|
Why is LENR Research Important?
According to Steven B. Krivit, LENRs have the potential to produce nuclear-scale energy output from only chemistry-scale energy input. LENRs do not exhibit the harmful effects of conventional nuclear fission energy.
The word "low" refers to the input energies that go into the reactions; the output energies may be low or high. The term was chosen by its researchers to distinguish it from the field of high-energy physics.
According to
Krivit, "the research suggests a possible new form of clean nuclear energy and nuclear transmutation processes. Early in the field's history, researchers called it 'cold fusion.' By 2008, strong experimental and theoretical support emerged that indicated it was not fusion." (See related article LENRs Are Not "Cold Fusion.")
Krivit states that "LENRs do not produce greenhouse gases, strong prompt radiation or long-lived radioactive wastes. The primary fuel may be deuterium or hydrogen, both of which are abundantly available in ocean water. LENRs produce highly energetic nuclear reactions and elemental transmutations but do so without strong prompt radiation or long-lived radioactive waste."
How do LENRs work?
Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen have the clearest explanation for how LENRs work; a four-step process that uses electroweak interactions and neutron captures to explain LENRs from beginning to end. See the New Energy Times article "Widom-Larsen Theory Simplified."
What is "Cold Fusion"?
According to New Energy Times, "Cold fusion" is the historical term for this research and science controversy. When the field began in 1989, few researchers knew about weak-interaction processes; they knew only about nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. They knew that what was happening didn't look like fission, so fusion was their best, though deficient, guess.
The early "cold fusion" researchers speculated that deuterons or protons were somehow overcoming high Coulomb barriers and engaging in high rates of charged-particle fusion reactions at or near room temperature.
The researchers had good evidence that something nuclear was going on, but the experimental evidence for fusion was weak. In 1989, the researchers lacked extensive experimental data and knowledge of weak interactions, so fusion was their best guess. By the second decade of research, things became clearer.
What is the experimental evidence for LENRs?
See Steven B. Krivit's paper "Review of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions" published by Elsevier in its Reference Module in Chemistry, Molecular Sciences and Chemical Engineering
Have LENR papers been published in peer-reviewed journals, books and encyclopedias?
LENR papers have appeared in many mainstream publications. See the New Energy Times list of Selected LENR Research Papers, LENR and Cold Fusion History Book Index and our LENR Encyclopedia Sources.
Is there a viable theory to explain LENRs?
Yes, but so far only one. The Widom-Larsen Theory proposes a complete, mathematically correct model based on conventional physics. Lewis Larsen came up with his first and only LENR theory in the late 1990s, then worked with Allan Widom to develop it to completion.
Other theorists have tried dozens, even hundreds, of different ideas, each for more than two decades, but none has gained significant attention. In 2007, Yogendra Srivastava joined the group and helped to extend the Widom-Larsen theory from the condensed-matter realm to the magnetic-field realm.
Where does
the energy come from in LENRs?
According to the Widom-Larsen Theory, the energy in LENRs comes from neutron-capture processes and beta-decays, followed by conversion of gamma rays to infra-red. Take a look at the New Energy Times article Where Does the Energy Come From in LENRs? Be sure to scroll to the bottom to see examples of possible reaction pathways. Widom and Larsen explain the gamma-ray conversion in their U.S. patent.
How are LENR experiments performed?
See the New Energy Times Index of LENR Experimental Methodologies.
What is "excess heat"?
A fundamental principle in electrochemistry is that, when one applies a certain amount of electrical energy to an electrolytic cell, one expects a commensurate amount of heat to come out of the cell.
In a standard electrolytic cell, calculating the amount of energy coming out of the system is normally straightforward.
However, what Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann discovered (see question below) was that the amount of heat coming out of the cell was a thousand times greater than it should have been, based on any known chemical reaction.
An excessive amount of heat was coming from the experiment. It did not, in any way, match the amount of electrical energy going in plus other accounted-for energy losses. This was their fundamental discovery: Something within the cell was releasing a new, and, as they said, "hitherto unknown" source of potential energy.
When will LENRs be a commercial power success?
Nobody knows.
The science is still not sufficiently well understood. Although the research community knows a great deal about the related phenomena, it still does not know the factors necessary to bring it forward to a viable technology. Factors include how to consistently turn it on and turn it off, up or down.
