ago)

• Some patent activity in and after 1927 • Detection of confirmed nuclear fusion in liquid heavy

hydrogen at -422 F (-252 C) in Russia, Berkeley and other places from 1954 to 1959. This fusion is catalyzed by naturally occurring muons

• FP Press Conference on March 22, 1989

Page 3

Hydrogen Fusion Reactions D + D 3He + n + 3.3 MeV

p + T + 4.0 MeV 4He + g + 23.8 MeV (v. rare)

D + T 4He + n + 17.6 MeV

p + D 3He + g + 5.5 MeV

Can Pd somehow catalyze these reactions in the solid-state? Unlikely, but the m- does.

Page 4

Cold (Muon-Catalyzed) Fusion

μ- are 207 times more massive than an electron, have a 2.2 μs half-life, and shower the earth at an average rate of one per cm2 per minute near the speed of light. Very few will come to rest in the D2 from a collision. D-μ-D forms in a fraction of a microsecond at liquid D2 densities, D to D spacing is only 0.5% of D2, and has a vibration period of 5x10-18s. Each vibrational close approach gives a probability ≈ 10-7 of tunneling through the coulomb barrier to create fusion.

Page 5

Muon Catalyzed Fusion Each muon will catalyze about 10 D+D nuclear fusions before it combines with a positively charged fusion product (3He, p, or t) or decays. It can catalyze about 100 D+T fusions.

• Notice… COLD FUSION!, but no energy technology impact, since muons are so expensive to create artificially, and since their natural luminosity is far too low

• Probability of fusion in a D2 molecule at STP is about 10-70 per vibrational close approach, while for a m-D2 molecule it is about 10-7

• Notice also that a muon (mu meson) is actually not a meson at all. It is a lepton. There was a time when nuclear physics was at the forefront of discovery, when I.I. Rabi said of the m-, “Who ordered this?”

Page 6

‘Cold Fusion’, but now in the ‘Age of Mass Media’

• Fleischmann and Pons (PF), University of Utah Press Conference, March 22, 1989 – Very bad media strategy, in my opinion – A very negative reaction by the physics community

especially within the United States– Interesting science with possible engineering

consequences, suddenly becomes a ‘pariah science’ – Fleischmann’s two regrets from 60 Minutes, 4/09

• About 200 ‘excess heat’ results from many independent labs repeat FP results, from 1989 to 2009 (Edmund Storms book, more since then)

Page 7

What is Different Now from 1990?

We know now that the loading [D]/[Pd] must exceed 0.88 for excess heat (Data from Michael McKubre, SRI)

- Hard to achieve in electrochemical loading- A little easier to achieve in D+ ion bombardment - Readily achieved in gas diffusion loading of nanoparticles, or in co-deposition of Pd + D

Page 8

What is Different Now from 1990?The loading of [D]/[Pd] must exceed 0.88 for excess heat

Data from Michael McKubre, SRI

Page 9

The 60 Minutes Story, 4/19/09 • Visit to Energetic Technologies in Omer, Israel, in

October, 2008:– Observed excess heat while I was there – Three different cell designs, all very different, all have

reported excess heat – Five cells have reported excess heat exceeding

1,000,000 J from a 0.3g Pd foil electrode• Chemical heat release would have been about 100 - 800 J• (Heat out) / (Electrical energy in) = 25, 15 (rarely), 8, and less

– Quite similar results from many other labs in Italy, Russia, China, Germany, and the USA (mainly SRI and Navy)

Page 10

ElectrodesPt-Pd-Pt

ElectricEnergy input External

Recombiner

ConstantTemperatureCooling bath:

±0.01C

Pt PtPdThermalEnergy output alumina

T4

T5

T3

T2T1

ET’s schematic of their Electrolytic Cell, Isoperibolic Calorimeter design(With and without ultrasound)

Pin = I * V (Recombiner losses were ignored )

Cartoon is not to scalePout = k * (T4-T5) Pexcess = Pout – Pin Excess Heat = ∑ Pexcess Δt

(Art from Energetic Technologies)

Page 11

Pressure gauge

ConstantTemperature

Bath: ±0.01C

TinTout

Flow MeterController0-16 g/min

Ion exchangecolumn

Filter

Tungsten WirePalladium Layer

D+ Plasma, 1-20 mTorr

D2

ET’s Glow Discharge Cell Design with Water Flow Calorimeter

Pin = ID+ * V

Pout = flow rate * C (Tout – Tin)

