Is ‘Cold Fusion’ More Than Just Cold
Confusion?
September 22, 2010
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of New Mexico
Rob Duncan
University of Missouri
A Long History of ‘Cold Confusion’
• First report of a possible nuclear fusion in
palladium loaded with heavy hydrogen: Berlin,
Germany, September 17, 1926 by Professors
Paneth and Peters, later retracted. (83 years ago)
• Some patent activity in and after 1927
• Detection of confirmed nuclear fusion in liquid
heavy hydrogen at -422 F (-252 C) in Russia,
Berkeley and other places from 1954 to 1959.
This fusion is catalyzed by naturally occurring
muons
• FP Press Conference on March 22, 1989
Hydrogen Fusion Reactions
D+D
3He
D+T
4He
+ n + 17.6 MeV
p+D
3He
+ g + 5.5 MeV
+ n + 3.3 MeV
p + T + 4.0 MeV
4He + g + 23.8 MeV (v. rare)
Can Pd somehow catalyze these reactions in
the solid-state? Unlikely, but the m- does.
Cold (Muon-Catalyzed) Fusion
μ- are 207 times more massive than an electron, have a
2.2 μs half-life, and shower the earth at an average rate of
one per cm2 per minute near the speed of light.
Very few will come to rest in the D2 from a collision.
D-μ-D forms in a fraction of a microsecond at liquid D2
densities, D to D spacing is only 0.5% of D2, and has a
vibration period of 5x10-18s. Each vibrational close approach
gives a probability ≈ 10-7 of tunneling through the coulomb
barrier to create fusion.
Muon Catalyzed Fusion
Each muon will catalyze about 10 D+D nuclear fusions
before it combines with a positively charged fusion product
(3He, p, or t) or decays. It can catalyze about 100 D+T
fusions.
• Notice… COLD FUSION!, but no energy technology impact,
since muons are so expensive to create artificially, and since
their natural luminosity is far too low
• Probability of fusion in a D2 molecule at STP is about 10-70
per vibrational close approach, while for a m-D2 molecule it
is about 10-7
• Notice also that a muon (mu meson) is actually not a meson
at all. It is a lepton. There was a time when nuclear physics
was at the forefront of discovery, when I.I. Rabi said of the
m-, “Who ordered this?”
‘Cold Fusion’, but now in the
‘Age of Mass Media’
• Fleischmann and Pons (PF), University of Utah
Press Conference, March 22, 1989
– Very bad media strategy, in my opinion
– A very negative reaction by the physics community
especially within the United States
– Interesting science with possible engineering
consequences, suddenly becomes a ‘pariah science’
– Fleischmann’s two regrets from 60 Minutes, 4/09
• About 200 ‘excess heat’ results from many
independent labs repeat FP results, from 1989 to
2009 (Edmund Storms book, more since then)
What is Different Now from 1990?
We know now that the loading [D]/[Pd]
must exceed 0.88 for excess heat
(Data from Michael McKubre, SRI)
- Hard to achieve in electrochemical loading
- A little easier to achieve in D+ ion bombardment
- Readily achieved in gas diffusion loading of
nanoparticles, or in co-deposition of Pd + D
What is Different Now from 1990?
The loading of [D]/[Pd] must exceed 0.88 for excess heat
Data from Michael McKubre, SRI
The 60 Minutes Story, 4/19/09
• Visit to Energetic Technologies in Omer, Israel, in
October, 2008:
– Observed excess heat while I was there
– Three different cell designs, all very different, all have
reported excess heat
– Five cells have reported excess heat exceeding
1,000,000 J from a 0.3g Pd foil electrode
• Chemical heat release would have been about 100 - 800 J
• (Heat out) / (Electrical energy in) = 25, 15 (rarely), 8, and less
– Quite similar results from many other labs in Italy,
Russia, China, Germany, and the USA (mainly SRI and
Navy)
ET’s schematic of their
Electrolytic Cell,
Isoperibolic
Calorimeter design
(With and without
ultrasound)
Pin = I * V
(Recombiner losses
were ignored )
Cartoon is not to scale
Pout = k * (T4-T5)
Pexcess = Pout – Pin
Excess Heat = ∑ Pexcess Δt
Electric
Energy
input
External
Recombiner
T3
T4
T5
Thermal
Energy
output
Pt Pd Pt
alumina
T1
Constant
Temperature
Cooling bath:
±0.01C
T2
Electrodes
Pt-Pd-Pt
(Art from Energetic Technologies)
ET’s Glow Discharge Cell Design with Water Flow Calorimeter
Pin = ID+ * V
Pressure
gauge
Pout = flow rate * C (Tout – Tin)
D2
Pexcess = Pout – Pin
V
Excess Heat = ∑ Pexcess * Δt
Palladium Layer
Tungsten Wire
D+ Plasma,
1-20 mTorr
Ion
exchange
column
Tout
Tin
Flow Meter
Controller
0-16 g/min
Filter
Constant
Temperature
Bath: ±0.01C
(Art from Energetic Technologies)
Excess Heat Result from Energetic
Technologies in 2004, Run #64
T3
T2
Sudden boiling
T1
80 h
T5
T4
Tbath
T4
T5
A
C
A
Excess Heat Result from Energetic
Technologies in 2004
POut Max = 34.4 W
30 W
20 W
Output
Energy
Excess
Energy
10 W
PIn, POut [W]
Duration ~14 Hours
Input
Energy
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000 seconds
Eout = 1.1 MJ, Ein = 40 kJ
Is the Excess Heat Effect Real?
