Academician Evgeniy Alexandrov
1. Introduction.
The release of energy during the fusion of light nuclei constitutes the content of one of the two branches nuclear power, 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 implementation 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 an unlimited resource base. However, the managed project fusion reactor, put forward by Kurchatov 60 years ago, today seems, perhaps, to be an even more distant prospect than 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 the electrolysis of heavy water in an installation with a palladium cathode, continuing electrochemical research with hydrogen isotopes undertaken in the early 80s. Fleischmann 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 it still exists mass production 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 “bare” 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 it has cooled to room temperature, a slow injection of hydrogen (H 2) or deuterium (D 2) from a cylinder begins with a pressure of about 100 atmospheres. 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 injection, the temperature of the sample does not differ from the temperature of the container and exceeds the temperature environment by 1 0 C. In the case of deuterium infusion, the temperature of the sample after the same 250 minutes significantly (by ~ 1 0 C) exceeds the temperature of the container and the ambient temperature by about 4 0 C.
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 going into depth theoretical basis hypothesis, let's 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.
It can be seen from the figure 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).
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).
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 a key role in the 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, a direct comparison of this figure with 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 be of great importance, whatever their outcome.
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 fusion in D 2 and HD gases, Physics elementary particles and 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 New Coming” 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 in 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.
Cold fusion is known as one of the biggest scientific hoaxes XX century. For a long time, most physicists refused to discuss even the possibility of such a reaction. However, two Italian scientists recently presented to the public a device that, according to them, easily implements it. Is this synthesis really possible?
At the beginning of this year, 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 terms, this device works like this. 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 H 2 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, in this device So far, not all hydrogen and nickel react, but 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); absence of large (that is, measurable) consumption of hydrogen (since it could act as fuel in chemical reaction); allocated 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"make physicists smile and associate it with a perpetual motion machine. In addition, the authors of the device themselves honestly admit that the subtle details of its operation still remain beyond their understanding.
What is this elusive cold thermonuclear, 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 a very high temperature and the same is unrealistic 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.
That is why many scientists throughout the 20th century tried to carry out a thermonuclear fusion reaction at low temperatures and normal pressure, that is, that same cold thermonuclear fusion. The first report that this was possible appeared on March 23, 1989, when Professor Martin Fleischmann and his colleague Stanley Pons held a press conference at their University of Utah, where they reported how they, by almost simply passing a current through an electrolyte, obtained a positive energy output in the form of heat and recorded gamma radiation coming from the electrolyte. That is, they carried out a cold thermonuclear fusion reaction.
In June of the same year, scientists sent an article with the results of the experiment to Nature, but soon a real scandal erupted around their discovery. The fact is that researchers from leading scientific centers The USA, the California and Massachusetts Institutes of Technology, repeated this experiment in detail and did not find anything similar. True, then two confirmations followed, made by scientists from the University of Texas A&M and the Georgia Institute of Technological Research. However, there was an embarrassment with them too.
When conducting control experiments, it turned out that electrochemists from Texas misinterpreted the results of the experiment - in their experiment, the increased heat generation was caused by the electrolysis of water, since the thermometer served as a second electrode (cathode)! In Georgia, neutron counters turned out to be so sensitive that they responded to the heat of a hand. This is exactly how the “emission of neutrons” was recorded, which the researchers considered to be the result of a thermonuclear fusion reaction.
As a result of all this, many physicists were filled with confidence that there was and could not be any cold thermonuclear, and Fleischmann and Pons simply cheated. However, others (and they are, unfortunately, a clear minority) do not believe that the scientists were fraudulent or even that there was simply a mistake, and hope that a clean and practically inexhaustible source of energy can be constructed.
Among the latter is the Japanese scientist Yoshiaki Arata, who spent several years researching the problem of cold thermonuclear fusion and in 2008 conducted a public experiment at Osaka University that showed the possibility of thermonuclear fusion occurring at low temperatures. He and his colleagues used special structures made of nanoparticles.
These were specially prepared clusters consisting of several hundred palladium atoms. Their main feature was that they had vast voids inside into which deuterium atoms (an isotope of hydrogen) could be pumped to a very high concentration. And when this concentration exceeded a certain limit, these particles got so close to each other that they began to merge, resulting in a real thermonuclear reaction. It involved the fusion of two deuterium atoms into a lithium-4 atom, releasing heat.
Proof of this was the fact that when Professor Arata began to add deuterium gas to the mixture containing the mentioned nanoparticles, its temperature rose to 70 degrees Celsius. After the gas was turned off, the temperature in the cell remained elevated for more than 50 hours, and the energy released exceeded the energy expended. According to the scientist, this could only be explained by the fact that nuclear fusion had occurred.
True, so far Arata’s experiment has also not been repeated in any laboratory. Therefore, many physicists continue to consider cold thermonuclear fusion a hoax and quackery. However, Arata himself denies such accusations, reproaching his opponents for not knowing how to work with nanoparticles, which is why they fail.
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. The solution was passed through continuously for months D.C., 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. Fleishman and Pons believed that inside crystal lattice of this metal, the 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 a large number of neutrons of a very specific 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. 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 AFE 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 terms, this device works like this. 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 the energy production in this case was many times higher than the costs, but this was precisely the effect that was once expected from cold thermonuclear fusion.
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 the subtle details of its operation 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 with 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 Science Magazine The Journal of Nuclear Physics, in which the Italians published articles about their discovery, is actually more of a blog than a full-fledged 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 going 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 operates mainly through the reaction between nickel and hydrogen, during which nickel isotopes are transmuted, releasing large amounts of heat. Those. Some nickel isotopes transform into other isotopes. However, 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 was held on September 25, 2014 at the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia.
In the report, the author presented his version of the Rossi reactor, data on his internal structure and tests carried out. 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. When heating slowly maximum pressure 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. Definition thermal coefficient in this experiment is carried out by comparing the power consumed by the electric heater in the presence and absence 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 nickel + 60 mg 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
Alexander Prosvirnov, Moscow, Yuri L. Ratis, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, professor, Samara
So, seven independent experts (five from Sweden and two from Italy) tested the high-temperature E-Cat device created by Andrea Rossi and confirmed the declared characteristics. Let us recall that the first demonstration of the E-Cat device, based on the low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) of Nickel to Copper transmutation, took place 2 years ago in November 2011.
This demonstration again, like the famous Fleischmann-Pons conference in 1989, galvanized the scientific community, and renewed the debate between LENR adherents and traditionalists who vehemently deny the possibility of such reactions. Now, an independent examination has confirmed that low-energy nuclear reactions (not to be confused with cold nuclear fusion (CNF), by which experts mean the reaction of fusion of nuclei in cold hydrogen) exist and make it possible to generate thermal energy With specific gravity 10,000 times greater than petroleum products.
2 tests were carried out: in December 2012 for 96 hours and in March 2013 for 116 hours. Next up are six months of testing with detailed elemental analysis of the reactor contents. A. Rossi's E-Cat device produces thermal energy with a specific power of 440 kW/kg. For comparison, the specific energy release of the VVER-1000 reactor is 111 kW/l of the core or 34.8 kW/kg of UO 2 fuel, BN-800 is 430 kW/l or ~140 kW/kg of fuel. For the gas reactor AGR Hinkley-Point B - 13.1 kW/kg, HTGR-1160 - 76.5 kW/kg, for THTR-300 - 115 kW/kg. The comparison of these data is impressive - already now specific characteristics The prototype LENR reactor exceeds similar parameters of the best existing and planned nuclear fission reactors.
At National Instruments Cold Fusion Week, held in Austin, Texas from August 5 to 8, 2013, the most impressive pieces were two gold spheres embedded in a layer of silver beads (see Fig. 1).
Rice. 1. Gold spheres that generate heat for days and months without external energy supply (Sample sphere on the left (84°C), control sphere on the right (79.6°C), aluminum bed with silver beads (80.0°C).
No heat is supplied here, there are no water flows, but the entire system remains hot at 80 0 C for days and months. It contains activated carbon, in the pores of which there is a certain alloy, magnetic powder, some material containing hydrogen and deuterium gas. It is assumed that the heat comes from the fusion of D+D=4He+Y. To maintain a strong magnetic field, the sphere contains a crushed Sm 2 Co 7 magnet, which retains magnetic properties at high temperatures. At the end of the conference, in front of a large crowd, the sphere was cut to show that there were no tricks in it, such as a lithium battery or burning gasoline.
Just recently, NASA created a small, cheap and safe LENR reactor. The principle of operation is saturation of the nickel lattice with hydrogen and excitation by vibrations with frequencies of 5-30 terahertz. According to the author, the vibrations are accelerated by electrons, which convert hydrogen into compact neutral atoms absorbed by nickel. During subsequent beta decay, nickel is converted into copper, releasing thermal energy. The key point are slow neutrons with energy less than 1 eV. They do not create ionizing radiation or radioactive waste.
According to NASA, 1% of the earth's proven reserves of nickel ore is enough to cover all the energy needs of the planet. Similar studies were carried out in other laboratories. But were these results the first?
A little history
Back in the 50s of the 20th century, Ivan Stepanovich Filimonenko, working at the Krasnaya Zvezda NPO in the field of space technology, discovered the effect of heat release in an electrode with palladium additives during the electrolysis of heavy water. When developing thermionic energy sources for spacecraft, two directions competed: a traditional reactor based on enriched uranium and the I.S. hydrolysis unit. Filimonenko. The traditional direction won, I.S. Filimonenko was fired for political reasons. More than one generation has changed at the NPO “Red Star”, and during a conversation between one of the authors in 2012 and the Chief Designer of the NPO, it turned out that no one knows about I.S. Filimonenko at the present time.
