278) Tabletop fusion devices


Ludwik Kowalski; 2/16/2006
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043

After being away for nearly three months I went to a meeting at the university. That was three days ago. Three people who I met independently commented on new tabletop experiments. They knew about my interest in cold fusion and they thought that new reports were confirmations of reality of cold fusion. Each time I explained that these are new “hot fusion” devices. The next day a message of the same kind (see below) was posted on the restricted Internet discussion list for CMNS researchers. The CMNS, by the way, stands for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. It is a new name for what used to be called cold fusion. Personally I identify three CMNS subfields: cold fusion (CF), cold transmutations (CT) and excess energy (EE). Contrary to what many think, research in these areas did not end after cold fusion was declared to be pseudoscience (more than 15 years ago).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

1) It started when X1, who is an amateur scientists, quoted (see below) what was posted recently (2/13/06) at:

<www.scienceblog.com/cms/ny_team_confirms_ucla_tabletop_fusion_10017.html>

Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have developed a tabletop accelerator that produces nuclear fusion at room temperature, providing confirmation of an earlier experiment conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), while offering substantial improvements over the original design. The device, which uses two opposing crystals to generate a powerful electric field, could potentially lead to a portable, battery-operated neutron generator for a variety of applications, from non-destructive testing to detecting explosives and scanning luggage at airports. The new results are described in the Feb. 10 issue of Physical Review Letters.

"Our study shows that 'crystal fusion' is a mature technology with considerable commercial potential," says Yaron Danon, associate professor of mechanical, aerospace, and nuclear engineering at Rensselaer. "This new device is simpler and less expensive than the previous version, and it has the potential to produce even more neutrons."

The device is essentially a tabletop particle accelerator. At its heart are two opposing "pyroelectric" crystals that create a strong electric field when heated or cooled. The device is filled with deuterium gas -- a more massive cousin of hydrogen with an extra neutron in its nucleus. The electric field rips electrons from the gas, creating deuterium ions and accelerating them into a deuterium target on one of the crystals. When the particles smash into the target, neutrons are emitted, which is the telltale sign that nuclear fusion has occurred, according to Danon.

A research team led by Seth Putterman, professor of physics at UCLA, reported on a similar apparatus in 2005, but two important features distinguish the new device: "Our device uses two crystals instead of one, which doubles the acceleration potential," says Jeffrey Geuther, a graduate student in nuclear engineering at Rensselaer and lead author of the paper. "And our setup does not require cooling the crystals to cryogenic temperatures -- an important step that reduces both the complexity and the cost of the equipment."

The new study also verified the fundamental physics behind the original experiment. This suggests that pyroelectric crystals are in fact a viable means of producing nuclear fusion, and that commercial applications may be closer than originally thought, according to Danon. "Nuclear fusion has been explored as a potential source of power, but we are not looking at this as an energy source right now," Danon says. Rather, the most immediate application may come in the form of a battery-operated, portable neutron generator. Such a device could be used to detect explosives or to scan luggage at airports, and it could also be an important tool for a wide range of laboratory experiments.

The concept could also lead to a portable x-ray generator, according to Danon. "There is already a commercial portable pyroelectric x-ray product available, but it does not produce enough energy to provide the 50,000 electron volts needed for medical imaging," he says. "Our device is capable of producing about 200,000 electron volts, which could meet these requirements and could also be enough to penetrate several millimeters of steel." In the more distant future, Danon envisions a number of other medical applications of pyroelectric crystals, including a wearable device that could provide safe, continuous cancer treatment.
Dan Kawasaki 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

2) To which X2 replied: “This is conventional thermonuclear fusion. So, yes, we can again be happy that the hot fusion people are confronted with tabletop alternatives to their otherwise mega projects.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

3) X3 commented: “Actually this is not thermonuclear fusion because the system is not in thermal equilibrium.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

4) A veteran CMNS researcher, X4, made a very interesting observation: “Actually, these folk (and Puttermann at UCLA and Taleyarkhan? at Purdue) need to adhere to the same standards the high temperature folk set for us: measure the yield of  both neutrons and tritium (and demonstrate that 4He is sparingly seen) before they claim a hot fusion result.  When they do, they might be surprised at the results.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
5) Ludwik Kowalski:
X4 made an interesting observation. Perhaps the authors of the papers know that mentioning a possibility of a CMNS mechanism would be detrimental. Would a paper mentioning cold fusion be sent to objective referees by the Physical Review Letters? Probably not.

Two kinds of standards are worth emphasizing. Why do newspapers describe some discoveries as interesting and scientific while other discoveries are totally ignored? Production of 4He, associated with generation of excess energy, is not less interesting as tiny crystal-based accelerators of deuterium ions. The same for the discoveries of Iwamura. The answer is clear, the newspapers’ editors discriminate against the CMNS topics because they have been convinced that research in that area belongs to pseudo-science. The editors of mainstream journals do not even send CMNS reports to the impartial referees. This created a vicious circle. The claimed CMNS discoveries are criticized on the basis of not being confirmed by other scientists while, at the same time, other scientists are prevented from seeing CMNS papers.

Illustrations of unreasonable rejections of CMNS papers are described in items #33, #88, and #153 at my website at:

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/

Please send me other illustrations and I would be happy to append item. Exposing unfair discrimination should be an important part of our public relation activities. What else can we do to break the vicious circle? Most people are fair and they want others to be fair. That is why I am optimistic; fairness will prevail.

X5 wrote:
This is sad, profound and hilarious -You all know how initially cold fusion got off to a bad start because people thought it was a "colder" form of thermonuclear fusion? And how the name cold fusion stuck, regardless of the mistaken identity? Well, judging by the popular culture out there -- believe it or not -- hold onto your seats -- history is repeating itself again, this time in favor of cold fusion. The recent attention about the pyro and bubble fusion is being called "cold fusion" by many people. I think we all know that it's not, but consider the spill-over positive attention the field -and the name -- is getting! I realize the *real* cold fusion is not getting this attention, but that makes no difference. The NAME cold fusion is losing its stigma through this process. Thank you, Seth Putterman and UCLA !”

6) X3 again: “I remember when Taleyarkhan et al. did compare tritium and neutron yields in 2002 paper, the neutron yield was lower, which caused a controversy at Oak Ridge. The discussion was all about the efficiency of the neutron detector. Do you think there's more to it? I thought we had settled that Pyro and Bubble Fusion is definitely hot. But your point is quite good and I'm glad I hear it.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

7) X4 again: “It is just a hunch, and I am being mischievous. But the so-called "heat" from hot fusion is actually measured from neutron flux (and then back-calculated). They never saw any heat or tritium. And the neutron could come from lots of sources other than d-d or d-t (i.e. wall interactions or semi-coherent fusion in the so called plasma instabilities - which are actually stabilities). I guess my point is the same requirements and standards of proof are not held for the hot and cold operating regimes. But I do not believe it has been definitely shown that Pyro and Bubble fusion are hot. It would not upset my world view if they were and were proven to be hot fusion. My hunch is they are not.”