• In cells loaded by electrolytic techniques that I observed at
Energetic Technologies in Omer, Israel in October, 2008:
– Recombiner concerns?
• ET results take Pin = I*V, ignore recombiner heat
– Hence excess heat reports are under-estimated
• Volume chemical reaction?
• Oxygen leak resulting in D-burn at cathode?
– Ground-loops or shorts?
• Isolation transformer coupling on cathode resistivity measurements
• Very good laboratory technique was observed
– Under-estimated input power?: Electrolytic Interrupter effect?
•
•
•
•
50 kHz measurement system sampling, > 20 kHz BW
Direct measurements with a 200 MHz BW scope
Any such effect is < 0.01% of near DC input power
Proposed calibrated physical source measurement
Excess Heat Effect Is Real
• Even if input power is mis-measured due to an
electrolytic interrupter effect…
… why didn’t it appear on the 200 MHz scope?
… what mechanism can store 50 kJ to 4 MJ of energy
near a 0.3g Pd electrode for heat release a few hours
or days later?
• Even if some amazing new mechanism like this
were to be discovered …
… it would be absent in the other methods of loading, all
of which report excess heat
The Excess Heat Effect: far Greater
than Chemical Heat Release
• The ET Pd cathode mass was 0.3 g (2x10-3mole)
• Chemical release of heat:
– ΔH for Pd +D  PdD is about 43 kJ/mole
• So about 100 J if this heat release was somehow delayed
– ΔH for 2D2 + O2  2D2O is about 242 kJ/mole
• So about 500 J of delayed released heat
• Many measurements show:
– Typical heat release per episode of 50,000 J
– Occasional heat release of over 1,000,000 J
• Heat release is usually from ambient temperature to
about 100 oC, with occasional reports of heat release
up to the melting of Pd at 1,550 oC
So What is Going On?
• We don’t know – it will take a lot of well controlled
experiments to figure this out.
• The ‘excess heat’ appears to be real. That is enough to
motivate serious study
• A nuclear fusion process?
– A hypothesis: Ignition through muon-catalyzed D + D
fusion near (but not in) the Pd.
– Another hypothesis: Nanoscale structure of the Pd
somehow catalyzes fusion (some feasibility arguments)
• Evidence against a nuclear fusion process
– No (or very little) nuclear particle emissions from the Pd
chemical loading reports
– Unclear how this system challenges its coulomb barrier
Evidence for Nuclear Processes
• Micro-craters observed independently by Energetic Technologies and by
SPAWAR
– Correlates roughly with excess heat production, but no attempt yet to
correlate areal crater density with total excess heat release, etc.
– Modeling by SPAWAR suggests that these craters could be of nuclear fusion
origin based on annealing of impurities only near craters
• The D + D  4He appears to be favored, with energy and momentum
taken up by the lattice (no gamma!)
– Mossbauer-like process, but electromagnetic, not phonon?
– Other possible quantum coherent mechanisms: Y. Kim’s BEC theory.
• Many other reports of particle emissions
– Prelas, 1990: A 8.1 MeV g starting 200 hrs after D-loading into Pd
– Lipson, 2009: A 3 MeV proton emission in Pd
– Navy SPAWAR reports (and many others now) of particle tracks in CR-39
integrating detectors
• Helium-4 build up in proportion to excess heat
• The levels of excess heat reports are well above chemical
Muon-catalyzed Ignition?