The topic of cold fusion resurfaced after the sensational experiments of Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 (Fleischmann died in 2012, Pons is currently retired). The foundation, headed by Raisa Gorbacheva, in 1990-1991 ordered, but already at the Luch pilot plant in Podolsk, the production of two or three thermionic hydrolysis power plants (TEGEU) by I.S. Filimonenko. Under the leadership of I.S. Filimonenko, and with his direct participation, it was developed working documentation, according to which the production of components and assembly of the installation immediately began. From conversations of one of the authors with the Deputy Director for Production and the Chief Technologist of the pilot plant (both now retired), it is known that one installation was manufactured, the prototype of which was the well-known TOPAZ installation, but the heavy water circuit of I.S. was used as an energy source. Filimonenko with a low-energy nuclear reaction. Unlike “Topaz”, in TEGEU the fuel element was not a nuclear reactor, but a nuclear fusion installation at low temperatures (T = 1150°), with an operating life of 5-10 years without refueling (heavy water). The reactor was metal pipe with a diameter of 41 mm and a length of 700 mm, made of an alloy containing several grams of palladium. On January 17, 1992, the Moscow City Council subcommittee on environmental issues of industry, energy, and transport studied the problem of TEGEU I.S. Filimonenko, visited the Federal State Unitary Enterprise NPO "Luch", where she was shown the installation and documentation for it.
A liquid metal stand was prepared for testing the installation, but no tests were carried out due to the financial problems of the customer. The installation was shipped without testing and was stored by I.S. Filimonenko (see Fig. 2). “In 1992, the message “Demonstration thermionic installation for nuclear fusion” was published. It seems that this was the last attempt of a wonderful scientist and designer to reach the minds of the authorities.” . I.S. Filimonenko died on August 26, 2013. at the age of 89. Further fate its installation is unknown. For some reason, all the working drawings and working documentation were transferred to the Moscow City Council; nothing remained at the plant. Knowledge was lost, technology was lost, but it was unique, since it was based on a very real TOPAZ apparatus, which, even with a conventional nuclear reactor, was 20 years ahead of world developments, since it used advanced, even after 20 years, materials and technology. It's sad that so many great ideas don't make it to the final stage. If the fatherland does not value its geniuses, their discoveries migrate to other countries.
Rice. 2 Reactor I.S. Filimonenko
No less interesting story happened to Anatoly Vasilyevich Vachaev. An experimenter from God, he conducted research on a plasma steam generator and accidentally obtained a large yield of powder, which contained elements of almost the entire periodic table. Six years of research made it possible to create a plasma installation that produced a stable plasma torch - a plasmoid, through which distilled water or a solution was passed in large quantities, a suspension of metal powders was formed.
We managed to get a stable start and continuous operation for more than two days, producing hundreds of kilograms of powder various elements, obtain melts of metals with unusual properties. In 1997 in Magnitogorsk, a follower of A.V. Vachaeva, Galina Anatolyevna Pavlova defended her PhD thesis on the topic “Development of the fundamentals of technology for obtaining metals from the plasma state of water-mineral systems.” An interesting situation arose during the defense. The commission immediately protested as soon as it heard that all elements were obtained from water. Then the entire commission was invited to the installation and demonstrated the whole process. After that, everyone voted unanimously.
From 1994 to 2000, the semi-industrial installation “Energoniva-2” (see Fig. 3), intended for the production of polymetallic powders, was designed, manufactured and debugged. One of the authors of this review (Yu.L. Ratis) still has samples of these powders. In the laboratory of A.V. Vachaev, an original technology for their processing was developed. At the same time, the following were purposefully studied:
Transmutation of water and substances added to it (hundreds of experiments with various solutions and suspensions that were exposed to plasma)
Transformation of harmful substances into valuable raw materials (wastewater from hazardous industries was used, containing organic pollution, petroleum products and difficult to decompose organic compounds)
Isotopic composition of transmuted substances (only stable isotopes were always obtained)
Decontamination of radioactive waste (radioactive isotopes turned into stable ones)
Direct conversion of the energy of a plasma torch (plasmoid) into electricity (operation of the installation under load without the use of external power supply). 
Rice. 3. Installation diagram A.V. Vachaev "Energoniva-2"
The setup consists of 2 tubular electrodes connected by a tubular dielectric, inside which an aqueous solution flows and a plasmoid is formed inside the tubular dielectric (see Fig. 4) with a waist in the center. The plasmoid is launched by transverse solid electrodes. From measuring containers, certain doses of the test substance (tank 1), water (tank 2), special additives (tank 3) enter mixer 4. Here the pH value of the water is brought to 6. From the mixer after thorough mixing at a flow rate that ensures the speed of movement of the medium in within 0.5...0.55 m/s, the working medium is introduced into reactors 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, connected in series, but enclosed in a single coil 6 (solenoid). The processing products (water-gas medium) were poured into a sealed settling tank 7 and cooled to 20°C by a coil refrigerator 11 and a flow cold water. The water-gas medium in the settling tank was divided into gas 8, liquid 9 and solid 10 phases, collected in appropriate containers and transferred for chemical analysis. Measuring vessel 12 determined the mass of water passing through refrigerator 11, and mercury thermometers 13 and 14 determined the temperature. The temperature of the working mixture was also measured before it entered the first reactor, and the flow rate of the mixture was determined by volumetric method based on the emptying rate of mixer 4 and water meter readings.
During the transition to the processing of industrial waste and effluents, human waste products, etc., it was discovered that new technology obtaining metals retains its advantages, making it possible to exclude mining, enrichment, and redox processes from the technology for obtaining metals. It should be noted that there is no radioactive radiation, both during the implementation of the process and at the end of it. There are also no gas emissions. The liquid reaction product, water, at the end of the process meets the requirements for fire and drinking water. But it is advisable to reuse this water, i.e. you can make a multi-stage Energoniva unit (optimally - 3) to produce about 600-700 kg of metal powders from 1 ton of water. Experimental testing showed the stable operation of a sequential cascade system consisting of 12 stages with a total yield of ferrous metals of the order of 72%, non-ferrous - 21% and non-metals - up to 7%. Percentage chemical composition powder approximately corresponds to the distribution of elements in earth's crust. Initial studies have established that the output of a certain (target) element is possible by regulating the electrical parameters of the plasmoid's power supply. It is worth paying attention to the use of two operating modes of the installation: metallurgical and energy. The first, with the priority of obtaining metal powder, and the second, - obtaining electrical energy.
During the synthesis of metal powder, electrical energy is generated, which must be removed from the installation. The amount of electrical energy is estimated to be approximately 3 MWh per 1 m / cubic meter. water and depends on the operating mode of the installation, the diameter of the reactor and the amount of produced powder.
This type Plasma combustion is achieved by changing the shape of the discharge flow. When the shape of a symmetrical hyperboloid reaches rotation, at the pinch point the energy density is maximum, which facilitates the passage of nuclear reactions (see Fig. 4).
Rice. 4. Plasmoid Vachaev
The processing of radioactive waste (especially liquid) in Energoniva installations can open a new stage in the technological chain of nuclear energy. The Energoniva process proceeds almost silently, with minimal release of heat and gas phase. Increased noise (to the point of crackling and “roaring”), as well as a sharp increase in temperature and pressure working environment in reactors indicate a disruption in the process, i.e. about the occurrence of a conventional thermal electric arc in one or all reactors instead of the required discharge.
A normal process is when an electrically conductive discharge occurs in the reactor between the tubular electrodes in the form of a plasma film, forming a multidimensional figure such as a hyperboloid of revolution with a pinch with a diameter of 0.1...0.2 mm. The film has increased electrical conductivity, translucent, luminous, up to 10-50 microns thick. Visually, it is observed during the manufacture of the reactor vessel from plexiglass or through the ends of the electrodes, plugged with plexiglass plugs. The aqueous solution “flows” through the “plasmoid” in the same way as “ball lightning” passes through any obstacles. A.V. Vachaev died in 2000. The installation was dismantled and the know-how was lost. Initiative groups of Energoniva followers have been unsuccessfully attacking the results of A.V. for 13 years now. Vachaev, however, “things are still there.” Academic Russian science declared these results to be “pseudoscience” without any verification in its laboratories. Even samples of the powders obtained by A.V. Vachaev were not examined and are still stored in his laboratory in Magnitogorsk without movement.
Historical excursion
The above events did not happen suddenly. On the path to the discovery of LENR, they were preceded by major historical milestones:
In 1922, Wendt and Airion studied the electric explosion of a thin tungsten wire - about one cubic centimeter of helium was released (at normal conditions) in one shot.
Wilson in 1924 hypothesized that conditions sufficient to initiate a thermonuclear reaction involving ordinary deuterium contained in water vapor could form in the lightning channel, and such a reaction would occur with the formation of only He 3 and a neutron.
In 1926, F. Panez and K. Peters (Austria) announced the generation of He in fine Pd powder saturated with hydrogen. But due to widespread skepticism, they withdrew their result, admitting that it could not have come from thin air.
