Cold Fusion…No Longer Hot

Cold Fusion…No Longer Hot

I”m writing this on January 1, 2000 and so far no evidence of any

Y2K problem. Even my 10-year old battery-powered Bulova

clock/calendar is showing 2000 and the proper calendar for

January. More harrowing than Y2K was the drive home from a

New Year”s Eve party in patchy fog and black ice. At the party,

Jane asked me my opinion of the future of battery-powered

electric vehicles. I expressed skepticism about the prospects for

any drastic improvement in batteries. Jane then wondered about

the possibility that cold fusion could be an alternate energy

source. This brought back memories of the days over ten years

ago, in 1989, when “cold fusion” was announced.

In the seemingly endless rehashing of the events and

accomplishments of the 20th century, cold fusion has not been

mentioned in any article or on any TV show I”ve seen. However,

the recent selections of two individuals for recognition

particularly pleased me. First, Brian Trumbore pointed out to me

that Sports Illustrated has come up with its list of the century”s

most significant singular athletic achievements. Its number one

choice was Roger Bannister”s breaking of the 4-minute mile in

1954. Hillary”s climb of Mt. Everest was also up there, but it was

the 6th place choice that really elated me. It was my childhood

baseball idol, Cincinnati Red”s pitcher Johnny Vander Meer. His

two no-hit games in a row has never been duplicated in the major

leagues. Time magazine recognized another individual for an

accomplishment just a tad more impressive. Anyone who follows

this column knows that Albert Einstein is my science idol and I

was delighted to see that Time designated him its person of the

century. One of Einstein”s remarks when turning down a political

career (he could have been president of Israel) was to the effect

that politics is fleeting but “an equation lasts forever”. Even when

he didn”t believe certain conclusions drawn from his own theories,

such as the existence of black holes, his equations stood there for

others to interpret and expand upon.

Of course, the equation that changed the world forever simply

states that matter and energy are equivalent, i.e., the energy of a

body equals its mass times the velocity of light squared. This

equation was the precursor to the atomic bomb, the hydrogen

bomb, nuclear power stations and to the explanation of the source

of the sun”s energy production. For those who might not

appreciate the huge amount of energy involved, if you converted

the one and a half ounces of water in a shot glass to energy, you

would have about 40 billion trillion ergs of energy, assuming my

math is correct. Unless you”re a scientist, you”re probably thinking

that”s too big a number to comprehend and besides, what”s an erg?

Even being a scientist, ergs really don”t mean much to me either,

so let”s convert that number to watt-hours. It turns out to be

pretty close to a trillion Watt-hours. That”s still an awfully large

number but let”s relate it to your typical AA-size alkaline battery.

I”m positive you”ve purchased several of these batteries over the

past year. Well, the typical AA cell delivers energy of about 1-2

Watt-hours. So, our trillion Watt-hours is the energy equivalent

of between a half to one trillion AA cells.

If you”re still not comfortable with trillions, a trillion watt-hours is

only a billion kilowatt-hours. I would guess that a typical

suburban household uses about 2 to 5 kilowatt-hours a day to

keep the house lit and the TV and other appliances powered. I”m

wrong! In the interests of accuracy, I just looked up our own

household usage as billed by GPU, our electric utility, and was

shocked to find it”s typically more like 20 to 25 kilowatt-hours a

day! Taking 25 kilowatt-hours per home per day, our billion

kilowatt-hours would power about 40 million Bortrum homes for

a day or, alternatively, one million homes for 40 days! Confine all

that energy in a small volume and you”ve got one big bang!

Speaking of big bangs, you may know that at the start of the real

Big Bang there wasn”t any matter. It was all energy. Since

Einstein has told us that matter and energy are equivalent, am I

wrong to assume that it took that billion kilowatt-hours of energy

to create the hydrogen and oxygen to make our shot glass of

water? Since all our billions of galaxies, each with billions of

stars and zillions of tons of dark matter, evolved out of that Big

Bang energy, I join you in being completely overwhelmed by the

magnitude of energy involved.

But we don”t have to worry about such things in our everyday

life, except to reassure ourselves that our sun continues to employ

Einstein”s famous equation for the foreseeable future. At the

extremely high temperatures in the interior of the sun, the

hydrogen atoms, squeezed together by the immense gravitational

force, and fuse together to form helium, which weighs less than

the hydrogen that formed it. Einstein”s equation comes into play

and this difference in mass is responsible for the energy output of

the sun. This “fusion” energy takes the form of light, heat and

various energetic particles. Here on earth we see the light, feel

the heat and see evidence of the other particles in, for example,

their interactions with molecules in our upper atmosphere to give

the light shows of the aurora borealis.