Pexcess = Pout – Pin

Excess Heat = ∑ Pexcess * ΔtV

(Art from Energetic Technologies)

Page 12

Excess Heat Result from Energetic Technologies in 2004, Run #64

A A C

T4T5

T1

T2

T3

T4T5 Tbath

Sudden boiling

80 h

Page 13

Excess Heat Result from Energetic Technologies in 2004

PPInIn, , PPOutOut [W][W]10 W10 W

20 W20 W

30 W30 W

PPOut MaxOut Max = 34.4 W= 34.4 W

Duration ~14 HoursDuration ~14 Hours

10,00010,000 20,00020,000 30,00030,000 40,00040,000 50,00050,000 60,00060,000 70,000 seconds70,000 seconds

Input Energy

Output Energy Excess

Energy

Eout = 1.1 MJ, Ein = 40 kJ

Page 14

Is the Excess Heat Effect Real? • In cells loaded by electrolytic techniques that I observed at

Energetic Technologies in Omer, Israel in October, 2008:– Recombiner concerns?

• ET results take Pin = I*V, ignore recombiner heat – Hence excess heat reports are under-estimated

• Volume chemical reaction? • Oxygen leak resulting in D-burn at cathode?

– Ground-loops or shorts?• Isolation transformer coupling on cathode resistivity measurements • Very good laboratory technique was observed

– Under-estimated input power?: Electrolytic Interrupter effect? • 50 kHz measurement system sampling, > 20 kHz BW• Direct measurements with a 200 MHz BW scope • Any such effect is < 0.01% of near DC input power• Proposed calibrated physical source measurement

Page 15

Excess Heat Effect Is Real

• Even if input power is mis-measured due to an electrolytic interrupter effect…… why didn’t it appear on the 200 MHz scope? … what mechanism can store 50 kJ to 4 MJ of energy

near a 0.3g Pd electrode for heat release a few hours or days later?

• Even if some amazing new mechanism like this were to be discovered … … it would be absent in the other methods of loading, all

of which report excess heat

Page 16

The Excess Heat Effect: far Greater than Chemical Heat Release

• The ET Pd cathode mass was 0.3 g (2x10-3mole)• Chemical release of heat:

– ΔH for Pd +D PdD is about 43 kJ/mole• So about 100 J if this heat release was somehow delayed

– ΔH for 2D2 + O2 2D2O is about 242 kJ/mole • So about 500 J of delayed released heat

• Many measurements show:– Typical heat release per episode of 50,000 J– Occasional heat release of over 1,000,000 J

• Heat release is usually from ambient temperature to about 100 oC, with occasional reports of heat release up to the melting of Pd at 1,550 oC

Page 17

So What is Going On?• We don’t know – it will take a lot of well controlled

experiments to figure this out. • The ‘excess heat’ appears to be real. That is enough to

motivate serious study• A nuclear fusion process?

– A hypothesis: Ignition through muon-catalyzed D + D fusion near (but not in) the Pd.

– Another hypothesis: Nanoscale structure of the Pd somehow catalyzes fusion (some feasibility arguments)

• Evidence against a nuclear fusion process– No (or very little) nuclear particle emissions from the Pd chemical

loading reports– Unclear how this system challenges its coulomb barrier

Page 18

Evidence for Nuclear Processes • Micro-craters observed independently by Energetic Technologies and by

SPAWAR– Correlates roughly with excess heat production, but no attempt yet to correlate areal

crater density with total excess heat release, etc. – Modeling by SPAWAR suggests that these craters could be of nuclear fusion origin based

on annealing of impurities only near craters • The D + D 4He appears to be favored, with energy and momentum taken up by

the lattice (no gamma!)– Mossbauer-like process, but electromagnetic, not phonon?– Other possible quantum coherent mechanisms: Y. Kim’s BEC theory.