In 1927, the Swede J. Tandberg generated He by electrolysis with Pd electrodes, and even filed a patent for the production of He. In 1932, after the discovery of deuterium, he continued experiments with D 2 O. The patent was rejected because the physics of the process was not clear.
In 1937, L.U. Alvarets discovered electron capture.
In 1948 - A.D. Sakharov’s report “Passive Mesons” on muon catalysis.
In 1956, a lecture by I.V. Kurchatova: “Pulses caused by neutrons and X-ray quanta can be accurately phased on oscillograms. It turns out that they arise simultaneously. The energy of X-ray quanta appearing during pulsed electrical processes in hydrogen and deuterium, reaches 300 - 400 keV. It should be noted that at the moment when quanta with such high energy appear, the voltage applied to the discharge tube is only 10 kV. Assessing the prospects of various directions that can lead to solving the problem of obtaining high-intensity thermonuclear reactions, we cannot now completely exclude further attempts to achieve this goal by using pulsed discharges.”
In 1957, at the Berkeley Nuclear Center under the leadership of L.U. Alvarez, the phenomenon of muon catalysis of nuclear fusion reactions in cold hydrogen was discovered.
In 1960, a review was presented by Ya.B. Zeldovich (academician, three times Hero of Socialist Labor) and S.S. Gershtein (academician) entitled “Nuclear reactions in cold hydrogen”.
The theory of beta decay into a bound state was created in 1961.
It was observed in the Philipps and Eindhoven laboratories in 1961 that the radioactivity of tritium was greatly reduced after absorption by titanium. And in the case of palladium in 1986, the emission of neutrons was observed.
In the 50s-60s in the USSR, as part of the implementation of Government Decree No. 715/296 of July 23, 1960, I.S. Filimonenko created a hydrolysis power plant designed to obtain energy from “warm” nuclear fusion reactions occurring at temperature of only 1150 °C.
In 1974, Belarusian scientist Sergei Usherenko experimentally established that
that impactor particles 10-100 microns in size, accelerated to a speed of the order of 1 km/s, pierced through a steel target 200 mm thick, leaving a melted channel, while energy was released an order of magnitude greater than the kinetic energy of the particles.
In the 80s, B.V. Bolotov, while in prison, created a reactor from ordinary welding machine, where he obtained valuable metals from sulfur.
In 1986, Academician B.V. Deryagin and his colleagues published an article in which the results of a series of experiments on the destruction of targets from heavy ice using a metal striker.
In 1985, June 12, Steven Jones and Clinton Van Siclen published the article “Piezonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen molecules” in the Journal of Phvsics.
Jones had been working on piezonuclear fusion since 1985, but it was not until the fall of 1988 that his group was able to build detectors sensitive enough to measure weak neutron fluxes.
Pons and Fleischmann, according to them, began work at their own expense in 1984. But it was only in the fall of 1988, after attracting student Marvin Hawkins, that they began to study the phenomenon from the point of view of nuclear reactions.
By the way, Julian Schwinger supported cold fusion in the fall of 1989 after numerous negative publications. He submitted the paper "Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis" to Physical Review Letters, but the paper was so rudely rejected by the reviewer that Schwinger, feeling insulted, left the American Physical Society (publisher of PRL) in protest.
1994-2000 - experiments by A.V. Vachaev with the Energoniva installation.
Adamenko conducted thousands of experiments with coherent electron beams in the 90s - 2000s. Within 100 ns, intense X-ray and Y-rays with energies from 2.3 keV to 10 MeV with a maximum of 30 keV are observed during the compression process. The total dose at energies of 30.100 keV exceeded 50.100 krad at a distance of 10 cm from the center. Synthesis of light isotopes1 was observed<А<240 и трансурановых элементов 250<А<500 вблизи зоны сжатия. Преобразование радиоактивных элементов в стабильные означает трансмутацию в стабильные изотопы 1018 нуклидов (e.g., 60Со) с помощью 1 кДж энергии .
At the end of the 90s, L.I. Urutskoev (RECOM company, a subsidiary of the Kurchatov Institute) obtained unusual results from the electric explosion of titanium foil in water. The working element of Urutskoev’s experimental setup consisted of a durable polyethylene glass into which distilled water was poured; thin titanium foil welded to titanium electrodes was immersed in the water. A current pulse from a capacitor bank was passed through the foil. The energy that was discharged through the installation was about 50 kJ, the discharge voltage was 5 kV. The first thing that attracted the attention of the experimenters was a strange glowing plasma formation that appeared above the lid of the glass. The lifetime of this plasma formation was about 5 ms, which was significantly longer than the discharge time (0.15 ms). From the analysis of the spectra it follows that the plasma is based on Ti, Fe (even the weakest lines are observed), Cu, Zn, Cr, Ni, Ca, Na.
In the 90s-2000s Krymsky V.V. Research has been carried out on the impact of nanosecond electromagnetic pulses (NEMP) on the physical and chemical properties of substances.
2003 - publication of the monograph “Interconversions of Chemical Elements” by V.V. Krymsky. with co-authors, edited by Academician V. F. Balakirev with a description of the processes and installations of element transmutation.
In 2006-2007, the Italian Ministry of Economic Development founded a program to study energy production of about 500%.
In 2008 Arata, in front of an astonished public, demonstrated the release of energy and the formation of helium, which was not provided for by the known laws of physics.
In 2003-2010 Shadrin Vladimir Nikolaevich. (1948-2012) at the Siberian Chemical Plant, induced transmutation of beta-active isotopes, which pose the greatest danger in radioactive waste contained in spent fuel elements, was carried out. The effect of an accelerated decrease in beta activity of the radioactive samples under study was obtained.
In 2012-2013, Yu.N. Bazhutov’s group achieved a 7-fold increase in output power from plasma electrolysis.
In November 2011, A. Rossi demonstrated a 10 kW E-Cat device, in 2012 - a 1 MW installation, and in 2013, his device was tested by a group of independent experts.
Classification
LENR
installations
Currently known installations and effects with LENR can be classified according to Fig. 5.
Rice. 5 Classification of LENR installations
Briefly about the situation with each installation, we can say the following:
Installation of E-Cat Rossi - a demonstration was carried out, a serial copy was made, a brief independent examination of the installation was carried out with confirmation of the characteristics, then a 6-month test, there is a problem of obtaining a patent and certificate.
Hydrogenation of titanium is carried out by S.A. Tsvetkov in Germany (at the stage of obtaining a patent and searching for an investor in Bavaria) and A.P. Khrishchanovich, first in Zaporozhye, and currently in Moscow at the NEWINFLOW company.
Saturation of the palladium crystal lattice with deuterium (Arata) - the authors do not have new data since 2008.
Installation of TEGEU by I.S. Filimonenko - disassembled (I.S. Filimonenko died on August 26, 2013).
Hyperion installation (Defkalion) - a joint report with PURDUE University (Indiana) at ICCF-18 with a description of the experiment and an attempt at theoretical justification.
Piantelli installation - On April 18, 2012, at the 10th International Seminar on the Anomalous Dissolution of Hydrogen in Metals, the results of an experiment with Nickel-hydrogen reactions were reported. At a cost of 20W, the output was 71W.
Brillion Energy Corporation Berkeley, California installation - Demonstration plant (Watts) fabricated and demonstrated. The company officially announced that it had developed an industrial heater based on LENR and submitted it to one of the universities for testing.
Mills' installation based on hydrino - about $500 million was spent from private investors, a multi-volume monograph with a theoretical justification was published, the invention of a new energy source based on the conversion of hydrogen into hydrino was patented.
Installation "ATANOR" (Italy) - an open source (free knowledge) project LENR "hydrobetatron.org" based on the Atanor installation (analogue of Martin Fleischmann's project) has been opened.
Installation of Celani from Italy - demonstration at all recent conferences.
Kirkinsky's deuterium heat generator - disassembled (room needed)
Saturation of tungsten bronzes with deuterium (K.A. Kaliev) - an official expert opinion on the registration of neutrons during the saturation of tungsten bronze films was received at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna and a patent was received in Russia. The author himself died several years ago.
Glow discharge by A.B. Karabut and I.B. Savvatimova - experiments at NPO "Luch" have been stopped, but similar research is being carried out abroad. While the lead of Russian scientists remains, our researchers have been redirected by management to more mundane tasks.
Koldamasov (Volgodonsk) became blind and retired. Research into its cavitation effect is carried out in Kyiv by V.I. Vysotsky.
L.I. Urutskoev’s group moved to Abkhazia.
According to some information, Krymsky V.V. conducts research on the transmutation of radioactive waste under the influence of nanosecond high-voltage pulses.
The generator of artificial plasmoid formations (IPO) of V. Kopeikin burned out and there are no funds for restoration. Tesla's three-circuit generator, assembled through the efforts of V. Kopeikin to demonstrate artificial ball lightning, is in working condition, but there is no room with the required energy supply of 100 kW.
Yu.N. Bazhutov’s group continues experiments with its own limited funds. F.M. Kanarev was dismissed from the Krasnodar Agrarian University.
High-voltage electrolysis installation by A.B. Karabut is only in the project.
Generator B.V. They are trying to implement Bolotov in Poland.
According to some data, Klimov’s group at NEWINFLOW (Moscow) received a 6-fold excess of output power over costs at its plasma-vortex installation.
