I thought the binding energy of nickel meant that it took more energy to push a nucleon into it than the fusion releases—isn’t that why the heaviest element produced by normal stellar fusion is iron?
Like all these kind of claims, I figure the ultimate proof is in a mass produced device, as if it can legitimately generate as much energy as they claim, it won’t matter to the commercial sector that the theoretical mechanism is unclear.
From this report I seriously doubt their claims.
For example the copper peak in the SEM-EDAX graph (p176) is tiny - look at the number of counts on the scale Poisson error on N counts is sqrt(N) so peak is barely above noise level. To me that graph just looks like the sample was badly cleaned and contaminated from other sources.
The measure flux of 10 neutrons /cm^2/s although higher than background is still very low. All other sources need to be ruled out, as they could easily come from experiments in nearby labs, or just false detections due to electrical noise.
There is no analysis of the isotopic composition of the nickel sample beforehand - there are many isotopes of nickel and ratios vary depending on where it was mined and how it was processed.
I suspect most of the energy is just chemical as in NiMH batteries. They force hydrogen into the metal first (charging it up) then let is discharge.
Above all though fusion needs the nuclei to get close enough to overcome the Coulomb barrier. To do this they must have enough kinetic energy - ie be HOT.
I have no good knowledge of physics but I think their claim is not about nickel hydrogen fusion, but about hydrogen - hydrogen fusion when there is enough hydrogen in the metal latice to fuse. I think it would require enourmous pressure though. Anyone cares to put forward the density/temperature calculation?
No, they’re quite specific about a small amount of nickel being converted to copper. One claim is that running continuously for 6 mo. converts over 50% of the sample.
What should we make of all this? In a skeptical group like this, some healthy skepticism is warranted. On the other hand, the energy release is impressive and very hard to explain chemically or as physical storage in a crystal lattice. It will be interesting to see how things develop.
UPDATE: a somewhat clumsy English subtitled version of the 3 videos here: http://www.youtube.com/user/batman40157#p/a/u/2/Jr0ysNSN9Ng . Use the ‘CC’ button to show the captions. (If it’s word-for-word, it seems to take 5x as many words in Italian to say something as in English!)
No, they’re quite specific about a small amount of nickel being converted to copper. One claim is that running continuously for 6 mo. converts over 50% of the sample.
if there’s *any* copper produced whatsoever, then it would be altogether too surprising if there weren’t also quite a lot of radioactive Ni-59 produced; (half-life 101 ky), formed by the reaction
Ni-58 + p -> Cu-59 -> Ni-59 + e+.
A test for Ni-59 that would seem to be conclusive.
if there’s *any* copper produced whatsoever, then it would be altogether too surprising if there weren’t also quite a lot of radioactive Ni-59 produced; (half-life 101 ky), formed by the reaction
Ni-58 + p -> Cu-59 -> Ni-59 + e+.
A test for Ni-59 that would seem to be conclusive.
Interesting. I’m reading NUBASE data. here’s its help file…
NUBASE is a ``horizontal’’ nuclear evaluation designed by
G. Audi, O. Bersillon, J. Blachot and A.H. Wapstra.
NUBASE has integrated results from 2 evaluations:
a) The Ame (Atomic Mass Evaluation);
b) The Ensdf (Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File)
It has been completed and updated from literature. Full
references are given for all experimental information.
If no experimental data exist for a nuclide, in many cases a
value could be estimated from systematic trends. Such values
are clearly labeled with the `#’ symbol.
The most recent published version of NUBASE is Nubase’97:
Nuclear Physics A624 (1997) 1.
The present data are from Nubase’97 plus updates from literature.
Corrections are gratefully received (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)).
After a bit more idle browsing it seems one use of the p+Ni-58 reaction is the production of Ni-56 (for academic study into astrophysical processes) as the reaction when firing a 50MeV proton beam at a nickel target does not produce Cu-59 instead it is
p + Ni-58 -> Ni-56 + 2p
note the energy needed is 50MeV, this emphasizes the huge Coulomb barrier a heavy ion like nickel has, and why fusion at a few hundred degrees is VERY unlikely. This is the sort of reaction that normally only happens in supernovas
For example the copper peak in the SEM-EDAX graph (p176) is tiny - look at the number of counts on the scale
Poisson error on N counts is sqrt(N) so peak is barely above noise level. To me that graph just looks like the sample was badly cleaned and contaminated from other sources.
I’ve lately been reading up on metal electroplating processes, and my opinion after studying this graph is,
that we are looking at nickel-plated aluminum electrodes as they would appear after routine wear.
Lots of aluminum alloys contain silicon and magnesium; further, copper plating is often applied before the final nickel finish.
I ‘m inclined to share this viewpoint from the article:
One comment in the forum contained a message from Steven E. Jones, a contemporary of Pons and Fleishmann, who wrote, “Where are the quantitative descriptions of these copper radioisotopes? What detectors were used? Have the results been replicated by independent researchers? Pardon my skepticism as I await real data.”
I think this thread deserves to be moved to the noise & ZPE category
I ‘m inclined to share this viewpoint from the article:
One comment in the forum contained a message from Steven E. Jones, a contemporary of Pons and Fleishmann, who wrote, “Where are the quantitative descriptions of these copper radioisotopes? What detectors were used? Have the results been replicated by independent researchers? Pardon my skepticism as I await real data.”
I think this thread deserves to be moved to the noise & ZPE category
Oh, give it a while. It is an “aneutronic contender”, the name of this forum after all, and about 3 months should see a make-or-break point when the commercial version is out and about.
Why?
They have very little evidence. If the Focus Fusion Society is to be taken seriously it needs to be critical of all claims (LLP’s included).
This recent PR attempt, once they were rejected by all other peer reviewed journals to the extent that they felt the need to set up their own to publish it in, hardly qualifies as evidence.
Science should be based on repeatable, verifiable evidence. If and when they can specify their experiment in enough detail for it to be replicated by someone independent and the results scrutinized by others, then maybe I’ll give it a second glance
Yes, I see the issue. This should be in the “Noise” forums as an unlikely energy idea and possible “Pons-Fleischman Award winner”. Note we diplomatically say for those forums that we don’t dismiss the ideas out of hand (after all, on one level it would be nice if we could all pack up and go home to easy energy), but it’s not ours to validate. They need to do as Jamesr says.
Jamesr - do you mean “LPP”? Also - what people post in the forums is their own opinion, although it does reflect on the community. I was wondering how to - or if to -make a post about this in the website. Don’t know what category to put it under. People do ask about cold fusion and need to see the difference between that and thermonuclear variety. We do have a post up there somewhere.
Focus Fusion Society 