• Many other reports of particle emissions– Prelas, 1990: A 8.1 MeV g starting 200 hrs after D-loading into Pd – Lipson, 2009: A 3 MeV proton emission in Pd – Navy SPAWAR reports (and many others now) of particle tracks in CR-39 integrating

detectors • Helium-4 build up in proportion to excess heat • The levels of excess heat reports are well above chemical

Page 19

Muon-catalyzed Ignition? • Muons shower us at the rate of one per cm2 per minute, with an

average energy of 3 GeV and a rest-frame half-life of 2.2 ms• Only low-energy muons can form D-m-D• Estimated arrival rate at thermal energies is one per cm2 per

hour (Cohen and Davies, Nature 338, 705 (1989))• Must arrive in D-rich voids in the Pd, since muons in the Pd will

be K-shell captured by the Pd and hence not available to form D-m-D (Richard Garwin and others, discussions)

• ET experiment: 10cm2, estimate 1% of D in voids, hence a once in 10 hr average arrival time of an ‘ignition muon’. – Qualitatively describes why onset time and extent of the excess heat

release is highly dependent on Pd preparation – Does not describe how the chain reaction is sustained, or why

neutrons and tritium are absent, or why the gamma is absent if the D+D4He + g is favored.

Page 20

SEM images from Energetic Technologies Ltd. in Omer, Israel Micro-craters in palladium, possibly following excess heat release, when loaded with heavy hydrogen, or possibly just chemical pitting? The origin of these micro-craters is still under intense debate.

Page 21

SSC PACIFIC…on Point and at the Center of C4ISR

SEMs Obtained for a Cathode Subjected to an E-Field Showing Micro-Volcano-Like Features

All data and images are from Navy SPAWAR’s released data, presented at the American Chemical Society Meeting in March, 2009.

Page 22

Total Number of Fusion Reactions Estimated From A Crater FormationS. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, C. Young, and F.E. Gordon, J. Electroanal. Chem. 580, 284 (2005)

Ejecta Volume

V= r2h/3 =1.6 x 104 mm3

V=1.6 x10-8 cm3

r= 25mm

h= 25mm

D=50 mm

22

D+D → 4He + 23.8 MeV (to the metal, not gamma particle?) Number of moles for deuterons in ejecta volume Nmoles= 1.6 x 10-8cm3 x 12.02 g/cm3 x (106.4 g/mole)-1 = 1.8 x 10-9moles Total energy required for vaporization of Pd metal in ejecta volume ET = 1.8 x 10-9 moles x (3.62 x 105 joules/mole) = 6.5 x 10-4 joules Energy released per fusion reaction Q = 23.8 MeV x (1.6 x 10-13 joules/MeV) = 38.1 x 10 -13 joules/reaction Total number of deuterons present in ejecta volume ND = 1.6 x 10-8 cm3 x 6.8 x 1022/cm3 = 1.1 x 1015 Total number of fusion reactions NR = (ET/Q) = 6.5 x 10-4 joules x (38.1 x 10-13 joules/reaction)-1 = 1.7 x 108 reactions corresponding to ~ 3.7 x 10-2 μm diameter BEC of deuterons undergoing fusion

Thanks to Y. Kim for Slide and corrections

Page 23

Palladium Nanoparticle Excess Heat Pd Nanoparticles have diameters less than 10 nm in Pd-Zr

- this is much less than the hydrogen passivation layer thickness in palladium

- typical [D]/[Pd] = 1.1 in gas diffusion loading experiments

Y. Arata, Y. Zhang, J. High Temp. Soc. 1 (2008): Reported excess heat for up to 50 hours following D2 charging of Pd nanoparticles in Pd – ZrO2 composites, while H2 loading showed no excess heat

Akira Kitamura, Takayoshi Nohmi , Yu Sasaki , Akira Taniike , Akito Takahashi, Reiko Seto, Yushi Fujita, Physics Letters A 373, 3109 (2009): Repeated these results

Very recent NRL results also confirm, and show enhancement atsmaller nanoparticles (see procedings of ICCF15, Rome)

Page 24

The Kitamura et al. Experiment

Page 25

Kitamura et al. Results

0.01 µm: 0.7 eV/atom

0.1 µm: 0.2 eV/atom

0.001 µm: 1.8 eV /H-atom, 2.4 eV/D-atom

Page 26

Could Pd Possibly Catalyze D+D Fusion?Or is this impossible?

• Assume only D at [D]/[Pd] > 0.88 is available• Assume 0.25 W output from 1 millimole of D2

• Assume – Either excess D goes into a PdD2 nanophase(?)– Or excess D densely loads metallic voids (?)

• Assume a D2 vibrational frequency of 1013 Hz• If this is fusion, then the probability of fusion = 10-22 per

vibrational close approach• Can PdD2 form at high D-loading and small Pd structure

dimensions? • Why is Pd so special, anyway? Well …

Page 27

Possibility of a PdD2 Nanocatalyst?