Latest events (experiments, seminars, conferences)
The fight of the commission on pseudoscience against cold nuclear fusion has borne fruit. For more than 20 years, official work on the topic of LENR and CNS was banned in the laboratories of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and peer-reviewed journals did not accept articles on this topic. However, “the ice has broken, gentlemen, jurors,” and articles describing the results of low-energy nuclear reactions appeared in peer-reviewed journals.
Recently, some Russian researchers have managed to obtain interesting results that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. For example, a group from the Lebedev Physical Institute conducted an experiment with high-voltage discharges in air. In the experiment, a voltage of 1 MV, a current in the air of 10-15 kA, and an energy of 60 kJ were achieved. The distance between the electrodes is 1 m. Thermal, fast neutrons and neutrons with energy > 10 MeV were measured. Thermal neutrons were measured by the reaction 10 B + n = 7 Li (0.8 MeV) + 4 He (2 MeV) and tracks of α-particles with a diameter of 10-12 microns were measured. Neutrons with energy > 10 MeV were measured by the reaction 12 C + n = 3 α+n’. Simultaneously, neutrons and X-rays were measured with a scintillation detector 15 x 15 cm 2 and 5.5 cm thick. Here, neutrons were always detected together with X-ray radiation (see Fig. 6).
In discharges with a voltage of 1 MV and a current of 10-15 kA, a significant flux of neutrons from thermal to fast was observed. At present, there is no satisfactory explanation for the origin of neutrons, especially with energies greater than 10 MeV. 
Rice. 6 Results of a study of high-voltage discharges in air. (a) neutron flux, (b) oscillograms of voltage, current, X-rays and neutrons.
A seminar was held at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research JINR (Dubna) on the topic: “Are those who consider the science of cold nuclear fusion a pseudoscience right?”
The report was presented by Vladimir Kazimirovich Ignatovich, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Chief Researcher. Laboratory of Neutron Physics JINR. The report and discussions lasted about an hour and a half. Basically, the speaker made a historical review of the most prominent works on the topic of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) and gave the results of inspections of the A. Rossi installation by independent experts. One of the goals of the report was an attempt to attract the attention of scientists and colleagues to the LENR problem and to show that it is necessary to begin research on this topic at the JINR Neutron Physics Laboratory.
In July 2013, the international conference on cold fusion ICCF-18 was held in Missouri (USA). The presentations of 43 reports can be found, they are freely available, and links are posted on the website of the Association of Cold Transmutation of Nuclears and Ball Lightning (CTN and BL) www. lenr. seplm.ru in the “Conferences” section. The main leitmotif of the speakers: there is no doubt left, LENR exists and a systematic study of physical phenomena discovered and hitherto unknown to science is required.
In October 2013, the Russian Conference of Cold Transmutation of Nuclears and Ball Lightning (RCCTN&SHM) was held in Loo (Sochi). Half of the announced reports were not presented due to the absence of speakers for various reasons: death, illness, lack of financial resources. Rapid aging and the lack of “new blood” (young researchers) will sooner or later lead to a complete decline in research on this topic in Russia.
"Strange" radiation
Almost all cold fusion researchers received very strange tracks on targets that cannot be identified with any known particle. At the same time, these tracks (see Fig. 7) are strikingly similar to each other in qualitatively different experiments, from which we can conclude that their nature may be the same.
Rice. 7 Tracks from “strange” radiation (S.V. Adamenko and D.S. Baranov)
Each researcher calls them differently:
"Strange" radiation;
Erzion (Yu.N. Bazhutov);
Neutronium and dineutronium (Yu.L. Ratis);
Ball micro lightning (V.T.Grinev);
Superheavy elements with a mass number of more than 1000 units (S.V. Adamenko);
Isomers are clusters of densely packed atoms (D.S. Baranov);
Magnetic monopoles;
Dark matter particles are 100-1000 times heavier than a proton (predicted by academician V.A. Rubakov),
It should be noted that the mechanism of action of this “strange” radiation on biological objects is unknown. No one has looked into this, but there are many facts of incomprehensible deaths. I.S. Filimonenko believes that he was saved only by his dismissal and the cessation of experiments; all his work colleagues died much before him. A.V. Vachaev was very ill, towards the end of his life he practically did not get up and died at the age of 60. Of the 6 people involved in plasma electrolysis, five people died, and one remained disabled. There is evidence that workers in electroplating shops do not live to be 44 years old, but no one has studied separately what role chemistry plays in this, and whether there is an impact from “strange” radiation in this process. The processes of the influence of “strange” radiation on biological objects have not yet been studied and researchers must exercise extreme caution when conducting experiments.
Theoretical developments
About a hundred theorists have tried to describe the processes in LENR, but no work has achieved universal acceptance. In Russia, the theory of Erzion by Yu.N. Bazhutov, the permanent chairman of the annual Russian conferences on cold transmutation of nuclei and ball lightning, the theory of exotic electroweak processes by Yu.L. Ratis, the Kirkinsky-Novikov theory, the theory of plasma crystallization by V.T. Grinev and many others are known .
In the theory of Yu.L. Ratis, it is assumed that there is a certain “neutronium exoatom”, which is an extremely narrow low-lying resonance in the cross section of elastic electron-proton scattering, caused by a weak interaction causing the transition of the initial state of the “electron plus proton” system into a virtual neutron -neutrino pair. Due to its small width and amplitude, this resonance cannot be detected in a direct experiment using ep- scattering. The presence of a third particle in a collision of an electron with a hydrogen atom leads to the fact that the Green's function of a hydrogen atom in an excited intermediate state is included in the expression for the cross section for the production of “neutronium” under the integral sign. As a result, the width of the resonance in the cross section of neutronium production in the collision of an electron with a hydrogen atom is 14 orders of magnitude greater than the width of a similar resonance in an elastic ep- scattering, and its properties can be studied experimentally. An estimate of the size, lifetime, energy threshold and cross section for neutronium production is given. It has been shown that the threshold for neutronium production lies significantly below the threshold for thermonuclear reactions. This means that neutron-like nuclear-active particles can be born in the ultra-low energy region, and, therefore, cause nuclear reactions similar to those caused by neutrons, precisely when nuclear reactions with charged particles are prohibited by the high Coulomb barrier."
Place
LENR
installations in general energy production
In accordance with the concept, in the future energy system the main sources of electrical and thermal energy will be many low-power points distributed throughout the network, which fundamentally contradicts the existing paradigm in the nuclear industry to increase the unit power of a power unit to reduce the unit cost of capital investments. In this regard, the LENR installation is very flexible and this was demonstrated by A. Rossi when he placed more than a hundred of his 10 kW installations in a standard container to obtain 1 MW of power. A. Rossi's success compared to other researchers is based on the engineering approach of creating a commercial product at the 10 kW scale, while other researchers continue to “surprise the world” with effects at the level of several Watts.
Based on the concept, the following requirements for new technologies and energy sources from future consumers can be formulated:
Safety, no radiation;
No waste, no radioactive waste;
Cycle efficiency;
Easy disposal;
Closeness to the consumer;
Scalability and integration into SMART networks.
Will traditional nuclear energy on the (U, Pu, Th) cycle be able to meet these requirements? No, considering its disadvantages:
The required security is unattainable or leads to loss of competitiveness;
“The chains” of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste are dragging them into the zone of uncompetitiveness; the technology for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and storing radioactive waste is imperfect and requires irreparable costs today;
Fuel efficiency is no more than 1%; the transition to fast reactors will increase this coefficient, but will lead to an even greater increase in the cost of the cycle and a loss of competitiveness;
The efficiency of the thermal cycle leaves much to be desired and is almost 2 times lower than the efficiency of combined cycle gas turbine units (CCGTs);
The “shale” revolution could lead to a decrease in gas prices on world markets and move nuclear power plants into a zone of uncompetitiveness for a long time;
Decommissioning of a nuclear power plant is unreasonably expensive and requires a long period of time before the process of dismantling the nuclear power plant (additional costs are required for maintaining the facility during the period of time before the dismantling of the nuclear power plant equipment).
At the same time, taking into account the above, we can conclude that LENR-based plants meet modern requirements in almost all respects and will sooner or later displace traditional nuclear power plants from the market, since they are more competitive and safe. The winner will be the one who enters the market with commercial LENR devices earlier.
Anatoly Chubais joined the board of directors of the American research company Tri Alpha Energy Inc., which is trying to create a nuclear fusion facility based on the reaction of 11 V with a proton. Financial tycoons are already “sensing” the future prospects of nuclear fusion.
“Lockheed Martin caused quite a stir in the nuclear energy industry (though not in our country, as the industry remains in “holy ignorance”) when it announced plans to begin work on a fusion reactor. Speaking at Google's "Solve X" conference on February 7, 2013, Dr. Charles Chase of Lockheed "Skunk Works" said that a prototype 100-megawatt nuclear fusion reactor will be tested in 2017, and that the full facility should be brought online After ten years"
(http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2013/lockheed-martin... on-reactor/). This is a very optimistic statement for an innovative technology; one might say it’s fantastic for us, considering that in our country a power unit designed in 1979 is being built within such a period of time. However, there is a public perception that Lockheed Martin generally does not make public announcements about "Skunk Works" projects unless there is a high degree of confidence in its chances of success.
No one has yet guessed what “stone in their bosom” the Americans are holding when they invented the technology for shale gas production. This technology is effective only in the geological conditions of North America and is completely unsuitable for Europe and the territory of Russia, as it threatens the contamination of water layers with harmful substances and the complete destruction of drinking resources. With the help of the “shale revolution”, Americans are winning the main resource of our time - time. The “shale revolution” gives them respite and time to gradually transfer the economy to new energy tracks, where nuclear fusion will play a decisive role, and all other countries that are late will remain on the margins of civilization.
