Energy

'80s science scandal may lead to more efficient fusion

'80s science scandal may lead to more efficient fusion
The Thunderbird reactor
The Thunderbird reactor
View 1 Image
The Thunderbird reactor
1/1
The Thunderbird reactor

A decades-old scientific controversy and a small bench-top apparatus at the University of British Columbia (UBC) could be the key to more efficient fusion reactors by increasing the chances of a nuclear reaction occurring.

In March 1989, electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons stunned the world with the announcement that they had essentially achieved nuclear fusion in a jam jar. They claimed that by means of a simple glass container filled with heavy water into which were inserted a palladium cathode and a platinum anode, they were able, through electrolysis, to cause deuterium atoms to fuse within the palladium lattice.

It was an astounding bit of news to say the least. If verified, it would have not only overturned established nuclear physics, but revolutionized the world by making fusion power available to the world in a package about the size of a car battery.

It was too good to be true and for good reason – because it was.

It turned out that the work of the two men was extremely sloppy, impossible to reproduce, and based on all sorts of assumptions and errors. By the end of the year, the cold fusion bubble had burst, the technology was discredited, and the concept relegated to bad spy fiction and conspiracy theories.

Now, palladium in a jar connected to nuclear fusion is being revived but in a different guise. One of the problems with nuclear fusion is getting the reaction started, which requires a heavy concentration of the hydrogen isotope deuterium. It's a process that in itself can be energy intensive, so the interdisciplinary team at UBC turned to an electrochemical process involving palladium to boost things.

What they did was construct a target made out of palladium, and on one side of this they exposed it to an electrochemical reactor called the Thunderbird reactor. This generated a plasma field that loaded one side of the target with deuterium. Meanwhile, the other side of the target was subjected to another electrochemical cell that added more deuterium.

The clever bit is that by going the electrochemical route the team reported that they were able to use a single volt of electricity to load as much deuterium as normally took 800 atmospheres of pressure using conventional methods.

Since fusion reactions rely on fusing deuterium atoms, this overloading greatly increased the odds of this happening by an average of 15%. Though it didn't produce a net energy gain, the team believes that this opens new paths towards practical fusion power.

In addition, in case anyone is wondering, the team made clear that the experiment is reproducible and, unlike the 1989 experiments, they confirmed the results by neutron output rather than a mere rise in heat as the failed '80s attempt did.

"We hope this work helps bring fusion science out of the giant national labs and onto the lab bench," said Professor Curtis P. Berlinguette, corresponding author of the paper. "Our approach brings together nuclear fusion, materials science, and electrochemistry to create a platform where both fuel-loading methods and target materials can be systematically tuned. We see this as a starting point – one that invites the community to iterate, refine, and build upon in the spirit of open and rigorous inquiry."

The research was published in Nature.

Source: UBC

5 comments
5 comments
Dav_Daddy
Would this be applicable to tritium deuterium fusion as well?
reader
Contrary to the conventional slander, Pons & Fleischmann have been vindicated many times. See "How to achieve the Fleischmann-Pons heat effect", https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.10.070
"The Fleischmann-Pons heat effect has been verified and is nuclear. - Ten strict conditions are necessary to achieve this effect. +This should not be rejected as a valid topic of research, was categorically premature."
Not sure why UBC is claiming a breakthrough with this other than calling it electrochemical loading of deuterium instead electromigration as per prior work of Stoker etc.
But good to see LENR starting to get mainstream research interest again after so many years of suppression.
reader
Oh now I see they were using a mini particle accelerator. That's cheating :)
AWilson
Thank you, "reader," for elaborating on the research into what was called Cold Fusion. I had looked into it several years ago before the 2022 paper you referenced was published. There is clearly some phenomena, despite the absence of neutron release etc.
Christian
The story told to me by a few professors who worked with Pons and Fleischman went like this: BYU and UofU were working together on this kinda of experiment. P&F were at the UofU, and when they got "close" to the results they wanted, they decided to cut ahead of BYU to take all the credit for themselves and publish their findings early, leaving BYU and their research in the dust. Of course, by publishing too early, they ruined the whole thing, made the idea of cold fusion look ridiculous, and killed all funding for this kind of research almost single-handedly, out of selfishness and greed for their own fame. And look how that turned out for them.
Now, to take this story with a grain of salt, the BYU professor who told me that version of the story was also an outspoken 9/11 Truther who got thrown under the bus by BYU's Civil Engineering department (they released a formal response to his claims that as structural engineers they do no agree with his assertions or claims). He'd try teaching us the conspiracy theories in class and was eventually put on leave for doing so.