Period

Group**       

1IA1A

18VIIIA

8A

11

H 1.008

2IIA2A

13IIIA3A

14IVA4A

15VA5A

16VIA6A

17VIIA7A

2

He4.003

23

Li6.941

4

Be 9.012

5

B10.81

6

C12.01

7

N14.01

8

O16.00

9

F19.00

10

Ne20.18

311

Na 22.99

12

Mg 24.31

3IIIB3B

4IVB4B

5VB5B

6VIB6B

7VIIB7B

8 9 1011IB1B

12IIB2B

13

Al26.98

14

Si28.09

15

P30.97

16

S32.07

17

Cl35.45

18

Ar39.95------- VIII -------

------- 8 -------

419

K39.10

20

Ca40.08

21

Sc44.96

22

Ti47.88

23

V50.94

24

Cr52.00

25

Mn54.94

26

Fe55.85

27

Co58.47

28

Ni58.69

29

Cu63.55

30

Zn65.39

31

Ga69.72

32

Ge72.59

33

As74.92

34

Se78.96

35

Br79.90

36

Kr83.80

537

Rb85.47

38

Sr87.62

39

Y88.91

40

Zr91.22

41

Nb92.91

42

Mo95.94

43

Tc(98)

44

Ru101.1

45

Rh102.9

46

Pd106.4

47

Ag107.9

48

Cd112.4

49

In114.8

50

Sn118.7

51

Sb121.8

52

Te127.6

53

I126.9

54

Xe131.3

655

Cs132.9

56

Ba137.3

57

La*138.9

72

Hf178.5

73

Ta180.9

74

W183.9

75

Re186.2

76

Os190.2

77

Ir190.2

78

Pt195.1

79

Au197.0

80

Hg200.5

81

Tl204.4

82

Pb207.2

83

Bi209.0

84

Po(210)

85

At(210)

86

Rn(222)

787

Fr(223)

88

Ra(226)

89

Ac~(227)

104

Rf(257)

105

Db(260)

106

Sg(263)

107

Bh(262)

108

Hs(265)

109

Mt(266)

110

---()

111

---()

112

---()

114

---()

116

---()

118

---()

   

Lanthanide Series*58

Ce140.1

59

Pr140.9

60

Nd144.2

61

Pm(147)

62

Sm150.4

63

Eu152.0

64

Gd157.3

65

Tb158.9

66

Dy162.5

67

Ho164.9

68

Er167.3

69

Tm 168.9

70

Yb173.0

71

Lu175.0

Actinide Series~90

Th232.0

91

Pa(231)

92

U(238)

93

Np(237)

94

Pu(242)

95

Am(243)

96

Cm(247)

97

Bk(247)

98

Cf(249)

99

Es(254)

100

Fm(253)

101

Md(256)

102

No(254)

103

Lr(257)

Ni: always 4s2 3d8 Pt: always 6s0 5d10 but Pd switches, hence Stoner Enhancement, etc.

Page 28

Possibility of a PdND2N Nanocatalyst?

Pd x N PdN

D? D2N ‘nanoband’

•Nanoband fusion probability discussed by Talbot Chubb (and others)•But why would this favor the D+D 4He + g branch so severely? •Why would the g be missing? A Mossbauer-like effect?

• See work by T. Chubb, NRL (ret), and by P. Hagelstein, MIT•Alternative theories, like D2 BEC Condensation in the metallic voids

• See work by Y. Kim, Purdue • If so, then the BEC may be detected in other ways

Or maybe D2?

Page 29

Junk Science or Empirical Data? • Persistent observations, like excess heat in Pd – D

and superconductivity above room temperature, should be treated as empirical evidence that our understanding of physics remains incomplete.

• It is simply too convenient and too scientifically counter-productive to dismiss these observations as ‘junk science’.

• The Scientific Method is the only thing we have got, and fortunately it is the only thing that we need!– Simply apply the scientific method without prejudice,

and go where the data leads you

Page 30

Conclusions• The Excess Heat Effect is Real

– This alone merits serious study – Years of careful work will be needed to fully understand what is going

on– Absorption and excess heat variation with Pd characteristic size

• Now for a hunch, just a guess of sorts…

– ‘Warm’ Fusion, muon-assisted, some particles• Can the metal environment change muon-ash binding rate? • Is there an economic pathway that ois yet undiscovered to produce muons?

– ‘Cold’ Fusion, no particles• How do small Pd particles / structures catalyze this?

– Both could be going on