The AMERICAN SECURITY PROJECT -ASP (http://americansecurityproject.org/) has released a white paper with the promising title Fusion Energy - A 10-Year Plan for Energy Security. In the preface, the authors write that America's (US) energy security is based on the fusion reaction: "We must develop energy technologies that will enable the economy to demonstrate America's power for next-generation technologies that are also clean, safe, reliable and unlimited." One technology holds great promise for meeting our needs: fusion energy. We are talking about national security when prototypes of commercial fusion reaction plants must be demonstrated within 10 years. This will set the stage for full-scale commercial development of the capabilities that will fuel American prosperity over the next century. It's too early to say which approach is the most promising way to realize fusion energy, but having multiple approaches increases the likelihood of success."
In its research, the American Security Project (ASP) found that in the United States, the fusion energy industry is supported by more than 3,600 facilities and suppliers, in addition to 93 research institutions located in 47 of the 50 states. The authors believe that $30 billion over the next 10 years is enough for the United States to demonstrate the practical applicability of nuclear fusion energy in industry.
To speed up the development of commercial nuclear fusion facilities, the authors propose the following activities:
1. Appoint a Commissioner for Nuclear Fusion Energy to streamline the management of research.
2. Begin construction of Component Test Facility (CTF) to accelerate progress in materials and scientific knowledge.
3. Conduct research on fusion energy in several parallel ways.
4. Dedicate more resources to existing fusion energy research sites.
5. Experiment with new and innovative power plant designs
6. Cooperate fully with the private sector
This is a kind of strategic program of action, akin to the “Manhattan Project”, because in terms of the scale and complexity of its solution, these tasks are comparable. In their opinion, the inertia of government programs and the imperfection of regulatory standards in the field of nuclear fusion can significantly delay the date of industrial introduction of nuclear fusion energy. Therefore, they propose to give the Commissioner for Fusion Energy the right to vote at the highest levels of government and charge his functions with coordinating all research and creating a regulatory system (norms and rules) for nuclear fusion.
The authors state that the technology of the international thermonuclear reactor ITER in Cadarache (France) cannot guarantee commercialization earlier than the middle of the century, and inertial thermonuclear fusion no earlier than in 10 years. From this they conclude that the current situation is unacceptable and there is a threat to national security from emerging areas of clean energy. “Our energy dependence on fossil fuels poses a national security risk, constrains our foreign policy, contributes to the threat of climate change, and undermines our economy. America must develop fusion energy at an accelerated time."
They argue that the time has come to repeat the Apollo program, but in the field of nuclear fusion. Just as the fantastic task of landing a man on the moon once gave impetus to thousands of innovations and scientific achievements, so now it is necessary to intensify national efforts to achieve the goal of commercial use of nuclear fusion energy.
For commercial use of a self-sustaining nuclear fusion reaction, materials must withstand months and years, rather than seconds and minutes as currently envisioned in ITER.
The authors assess alternative areas as high-risk, but immediately note that significant technological breakthroughs are possible in them, and they must be funded on an equal basis with the main areas of research.
They conclude by listing at least 10 monumental benefits to the United States from the Apollo fusion energy program:
"1. A clean energy source that will revolutionize the energy system in an era when fossil fuel supplies are dwindling.
2. New sources for base energy that can solve the climate crisis in an acceptable time frame to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
3. Creation of high-tech industries that will bring huge new sources of income for leading American industrial enterprises and thousands of new jobs.
4. Create exportable technologies that will allow America to capture some of the $37 trillion. energy investments in the coming decades.
5. Spin-off innovations in high-tech industries such as robotics, supercomputers and superconducting materials.
6. American leadership in the development of new scientific and engineering frontiers. Other countries (eg China, Russia and South Korea) have ambitious plans to develop fusion power. Being a pioneer in this emerging field will enhance the competitiveness of American products.
7. Freedom from fossil fuels, which will allow the US to pursue foreign policy in accordance with its values and interests, rather than according to commodity prices.
8. An incentive for young Americans to pursue a science education.
9. A new energy source that will ensure America's economic vitality and global leadership in the 21st century, just as America's vast resources helped us in the 20th.
10. The opportunity to finally eliminate the dependence of economic growth on energy sources, which will bring economic prosperity.”
In conclusion, the authors write that in the coming decades, America will face energy problems, as part of the nuclear power plant capacity will be decommissioned and dependence on fossil fuels will only increase. They see a way out only in a full-scale nuclear fusion research program, similar in scale to the goals and national efforts of the Apollo space program.
Program
LENR
research
In 2013, the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR) was opened in Missouri, aimed entirely at research into low-energy nuclear reactions. The institute's research program presented at the last July 2013 cold fusion conference ICCF-18:
Gas reactors:
-Celani replication
-High-temperature reactor/calorimeter
Electrochemical cells:
Cathode development (many options)
Self-assembled Pd nanoparticle cathodes
Pd-coated carbon nanotube cathodes
Artificially structured Pd cathodes
New alloy compositions
Alloying additives for nanoporous Pd electrodes
Magnetic fields-
Local ultrasonic surface stimulation
Glow discharge
Kinetics of Hydrogen penetration
Radiation detection
Related Research
Neutron scattering
MeV and keV bombardment D on Pd
Thermal stroke TiD2
Thermodynamics of Hydrogen Absorption at High Pressure/Temperature
Diamond radiation detectors
Theory
The following possible preferences for research into low-energy nuclear reactions in Russia can be proposed:
Resume, after half a century, research by I.V. Kurchatov’s group on discharges in a hydrogen and deuterium environment, especially since research is already being carried out on high-voltage discharges in air.
Restore I.S. Filimonenko’s installation and conduct comprehensive tests.
Expand research on the Energoniva installation by A.V. Vachaev.
Solve the riddle of A. Rossi (hydrogenation of nickel and titanium).
Investigate the processes of plasma electrolysis.
Investigate the processes of the Klimov vortex plasmoid.
Study individual physical phenomena:
Behavior of hydrogen and deuterium in metal lattices (Pd, Ni, Ti, etc.);
Plasmoids and long-lived artificial plasma formations (IPO);
Shoulders charge clusters;
Processes in the Plasma Focus installation;
Ultrasonic initiation of cavitation processes, sonoluminescence.
Expand theoretical research, search for an adequate mathematical model of LENR.
At Idaho National Laboratory in the 1950s and 1960s, 45 small test facility facilities laid the foundation for full-scale commercialization of nuclear power. Without such an approach, it is difficult to count on success in the commercialization of LENR installations. It is necessary to create test installations similar to Idaho as the basis for future LENR energy. American analysts have proposed the construction of small experimental CTF facilities that study key materials under extreme conditions. Research at the CTF will increase understanding of materials science and may lead to technological breakthroughs.
Unlimited funding of the Ministry of Medium Machine Building in the era of the USSR created inflated human and infrastructural resources, entire single-industry towns, as a result, there is a problem of loading them with tasks and maneuvering human resources in single-industry towns. The Rosatom monster will not be fed by the electricity sector (nuclear power plants) alone; it is necessary to diversify activities, develop new markets and technologies, otherwise layoffs, unemployment, and with them social tension and instability will follow.
The enormous infrastructural and intellectual resources of the nuclear industry are either inactive - there is no all-consuming idea, or they carry out private, minor tasks. A full-fledged LENR research program could become the backbone of future industry research and a resource for loading all existing resources.
Conclusion
The facts of the presence of low-energy nuclear reactions can no longer be dismissed as before. They require serious testing, rigorous scientific evidence, a full-scale research program and theoretical justification.
It is impossible to accurately predict which direction in nuclear fusion research will “shoot” first or will be decisive in future energy: low-energy nuclear reactions, Lockheed Martin facility, Tri Alpha Energy Inc. reverse field facility, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Inc. dense plasma focus, or Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Inc. Energy Matter Conversion Corporation electrostatic plasma confinement (EMC 2). But we can confidently say that the key to success can only be a variety of areas of research into nuclear fusion and nuclear transmutation. Concentrating resources in only one direction can lead to a dead end. The world in the 21st century has changed radically, and if the end of the 20th century is characterized by a boom in information and communication technologies, then the 21st century will be the century of revolution in the energy sector, and there is nothing to do there with nuclear reactor projects of the last century, unless, of course, you associate yourself with the backward ones third world tribes.
There is no national idea in the field of scientific research in the country, there is no core on which science and research would rest. The idea of controlled thermonuclear fusion based on the Tokamak concept, with huge financial investments and zero returns, has discredited not only itself, but also the very idea of nuclear fusion, shaken faith in a bright energy future and serves as a brake on alternative research. Many analysts in the United States predict a revolution in this area, and the task of those determining the industry development strategy is not to “miss” this revolution, just as they have already missed the “shale” one.
The country needs an innovative project similar to the Apollo program, but in the energy sector, a certain “Atomic Project-2” (not to be confused with the Breakthrough project), which will mobilize the country’s innovative potential. A full-fledged research program in the field of low-energy nuclear reactions will solve the problems of traditional nuclear energy, get off the oil and gas needle and ensure independence from fossil fuel energy.