Many researchers think that the greatest problem to be solved is a materials science issue. Researchers do not understand the specific atomic composition of the source materials - palladium or nickel, for example - that are required to make it work. The characteristic differences among batches appear to be at the nanoscale or atomic level.
The second-greatest challenge is to remove the enormous quantities of heat from the cells quickly enough. The heat tends to melt and deform the host metals, rendering them useless.
Are there any commercial LENR technologies now?
No. But there is plenty of hype and always will be. Until 2015, New Energy Times had maintained a list of
LENR Companies and Commercial New Energy Research
here. The main problem is that the science is poorly understood. No technology can be developed until the science is understood.
LENR devices likely will be small and relatively inexpensive. These characteristics often lead people to expect that small companies can produce commercial devices now. However, even after the science is clearly understood, practical devices likely will require high technology to manufacture. Eventually, real commercial LENR devices will hit the market. Meanwhile, potential investors and fans should check facts carefully. New Energy Times has investigated several questionable science and technology claims in the field. Due to limited time and resources, we are now focusing on teaching the science, not investigating any further commercial claims or technology claims.
What companies and organizations have been involved?
ARL
Boeing
CERN
China (Government)
DTRA
EPRI
Japan (Government)
Mitsubishi
NASA
Nissan
Royal Dutch Shell
SPAWAR
Toyota
What impact will deuterium or hydrogen use have on our oceans?
According to New Energy Times, with the quantity of deuterium in seawater alone, the oceans can provide a nearly limitless supply of clean energy. Hydrogen or deuterium used in LENRs can potentially provide thousands of times as much energy as the same amount of fossil fuel. Metals such as palladium or nickel will also be required.
Steve Nelson, while an astrophysicist Ph.D. candidate at Duke University, performed a calculation which showed that the impact of deuterium extraction from ocean water, for the purpose of generating nuclear energy for the entire world, would lower the ocean surface by only 1 millimeter after several thousand years.
Are LENRs harmful to the environment?
The research indicates that LENRs will likely be a clean form of nuclear energy; it produces no radioactive "waste." No greenhouse gases result from LENR processes.
Conventional nuclear energy splits atoms through nuclear fission; it is a fundamentally different nuclear process from LENRs.
LENR experiments yield only very low levels of gamma rays and neutron emissions. Such low levels of radiation are found in at least some LENR experiments, but this radiation is usually absorbed directly in the experiments. Shielding, if required, likely will be easily manageable and suitable for industrial as well as residential applications.
What are other possible applications of LENRs?
Several technical breakthroughs, in addition to a new source of clean energy, could come from LENRs. New Energy Times identifies the following:
- LENRs may provide a way to take radioactive waste from fission reactors and convert it to nonradioactive elements.
- LENRs may aid in transporting water great distances to irrigate barren lands to support agriculture for nations that are experiencing famine.
- LENRs may be useful to produce drinking water, which in some countries is more precious than oil, by providing an improved method for desalinization of ocean water.
- LENRs may enable new modes of transportation using magnetic levitation technology and transportation with previously unimaginable fuel efficiency.
- And other breakthroughs beyond our imagination ... both big and small.
Who discovered LENRs?
The research goes back all the way to the 1910s and 1920s, but it wasn't called either LENRs or "cold fusion" back then. Steven B. Krivit's book Lost History tells this fascinating account of science history. It was rediscovered in the mid-1980s by electrochemists Stanley Pons, chairman of the Chemistry Department at the University of Utah, and Martin Fleischmann, a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Pons and Fleischmann were aware of the controversial nature of the research, and they initially carried it out secretly, starting in 1984, worried that its announcement would cause chaos in the scientific community. They initially funded the research from their own pocket, but by 1988, reached their limit and they applied to the U.S. Department of Energy for a grant.
Ryszard Gajewski, the project director of the Department of Energy’s Advanced Energy Projects Division sent their grant to five reviewers who were asked whether they would recommend funding. Reviewer #1 was physicist Steven E. Jones, at the nearby Brigham Young University.
Jones was expected to behave as a confidential, independent reviewer. However, during the review process, his aggressive actions to take credit for the discovery prompted Pons, Fleischmann and the University of Utah to rush to make a public disclosure. After an initial agreement with Jones to publish papers simultaneously with Jones, his belligerent behavior caused the University of Utah group to break that agreement when it determined they could no longer trust Jones.