• Muons shower us at the rate of one per cm2 per minute,
with an average energy of 3 GeV and a rest-frame half-life
of 2.2 ms
• Only low-energy muons can form D-m-D
• Estimated arrival rate at thermal energies is one per cm2
per hour (Cohen and Davies, Nature 338, 705 (1989))
• Must arrive in D-rich voids in the Pd, since muons in the Pd
will be K-shell captured by the Pd and hence not available
to form D-m-D (Richard Garwin and others, discussions)
• ET experiment: 10cm2, estimate 1% of D in voids, hence a
once in 10 hr average arrival time of an ‘ignition muon’.
– Qualitatively describes why onset time and extent of the excess
heat release is highly dependent on Pd preparation
– Does not describe how the chain reaction is sustained, or why
neutrons and tritium are absent, or why the gamma is absent if
the D+D4He + g is favored.
SEM images from Energetic Technologies Ltd. in Omer, Israel
Micro-craters in palladium, possibly following excess heat release, when loaded with
heavy hydrogen, or possibly just chemical pitting? The origin of these micro-craters is
still under intense debate.
SEMs Obtained for a Cathode Subjected to an E-Field Showing
Micro-Volcano-Like Features
All data and images are from Navy
SPAWAR’s released data,
presented at the American
Chemical Society Meeting in
March, 2009.
SSC PACIFIC…on Point and at the Center of C4ISR
Total Number of Fusion Reactions Estimated From A Crater Formation
S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, C. Young, and F.E. Gordon, J. Electroanal. Chem. 580, 284 (2005)
Ejecta Volume
D=50 mm
r= 25mm
h= 25mm
Thanks to
Y. Kim for
Slide and corrections
V= r2h/3
=1.6 x 104 mm3
V=1.6 x10-8 cm3
D+D → 4He + 23.8 MeV (to the metal, not gamma particle?)
Number of moles for deuterons in ejecta volume
Nmoles= 1.6 x 10-8cm3 x 12.02 g/cm3 x (106.4 g/mole)-1 = 1.8 x 10-9moles
Total energy required for vaporization of Pd metal in ejecta volume
ET = 1.8 x 10-9 moles x (3.62 x 105 joules/mole) = 6.5 x 10-4 joules
Energy released per fusion reaction
Q = 23.8 MeV x (1.6 x 10-13 joules/MeV) = 38.1 x 10 -13 joules/reaction
Total number of deuterons present in ejecta volume
ND = 1.6 x 10-8 cm3 x 6.8 x 1022/cm3 = 1.1 x 1015
Total number of fusion reactions
NR = (ET/Q) = 6.5 x 10-4 joules x (38.1 x 10-13 joules/reaction)-1 = 1.7 x 108 reactions
corresponding to ~ 3.7 x 10-2 μm diameter BEC of deuterons undergoing fusion 22
Palladium Nanoparticle Excess Heat
Pd Nanoparticles have diameters less than 10 nm in Pd-Zr
- this is much less than the hydrogen passivation layer
thickness in palladium
- typical [D]/[Pd] = 1.1 in gas diffusion loading experiments
Y. Arata, Y. Zhang, J. High Temp. Soc. 1 (2008): Reported excess heat
for up to 50 hours following D2 charging of Pd nanoparticles in
Pd – ZrO2 composites, while H2 loading showed no excess heat
Akira Kitamura, Takayoshi Nohmi , Yu Sasaki , Akira Taniike ,
Akito Takahashi, Reiko Seto, Yushi Fujita,
Physics Letters A 373, 3109 (2009): Repeated these results
Very recent NRL results also confirm, and show enhancement at
smaller nanoparticles (see procedings of ICCF15, Rome)
The Kitamura et al. Experiment
Kitamura et al. Results
0.1 µm: 0.2 eV/atom
0.001 µm: 1.8 eV /H-atom, 2.4 eV/D-atom
0.01 µm: 0.7 eV/atom
Could Pd Possibly Catalyze D+D Fusion?
Or is this impossible?
• Assume only D at [D]/[Pd] > 0.88 is available
• Assume 0.25 W output from 1 millimole of D2
• Assume
– Either excess D goes into a PdD2 nanophase(?)
– Or excess D densely loads metallic voids (?)
• Assume a D2 vibrational frequency of 1013 Hz
• If this is fusion, then the probability of fusion = 10-22
per vibrational close approach
• Can PdD2 form at high D-loading and small Pd structure
dimensions?