“Atomic Project - 2” will allow, based on scientific and engineering solutions:
Develop sources of “clean” and safe energy;
To develop a technology for the industrial, cost-effective production of the required elements in the form of nanopowders from various raw materials, aqueous solutions, industrial waste and human activity;
Develop cost-effective and safe power generating devices for direct generation of electricity;
To develop safe technologies for transmuting long-lived isotopes into stable elements and solve the problem of radioactive waste disposal, that is, solve the problems of existing nuclear energy.
source proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&...
10:00 — REGNUM
Editorial Preface
Any fundamental discovery can be used for good or bad. Sooner or later, a scientist is faced with the need to answer the question: to open or not to open “Pandora’s box”, to publish or not to publish a potentially destructive discovery. But this is far from the only moral problem that their authors have to face.
For the authors of major discoveries, there are also more mundane, but no less difficult to overcome, obstacles on the path to universal recognition related to the corporate ethics of the scientific community - unwritten rules of behavior, violation of which is severely punished, including expulsion. Moreover, these rules are often used as a reason to put pressure on scientists who have advanced “too far” in their research and encroached on the postulates of the modern scientific picture of the world. First, their work is refused to be published, then they are accused of violating the rules, then they are labeled as pseudoscience.
I found out the scientist's answer.
What is not for you is not there.
What didn't fall into your hands -
Contrary to the truths of science.
What the scientist could not count -
That is a delusion and a forgery.
Of those who endure and win, they later say: “They were too ahead of their time.”
It was in this situation that Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons found themselves, who discovered the occurrence of nuclear reactions during the “conventional” electrolysis of a solution of deuterated lithium hydroxide in heavy water with a palladium cathode. Their discovery, called "cold nuclear fusion", has been exciting the scientific community for 30 years now, which is divided into supporters and opponents of cold thermonuclear fusion. In the memorable year of 1989, after a press conference by M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, the reaction was swift and harsh: they violated scientific ethics by publishing unreliable results that were not even peer-reviewed in a scientific journal .
Behind the fuss raised by the newspapermen, no one paid attention to the fact that by the time of the press conference the scientific article by M. Fleischmann and S. Pons had been reviewed and accepted for publication in the American scientific journal The Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. Sergei Tsvetkov draws attention to this circumstance, which has strangely fallen out of sight of the world scientific community, in the article published below.
But no less mysterious is the fact that Fleischmann and Pons themselves, as far as we know, never protested about their “slander” in violating scientific ethics. Why? Specific details are unknown, but the conclusion is that cold fusion research was clumsily kept secret.
Fleischman and Pons are not the only scientists who have been given cover under the guise of pseudoscience. For example, a similar biography “tainted” by cold fusion was invented for one of the world’s highest-rated physicists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Peter Hagelstein (see), the creator of the American X-ray laser as part of the SDI program.
It is in this area that the real scientific and technological race of the century is unfolding. We are convinced that it is in the field of research into cold nuclear fusion (CNF) and low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) that new technologies will be created, which are destined to either transform the world or open “Pandora’s box.”
What is known is of no use,
One unknown is needed.
I. Goethe. "Faust".
Introduction
The history of the beginning and development of cold fusion research is tragic and instructive in its own way, and, like any story, it is unlike anything else and relates rather to the experience of future generations. I would formulate my attitude towards cold nuclear fusion as follows: if cold fusion didn't exist, it would have been worth inventing it.
As a direct participant in many of the events described below, I must state a fact: the more time passes since the birth of cold nuclear fusion, the more fantasies, myths, distortions of facts, deliberate forgeries and mockery of the authors of an outstanding discovery are found in the media and on the Internet. Sometimes it comes to outright lies. We need to do something about this! I stand for the restoration of historical justice and the establishment of truth, because isn’t the search and preservation of truth the main task of science? History usually preserves several descriptions of an important event, made by its direct participants and external observers. Each of the descriptions has its own shortcomings: some do not see the forest for the trees, others are too superficial and tendentious, some are made winners, others defeated. My description is an inside look at a story that is far from over.
Fresh examples of “misconceptions” about CNF – nothing new!
Let's look at a few examples of claims about cold fusion made in recent years in the Russian media. Red italics they contain lies, and bold red italic — an obvious lie.
"M.I.T. Staff tried to reproduce the experiments M. Fleishman and S. Pons, but again to no avail . Therefore, it should not be surprising 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 » .
2. Evgeniy Tsygankov in the article “”, published on December 8, 2016 on the website of the Russian branch of the American social movement The Brights, uniting "people with a naturalistic worldview", who are fighting against religious and supernatural ideas, gives the following version of events:
“Cold fusion? Let's go back a little to history.
The birth date of cold fusion can be considered 1989. Then the information was published in the English-language press about a report by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, in which nuclear fusion was announced in the following setup: on palladium electrodes , immersed in heavy water (with two deuterium atoms instead of hydrogen, D 2 O), a current passes, causing one of the electrodes to melt . Fleishman and Pons give such an interpretation of what is happening: the electrode melts due to the release of too much energy , the source of which is the fusion reaction of deuterium nuclei . Nuclear fusion is thus supposedly occurs at room temperature . Journalists called the phenomenon cold fusion, in the Russian version Cold fusion has somehow become "cold thermonuclear" , although the phrase contains an obvious internal contradiction. And if in some media newly minted cold fusion could be greeted warmly , then in the scientific community to the statement of Fleischmann and Pons reacted quite cool . At the held in less than a month there is an international meeting , to which Martin Fleischmann was also invited, the application was critically reviewed. The simplest considerations pointed to the impossibility of nuclear fusion occurring in such a facility. . For example, in case of reaction d + d → 3 He + n for powers , which were discussed in the installation of Pons and Fleischmann, there would be a flow of neutrons, providing the experimenter with a lethal dose of radiation within an hour. The presence of Martin Fleischmann himself at the meeting directly indicated falsification of the results. Nevertheless In a number of laboratories similar experiments were carried out, as a result of which no nuclear fusion reaction products were found . This, however, did not prevent one sensation from giving birth to a whole community of cold fusion adherents, which functions according to its own rules to this day ».
3. On the TV channel “Russia K” in the program “Meanwhile” with Alexander Arkhangelsky at the end of October 2016, the issue “” said:
“The Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences approved the new composition of the Commission for Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research. Now it consists of 59 scientists, including physicists, biologists, astronomers, mathematicians, chemists, representatives of humanities and agricultural specialists. When academician Vitaly Ginzburg took the initiative to create a commission in 1998, pseudoscientific concepts especially annoyed physicists and engineers. Fantasies about new sources of energy and overcoming basic physical laws were popular then. The commission consistently crushed the teachings of torsion fields, cold nuclear fusion and antigravity . The most high-profile case was the exposure in 2010 of Victor Petrik’s invention of nanofilters for purifying radioactive water.”
4. Doctor of Chemical Sciences, Professor Alexey Kapustin in the television program of the NTV channel " We and science, science and us: Controlled thermonuclear reaction» September 26, 2016 stated:
« Enormous damage to thermonuclear fusion is caused by constantly appearing reports of so-called cold nuclear fusion , i.e. synthesis, which takes place not at millions of degrees, but, say, at room temperature on the laboratory table. Message from 1989 about what was produced during electrolysis new elements on palladium catalysts what happened fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms - it was like a kind of information explosion. Yes, opening "opening" in quotes these scientists nothing has been confirmed . This damages the reputation of thermonuclear fusion also because business easily responds to these strange scandalous requests, hoping for quick, easy profits, it subsidizes startups, dedicated to cold fusion. None of them were confirmed. This is absolute pseudoscience, but, unfortunately, it is very harmful to the development of real thermonuclear fusion ».
5. Denis Strigun in an article whose title itself is misinformation - “Thermonuclear fusion: a miracle that happens”, in the chapter “Cold Nuclear Fusion” he writes:
“No matter how tiny it may be, the chance to hit the jackpot is « thermonuclear» lottery excited everyone, not just physicists. In March 1989, two fairly well-known chemist, American Stanley Pons and Briton Martin Fleishman, collected journalists to show the world "cold" nuclear fusion. He worked like this. In solution with deuterium and lithium fit palladium electrode, and a direct current was passed through it. Deuterium And lithium was absorbed palladium And, colliding, Sometimes "coupled" into tritium and helium-4, all of a sudden sharp heating the solution. And this is at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure.
First, details of the experiment appeared in The Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Interfacial Electrochemistry only in April a month later after the press conference. This was against scientific etiquette..
Secondly, from specialists in nuclear physics to Fleishman and Pons a lot of questions arose . For example, why in their reactor the collision of two deuterons produces tritium and helium-4 , When should give tritium and proton or neutron and helium-3? Moreover, it was easy to check: provided that nuclear fusion occurred in the palladium electrode, from isotopes "flew away" would be neutrons with a previously known kinetic energy. But neither neutron sensors, nor playback experiments by other scientists did not lead to such results. And due to a lack of data, already in May the sensation of chemists was recognized as a “duck” .
Classification of lies
Let's try to systematize the claims on which the scientific community's refusal to recognize the discovery of the phenomenon of cold nuclear fusion by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons is based. The above are just a few examples of typical statements about cold fusion, repeated in hundreds of publications around the world. Moreover, note that we are talking specifically about claims, and not about scientific arguments and evidence refuting this phenomenon. Such claims are replicated by so-called experts who have never themselves been involved in repeating and testing the phenomenon of cold nuclear fusion.