Fleischmann and Pons had not planned to go public for another 18 months. The Jones conflict is the only reason they agreed to announce their results before they had time to do more complete research and write a more complete scientific paper. The two scientists and university administrators announced the discovery in a press conference on March 23, 1989.
The term "cold fusion" was not chosen or initially used by Pons or Fleischmann. The news media confused the 1989 Pons and Fleischmann research with earlier research in the field of muon-catalyzed fusion, which had been called cold fusion, and this term was misapplied to the Pons-Fleischmann work.
Did Fleischmann and Pons retract their claim of fusion?
Within a year, Fleischmann and Pons walked back their claim that their experiment showed evidence of fusion, but they did not retract their claim that their experiment revealed something new, inexplicable, and that it was nuclear.
By 1994, Fleischmann and Pons wrote in Il Nuovo Cimento that D-D fusion was unlikely to be the explanation:
"’We conclude that all theoretical attempts that concentrate only on few-body interactions, both electromagnetic and nuclear, are probably insufficient to explain such phenomena."
In 2009, Fleischmann said in a recorded interview with Steven B. Krivit that LENRs must be caused by neutron-catalyzed reactions rather than by fusion.
Many of their followers, however, continued to promote the "cold fusion" claim.
Where did the term "cold fusion" come from?
New Energy Times has found that the term was first in the scientific literature in 1958 in an article called "'Cold' Fusion of Hydrogen Nuclei," published in the Journal of the Franklin Institute, by an unidentified author about muon-catalyzed fusion. As the article stated, as the case has been ever since, "the experiments show that although it is possible to make [muon-catalyzed fusion], the process cannot be used as a practical source of power. ... The short life of the mu meson and other properties of this method of producing fusion required putting in more energy that could be withdrawn and the reaction."
What does condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) mean? (Source: New Energy Times) Condensed matter nuclear science is a term that LENR researchers decided to use in 2002 instead of the term "cold fusion."
Researchers define CMNS as nuclear effects in and/or on condensed matter, targeting its application for portable clean nuclear sources. It is an inter- and multidisciplinary academic field encompassing nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, surface physics and chemistry, and electrochemistry. CMNS applications involve many other fields, as well, including nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, laser science and engineering, material science, nanotechnology and biotechnology.
The term “condensed matter nuclear science” evolved from the discussion and input of many individuals during the May 2002 ICCF Advisory Committee meeting in Beijing, China.
What is the difference between the Pons-Fleischmann and the Jones experiments?
(Source: New Energy Times) The Pons-Fleischmann experiment (University of Utah) used heavy water in a lithium-dioxide electrolyte. Pons and Fleischmann had a very clear and distinct intention for their use of palladium and deuterium, derived from many years of study in that domain, as Fleischmann explained in his paper "Background to Cold Fusion: The Genesis of a Concept."[1]
Steven E. Jones' (Brigham Young University) intention was to replicate what his colleague Paul Palmer believed was a fusion reaction occurring in the earth. Their electrochemistry was based on a mixture of elements Palmer thought were present and/or related to the volcanic sites.
Excess heat was the primary objective of the Pons-Fleischmann experiment. The Jones group did not expect to see excess heat and did not attempt to measure it.
Years later, in 2003, Jones reported an experiment [2] which produced 57 neutrons per hour; however, he has been inconsistent with his neutron claims. He initially claimed to see neutrons in 1989, but according to author Charles Beaudette [3], he retracted them in 1993.
1. Fleischmann, M., "Background to Cold Fusion: The Genesis of a Concept," American Chemical Society Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, Marwan, J. and Krivit, S. eds., Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8 (Fall 2008).
2. Jones, S. E., Keeney, F. W., Johnson, A. C., Buehler, D. B., Cecil, F. E., Hubler, G. Hagelstein, P. L., Ellsworth, J. E., Scott, M. R., "Charged-Particle Emissions From Metal Deuterides," Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Cambridge, Mass. (2003).
3. Beaudette, C., Excess Heat and Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2nd ed.), South Bristol, Maine: Oak Grove Press, p. 41 (2002).
|