• Why is Pd so special, anyway? Well …
Possibility of a PdD2 Nanocatalyst?
Ni: always 4s2 3d8
Pt: always 6s0 5d10
but Pd switches, hence Stoner Enhancement, etc.
Group**
Period
1
IA
1A
1
1
2
IIA
2A
H
1.008
2
4
5
6
7
14
IVA
4A
15
VA
5A
16
VIA
6A
17
VIIA
7A
8A
2
He
4.003
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Li
Be
B
C
N
O
F
Ne
6.941
9.012
10.81
12.01
14.01
16.00
19.00
20.18
11
3
13
IIIA
3A
18
VIIIA
12
Na
Mg
22.99
24.31
3
IIIB
3B
4
IVB
4B
5
VB
5B
6
VIB
6B
7
VIIB
7B
8
9
------- VIII ------------- 8 -------
10
11
IB
1B
12
IIB
2B
13
14
15
16
17
18
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
Ar
26.98
28.09
30.97
32.07
35.45
39.95
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
As
Se
Br
Kr
39.10
40.08
44.96
47.88
50.94
52.00
54.94
55.85
58.47
58.69
63.55
65.39
69.72
72.59
74.92
78.96
79.90
83.80
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Mo
Tc
Ru
Rh
Pd
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
Sb
Te
I
Xe
85.47
87.62
88.91
91.22
92.91
95.94
(98)
101.1
102.9
106.4
107.9
112.4
114.8
118.7
121.8
127.6
126.9
131.3
55
56
57
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Cs
Ba
La*
Hf
Ta
W
Re
Os
Ir
Pt
Au
Hg
Tl
Pb
Bi
Po
At
Rn
132.9
137.3
138.9
178.5
180.9
183.9
186.2
190.2
190.2
195.1
197.0
200.5
204.4
207.2
209.0
(210)
(210)
(222)
87
88
89
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
114
116
118
Fr
Ra
Ac~
Rf
Db
Sg
Bh
Hs
Mt
---
---
---
---
---
---
(223)
(226)
(227)
(257)
(260)
(263)
(262)
(265)
(266)
()
()
()
()
()
()
Lanthanide Series*
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Ce
Pr
Nd
Pm
Sm
Eu
Gd
Tb
Dy
Ho
Er
140.1
140.9
144.2
(147)
150.4
152.0
157.3
158.9
162.5
164.9
167.3
90
Actinide Series~
91
92
93
97
98
99
69
Tm 168.9
70
71
Yb
Lu
173.0
175.0
94
95
96
100
101
Th
Pa
U
Np
Pu
Am
Cm
Bk
Cf
Es
Fm
Md
No
Lr
232.0
(231)
(238)
(237)
(242)
(243)
(247)
(247)
(249)
(254)
(253)
(256)
(254)
102
(257)
103
Possibility of a PdND2N Nanocatalyst?
D2N ‘nanoband’
D?
Pd
xN 
PdN
Or maybe D2?
•Nanoband fusion probability discussed by Talbot Chubb (and others)
•But why would this favor the D+D  4He + g branch so severely?
•Why would the g be missing? A Mossbauer-like effect?
•See work by T. Chubb, NRL (ret), and by P. Hagelstein, MIT
•Alternative theories, like D2 BEC Condensation in the metallic voids
•See work by Y. Kim, Purdue
•If so, then the BEC may be detected in other ways
Junk Science or Empirical Data?
• Persistent observations, like excess heat in Pd – D
and superconductivity above room temperature,
should be treated as empirical evidence that our
understanding of physics remains incomplete.
• It is simply too convenient and too scientifically
counter-productive to dismiss these observations
as ‘junk science’.
• The Scientific Method is the only thing we have
got, and fortunately it is the only thing that we
need!
– Simply apply the scientific method without prejudice,
and go where the data leads you
Conclusions
• The Excess Heat Effect is Real
– This alone merits serious study
– Years of careful work will be needed to fully understand what is
going on
– Absorption and excess heat variation with Pd characteristic size
• Now for a hunch, just a guess of sorts…
– ‘Warm’ Fusion, muon-assisted, some particles
• Can the metal environment change muon-ash binding rate?
• Is there an economic pathway that ois yet undiscovered to produce
muons?
– ‘Cold’ Fusion, no particles
• How do small Pd particles / structures catalyze this?
– Both could be going on