Typical claim No. 1. The press conference took place before the publication of the article in a scientific journal. How indecent - this is a violation of scientific ethics!
Typical claim No. 2. What are you talking about? This can't be! We have been struggling with thermonuclear fusion for decades and cannot get any excess heat at hundreds of millions of degrees in the plasma, and here you are telling us about room temperature and MegaJoules of heat in excess of the invested energy? Nonsense!
Typical claim No. 3. If this were possible, then all of you (cold fusion researchers) would have been in the cemetery long ago!
Typical claim No. 4. It doesn’t work out at CalTech (Caltech) and MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). You're lying!
Typical claim No. 5. Do they also want to ask for money to continue this work? And from whom will this money be taken?
Model claim No. 6. This will not happen while we are alive! Drive the “fraudster” Stanley Pons out of the university and the USA!
It must be said that they tried to repeat the same scenario in the early 2000s with Purdue University professor Ruzi Taleyarkhan for his bubble “thermonoxide”, but the case went to court, and the professor was reinstated in his rights and position.
Here we cannot fail to mention the activities of the unique Commission for Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Commission on Pseudoscience has already managed to “reward itself” “for the consistent defeat of torsion fields, cold nuclear fusion and antigravity”, apparently considering that the repeatedly repeated demands not to give budget money to ignoramuses and adventurers from cold fusion (see, for example, the section Conferences and symposia of the journal “Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk” Vol. 169 No. 6 for 1999) is the defeat of cold nuclear fusion? Agree, this is a strange way of conducting a scientific discussion, especially in combination with the distribution of instructions to the editors of Russian scientific journals prohibiting the publication of scientific articles that even once mention the words “cold nuclear fusion.”
The author has sad experience of trying to publish the results of his research in at least two Russian academic journals. Let's hope that the new leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences will finally gather the last remnants of the brains flowing to the West and reconsider its attitude towards science as the basis for the development, and not the degradation of society, and will finally eliminate the Commission on Pseudoscience that disgraces Russian science and the Russian Academy of Sciences.
A note about the issue price
Before dealing with these claims, let's try to evaluate the advantages of nuclear fusion over other methods of producing energy known at the moment. Let's take the amount of energy released per gram of the reacting substance. It is the reacting substance, and not the material in which these reactions occur.
To begin with, let's look at the table of the amount of energy released per gram of reacting substance for various methods of obtaining energy and perform simple arithmetic operations, comparing these amounts of energy.
This data can be obtained from and presented in table form:
Method of obtaining energy | kWh/kg | kJ/g | How many times more than the previous one? |
With complete combustion of oil (coal) | |||
During the fission of uranium-235 | |||
During the fusion of hydrogen nuclei | |||
With the complete release of energy from a substance according to the formula E = m c 2 |
It turns out that when burning oil or high-quality coal, 42 kJ/g of thermal energy can be obtained. The fission of uranium-235 already releases 82.4 GJ/g of heat, the synthesis of hydrogen nuclei will release 423 GJ/g, and according to theory, 1 gram of any substance can give, with complete release of energy, up to 104.4 TJ/g (k is kilo = 10 3, G - Giga = 10 9, T - Tera = 10 12).
And immediately the question of whether it is necessary to extract energy from water disappears for any sane person. There is a strong suspicion that, having mastered the method of obtaining energy from the fusion of hydrogen nuclei, we will only have one step left until the complete release of the energy of the substance according to the famous formula E = m c 2!
Italian Andrea Rossi showed that for cold nuclear fusion it is possible to use simple hydrogen, which is available in inexhaustible quantities on planet Earth and in space. This opens up even more opportunities for energy, and the words become prophetic Jules Verne in his "Mysterious Island", published back in 1874:
“...I think that water will someday be used as fuel, and that the hydrogen and oxygen that are part of it will be used together or separately and will be an inexhaustible source of light and heat, much more intense than coal. ...I think that when coal deposits are depleted, humanity will be heated and warmed by water. Water is the coal of the future.”
I give three exclamation points to the great science fiction writer!!!
It is worth noting that by extracting hydrogen for cold nuclear fusion from water, humanity will receive the oxygen necessary for life as a bonus.
CNForNNR? ColdFusion or LENR?
At the end of the 90s, the defeated remnants of scientists, who, out of their own curiosity, quietly continued to repeat the experiments of M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, decided to hide from the fierce attacks of the “tocamafia” and the Commission for Combating Pseudoscience created in Russia in the Russian Academy of Sciences and took up low-energy nuclear reactions.
Renaming cold fusion to low-energy nuclear reactions is, of course, a weakness. This is an attempt to hide so as not to be killed, this is a manifestation of the instinct of self-preservation. All this shows the seriousness of the threat not only to the profession, but also to life itself.
Andrea Rossi realizes that his activities to promote his energy catalyst (E-cat) pose a threat to his life. Therefore, his actions seem illogical to many. But this is how he protects himself. For the first and, perhaps, only time, I saw in Zurich in 2012 how a person who is developing and implementing new energy technology entered a meeting of scientists and engineers, accompanied by a bodyguard dressed in a bulletproof vest.
The pressure from academic groups in science is so strong and aggressive that only completely independent people, for example, retirees, can now engage in cold fusion. The rest of those interested are simply squeezed out of laboratories and universities. This trend is clearly visible in world science to this day.
Opening details
Anyway. Let's return to our electrochemists. I would like to briefly recall the contents of a scientific article by M. Fleischmann and S. Pons in a peer-reviewed journal with specific results. This information is taken from the abstract journal of the All-Union Institute of Scientific and Technical Information (RZH VINITI) of the USSR Academy of Sciences, published since 1952, a periodical scientific information publication that publishes abstracts, annotations and bibliographic descriptions of domestic and foreign publications in the field of natural, precise and technical sciences, economics and medicine. Specifically - RZH 18V Nuclear Physics. — 1989.-6.-ref.6B1.
“Electro-chemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. Electrоchemicalу induced nuclear fusion of deuterium / FleisсhmannМartin, Рons Stanleу // J. of Elecroanal. Chem. - 1989. - Vol.261. - No.2a. - pp. 301−308. - English
An experiment was carried out at the University of Utah (USA) aimed at
detection of the occurrence of nuclear reactions
under conditions where deuterium is embedded in the metal lattice of palladium, which means “an effective increase in the pressure bringing the deuterons together due to chemical forces,” which increases the probability of quantum mechanical tunneling of deuterons through the Coulomb barrier of the DD pair in the interstices of the palladium lattice. The electrolyte is a solution of 0.1 mol LiOD in water with the composition 99.5% D 2 O + 0.5% H 2 O. Palladium (Pd) rods with a diameter of 1¸8 mm and a length of 10 cm, wrapped in platinum wire ( Pt anode). The current density was varied within 0.001÷1 A/cm 2 at a voltage on the electrodes of 12 V. Neutrons were recorded in the experiment in two ways. Firstly, a scintillation detector, including a dosimeter with boron BF 3 counters (efficiency 2×10 -4 for neutrons of energy 2.5 MeV). Secondly, by the method of recording gamma quanta that are formed when a neutron is captured by a hydrogen nucleus of ordinary water surrounding an electrolytic cell, according to the reaction:
The detector was an NaI (Tl) crystal, and the recorder was an ND-6 multichannel amplitude analyzer. Background correction was performed by subtracting the spectrum obtained at a distance of 10 m from the water bath. Tritons (T) were extracted from the electrolyte using a special type of absorber (Parafilm film), and then their b-decay was recorded on a Beckman scintillation counter (45% efficiency). The best results were achieved on a Pd cathode with a diameter of 4 mm and a length of 10 cm at a current density through the electrolyzer of 0.064 A/cm 2 . Neutron radiation with an intensity of 4×10 4 neutron/s was detected, which is 3 times higher than the background. The presence of a maximum in the gamma spectrum in the energy region of 2.2 MeV was established, and the counting rate of gamma rays was 2.1×10 4 s -1 . The presence of tritium was detected with a formation rate of 2×10 4 atoms/s. During the electrolysis process, a fourfold excess of the released energy over the total expended (electrical and chemical) energy was recorded. It reached 4 MJ/cm 3 cathode during 120 hours of experiment. In the case of a bulk Pd cathode 1*1*1 cm, its partial melting was observed (Tm = 1554°C). Based on experimental data on tritium nuclei and gamma rays, the probability of a fusion reaction was found by the authors to be equal to 10 -19 s -1 per DD pair. At the same time, the authors note that if nuclear reactions involving deuterons are considered the main reason for the increased energy yield, then the neutron yield would be significantly higher (by 11–14 orders of magnitude). According to the authors, in the case of electrolysis of a D 2 O + DTO + T 2 O solution, the heat release can increase to 10 kW/cm 3 cathode.”
A few words about scientific ethics, the violation of which Fleischmann and Pons are accused of violating. As is clear from the original article, it was received by the journal's editors on March 13, 1989, accepted for publication on March 22, 1989, and published on April 10, 1989. That is, the conference on March 23, 1989 was held upon the acceptance of this article for publication. And where is the violation of ethics, and most importantly by whom?
From this description it is clear and unambiguous that an incredibly huge amount of excess heat was obtained, several times greater than the energy expended in electrolysis and the possible chemical energy that could be released during the simple chemical decomposition of water into individual atoms. The tritium and neutrons registered in this case clearly indicate the process of nuclear fusion. Moreover, neutrons were recorded by two independent methods and different instruments.