For decades, the dream of harnessing this nuclear fusion has

spurred work slanted towards the attainment of extremely high

temperatures and confinement of hydrogen in a very small volume

to promote fusion. Here in New Jersey, the so-called Tokamak

machine in Princeton has come about as close to achieving this

goal as any of the efforts. Power outputs of more than 10 million

watts have been achieved, enough to power a few hundred

homes. However, there”s a catch. The power only lasts for about

a second! At this point, this “hot” fusion is so far from being

practical, either technologically or economically that some think

the work should be dropped.

It”s not surprising that the announcement of “cold fusion”, which

involved a simple electrochemical cell stirred up a worldwide

reaction. I remember hearing about the announcement on the

radio that day in March of 1989. But I also remember the next

day. On that day, my former colleague, mentor and director at

Bell Labs, the late Carl Thurmond, called me from Albuquerque.

Carl had retired some years earlier and was quite upset. He told

me cold fusion was a fraud and that the inventors, Stanley Pons

and Martin Fleischmann, should be run out of town. I had great

respect for Carl, a very good chemist who, prior to Bell Labs, had

worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II.

At the time, I thought Thurmond was overly critical, especially

since I knew that Martin Fleischmann was a highly regarded

electrochemist. Indeed, he received one of The Electrochemical

Society”s most prestigious honors, the Olin Palladium Medal

Award in 1985. I had just completed four years as Secretary of

that society the year before Fleischmann”s award.

As reported by Pons and Fleischmann, the experiment consisted

of a very simple setup in which palladium electrodes were placed

in a vessel with an electrolyte based on “heavy” water, that is,

water in which the hydrogen isotope deuterium replaces normal

hydrogen. (Normal hydrogen consists of one electron and one

proton. Deuterium has one electron, a proton and a neutron.)

The palladium electrodes then were connected to a direct current

power source and a simple electrolysis was carried out. This is

something students do in high school chemistry with hydrogen

liberated at one electrode and oxygen at the other. Usually, they

collect some of the hydrogen in a test tube and light it to hear the

pop as it burns. At least they did it in the old days. It may not be

done today for fear of litigation? Actually, now that I think of it,

I never had chemistry in high school. It was a 12th grade subject

and, as mentioned before, I missed a 12th grade experience.

Back to Pons and Fleischmann, what they claimed was that there

were sporadic bursts of heat given off in their simple cells and

that the amount of heat was so great that it had to be nuclear

fusion. Specifically, they postulated that the deuterium atoms

were brought so close together in the palladium that they fused.

Virtually as soon as their work was announced, and especially as

the details of their experiments were revealed, there was a burst

of sharp criticism. A key criticism was that Pons and Fleischmann

did not provide credible evidence of the emission of energetic

nuclear particles or gamma rays that should accompany a fusion

reaction. What followed was a truly remarkable series of events

resembling re a soap opera, with its heroes and villains. Gary

Taubes, a noted science writer, has chronicled the story in a book

titled “Bad Science”, which was of great interest to me since I

know many of the characters. If you browse the Internet, you can

still find many sites devoted to cold fusion, both pro and con.

There are even conferences devoted to cold fusion.

However, the bottom line is that, to my knowledge, no credible

evidence has been presented to support nuclear fusion as being

involved in electrochemical cells of the type described by Pons

and Fleischmann. In the opinion of some physics types, a very

good piece of evidence against cold fusion is that Pons and

Fleischmann are still alive! The argument here is that if fusion

was responsible for the heat generated in these cells, the numbers

of nuclear particles or gamma rays would have been so great that

they would have led to radiation effects in the body that would be

fatal. If so, Pons and Fleischmann should indeed be grateful that

their experiments did not produce fusion!

In the interest of fair disclosure, I should perhaps reveal a reason

for a personal bias. In May of 1989, less than two months after

the initial announcement, a special cold fusion session was held at

a meeting of The Electrochemical Society in Los Angeles. I have

never met either Pons or Fleischmann, but, the night before the

session, my wife and I and another couple had dinner in a

restaurant and, seated at the next table were a number of people,

including Pons and Fleischmann. We finished our dinner first,

ordered a cab and were waiting outside for it to arrive. As our

cab pulled up, Pons rudely disregarded our protests and usurped

our cab. I may have been somewhat less than objective thereafter

in my view of his work. The next evening”s session proved to be

one of the turning points as far as the scientific community”s

acceptance of cold fusion, the session ending with a withering

critique of the experiments that confirmed any of my own doubts

as to the reality of cold fusion.

As for my friend Carl”s call, I don”t believe the fraud aspect,

preferring to think that Pons and Fleischmann were genuine in

their belief they had cold fusion. However, as time went by, the

behavior of Pons in particular, as portrayed in “Bad Science”,

certainly was peculiar insofar as his responses to the results of

experiments by others contradicting the cold fusion thesis. And

Jane, don”t hold your breath awaiting that car powered by cold

fusion.

Allen F. Bortrum