In 1990, the following article was published in the same journal by Fleischmann, M., et al., Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1990, 287, p. 293, specifically relating to heat release during these studies, from which Figure 8A shows that intense heat release, and therefore the effect itself, begins only on the 66th day (~5.65´10 6 sec) continuous operation of the electrolytic cell and continues for five days. That is, in order to get the result and fix it, you need to spend seventy-one days for carrying out measurements, not counting the time for preparing and manufacturing the experimental setup. For example, it took us all of April to manufacture the first installation, launch it and carry out various calibrations, and only in mid-May 1989 did we receive the first results.
The onset of heat release during electrolysis with a large delay was subsequently confirmed by D. Gozzi, F. Cellucci, P.L. Cignini, G. Gigli, M. Tomellini, E. Cisbani, S. Frullani, G.M. Urciuoli, J. Electroanalyt. Chem. 452, p. 254, (1998). The beginning of noticeable release of excess heat was recorded here after 210 hours, which corresponds to 8.75 days.
And also Michael C. H. McKubre, director of the Energy Research Center of the Stanford Research Institute, USA (Energy Research Center SRI International, Menlo Park, California, USA), who presented his results at the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-10) on August 25, 2003 of the year. The beginning of the release of excess heat is 520 hours, which corresponds to 21.67 days.
In their 1996 work presented at the 6th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-6), T. Roulette, J. Roulette, and S. Pons. Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Runat IMRA Europe. IMRA Europe, S.A., Center Scientifique Sophia Antipolis, 06560 Valbonne, FRANCE, Stanley Pons demonstrated two things. First and perhaps most importantly, having moved from the United States in 1992 to the south of France, in a new location after a significant period of time in a different country, he was able not only to reproduce the experiment in Salt Lake City, conducted in 1989, but also get an increase in heat results! What kind of irreproducibility can we talk about here? See:
Second, according to these data, noticeable heat release begins on the 71st day of electrolysis! The change in heat release continues for more than 40 days and then remains constant at the level of 310 MJ for up to 160 days!
Therefore, how can one talk a little over a month later about the irreproducibility of the experiments of M. Fleischmann and S. Pons in a single laboratory, which carried out the test not even on a scientific article and without involving and consulting the authors? Selfish motives and fear of the possibility of responsibility for unsuccessful experiments with thermonuclear fusion are clearly visible. With this statement in May 1989, the American Physical Society (APS) put itself in an unpleasant position, replacing science with ordinary business, and closed official research in the field of cold nuclear fusion for many years. Members of this society, firstly, behaved contrary to all scientific ethics in the sense of refuting the results of scientific work with publication in a scientific journal, and entrusted this to the New York Times, where in May 1989 a devastating article appeared regarding M. Fleishman and S. Ponsa. Although they accused M. Fleischman and S. Pons of violating this ethics in terms of announcing the results of their scientific research at a press conference before the publication of a scientific article in a scientific journal.
There is not a single scientific article in peer-reviewed journals that scientifically substantiates the impossibility of cold nuclear fusion.
There is no such. There are only interviews and statements in the media by scientists who have never worked on cold nuclear fusion, but have been involved in such fundamental and capital-intensive areas of physics as thermonuclear fusion, stellar physics, the Big Bang theory, the emergence of the Universe, and the Large Hadron Collider.
Even at the institute, during the course of lectures “Measurement of physical parameters,” we were taught that verification of instruments for measuring physical quantities must be carried out with a device that has an accuracy class higher than the device being verified. This same rule has exactly the same relation to the verification of phenomena! Therefore, the heat tests at MIT and Caltech, which they like to refer to regarding the viability of cold fusion, are not really tests at all. Compare the accuracies and errors in temperature and power measurements with the experimental data of Fleischmann and Pons, which are presented in his report by Melvin H. Miles. The Fleischmann-Pons Calorimetric Methods And Equations. Satellite Symposium of the 20th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science SS ICCF 20 Xiamen, China September 28−30, 2016).
They differ tens and a thousand times!
Now regarding the statement that “if nuclear reactions involving deuterons are considered the main reason for the increased energy yield, then the neutron yield would be significantly higher (by 11–14 orders of magnitude).” Here the calculation is simple: with the release of 4 MJ of excess heat per cm 3 of the cathode, a minimum of 4.29·10 18 neutrons should be produced. If at least one neutron leaves the reaction zone and does not give up its energy inside the cell from 2.45 MeV to room temperature, then there is no way to register so much excess heat. And if emitted neutrons are recorded, then the number of fusion reactions occurring in this case should be much greater than the minimum of neutrons, and more tritium will be formed. Plus, knowing that the cross section for the interaction of neutrons and helium-3 is incomparably higher than the cross sections of other possible reactions of d+d fusion reaction products (by about two orders of magnitude)
then it becomes clear that no one will be irradiated by neutrons, and it is clear that such a ratio of the amount of registered tritium to the number of registered neutrons appears and where helium-4 subsequently comes from. It appears as a result of a cascade of reactions for the synthesis of d+d reaction products, but this has already become clear from the experiments of other researchers about helium-4. Fleischmann and Pons have not a word about this.
“Experts” also lie about neutron irradiation. With such amounts of excess heat released, they should all turn into heat, transfer their energy to the materials and water of the electrolyte in the cell, and not carry away 75% of the energy from the reaction zone outside the reactor and irradiate the experimenters. Therefore, M. Fleischmann and S. Pons recorded only a small part of neutrons - heavy water, as is known, is a good neutron moderator.
From a scientific point of view, there is only one mistake in this article - this is the reduction of the amount of excess energy released to the volume of the palladium electrode used. In this case, the consumable component and source of energy is deuterium, and it would be logical to attribute the excess amount of energy released to the amount of deuterium absorbed by palladium and compare with the estimated heat during nuclear fusion as a result of the d+d reaction, but, as stated above, the energy balance of this the process should not be limited to the products of these reactions.
Magic terms sound fascinating from the lips of thermonuclear physicists: Coulomb barrier, thermonuclear fusion, plasma. But I would like to ask them: what do temperatures above 1000 °C and the fourth state of matter - plasma - have to do with the process of electrolysis by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons? Plasma is an ionized gas. The ionization of hydrogen begins at 3,000 degrees Kelvin, and by 10,000 degrees Kelvin, hydrogen is completely ionized, that is, this is approximately 2727 °C - the beginning of ionization, and by 9727 °C - fully ionized hydrogen - plasma. Question: how can the description of the fourth state of matter be applied to an ordinary gas? It's like comparing warm and transparent. You can, of course, try to measure the distance to the Moon by determining the amount of dew that has fallen in the Sahara Desert, but what will be the result? Likewise, the results of cold nuclear fusion cannot be described in terms of thermonuclear fusion. In this way, one can achieve only the denial of the possibility of the coldest nuclear fusion and strengthen doubts about the possibility of realizing nuclear fusion reactions under such thermodynamic parameters. But nuclear physics does not say a word about the zero probability of such reactions occurring at temperatures close to room temperature. This only means that these probabilities begin to increase as the temperature rises to 1000 °C.
A logical question arises: cui prodest - who benefits from this? Of course, the one who first starts shouting: “Stop the thief!” I don’t want to point fingers at anyone, but they were the first to shout: “This can’t be!” - physicists involved in thermonuclear fusion, who immediately composed fairy tales and horror stories about plasma, neutrons and how incomprehensible it all is for the common mind. It is they who, having spent the next couple of decades and several tens of billions of dollars, will once again, like Achilles catching up with the tortoise, once again find themselves one step away from realizing humanity’s age-old dream of obtaining endless, “free” and “clean” energy.
The biggest mistake of cold nuclear fusion that thermonuclear scientists “slipped off” to us is the impossibility of overcoming the Coulomb barrier by equally charged hydrogen nuclei at low temperatures. However, I must also disappoint them and the “theorists” who came running to cold nuclear fusion with their “astrolabes” and are trying to come up with something exotic to overcome this barrier like hydrino, dineutrino-dineutronium, etc. To explain the detected products of cold nuclear fusion, the physical laws and phenomena from the institute physics course are quite sufficient.
We must understand that cold nuclear fusion is a natural process that created and synthesized the entire world around us, and this process occurs both in the depths of the Sun and inside the Earth. It can't be any other way. And we will all be absolute idiots if we fail to take advantage of this discovery of two electrochemists!
Cold fusion is not pseudoscience. The label of pseudoscience was invented to protect the “thermonuclear scientists” and “large collider scientists” who have reached a dead end and are afraid of responsibility, who have turned modern physics into a profitable business for a narrow circle of people, and who only call themselves scientists.
The discovery of M. Fleischmann and S. Pons planted a “big pig” on physicists who were comfortably located at the forefront of science. This is not the first time that the physical “avant-garde of humanity” has recklessly skipped past a small area of research, not noticing the emerging opportunities for implementing nuclear fusion reactions at low energies and low financial costs, and is now in great confusion.
How much more time do we need to recognize the obvious fact that thermonuclear fusion is a dead end, and the Sun is not a thermonuclear reactor? Billions of dollars will not plug the hole in the sinking thermonuclear Titanic, while large-scale research into cold nuclear fusion and the creation of working power plants capable of solving the main global problems of mankind will require only a small fraction of the thermonuclear budget! So, long live cold fusion!
