Steven Jones, Fleischmann, Pons discussed on TechStuff

TechStuff
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Well, Pons and Fleischmann conducted their experiment, and they monitored the temperature of the fusion cell throughout the process. They actually did this kind of interesting way with gets pretty complicated, but they did in the way that wasn't as simple as sticking thermometer in the water and actually their their measurements of temperature were based on estimations not on like hard readings at that point. So they analyze this data at the conclusion of their experiment, and they found that these cell appeared to be producing about one hundred times more heat than it would through the chemical process it self. So we understand the chemical process. So based on that, you would expect x. amount of heat, but instead what remeasuring is one hundred times x amount of heat. So something else must be happening. This anomaly seemed to support that hypothesis that maybe there was some sort of fusion occurring according to their calculations. The chemical process alone would not be able to produce that heat. Something else had to be doing it, but to be sure they would need to replicate their experiment, which is proper from a scientific perspective. You have to make sure that the experiment you conducted wasn't accurate and precise one, and that you should be able to repeat the process and get the same results. If you don't get the same results after repeating the experiment using the exact same process, something has gone wrong there. Some other factor that's at play such as an unreliable measuring mechanism, maybe the thermometer you were using was not reliable. May be your methodology for estimating the temperature was off. So replicating very important because it tells you, yes, I'm consistently getting the same result. And if you can't say that, then you don't really have any conclusions you can draw if you perform the same action over and over and something different happens every single time. It doesn't tell you anything about the cause. Effect of that action and the consequences. So here's the problem to conduct more experiments would require some funding and so- Pons and Fleischmann applied for a government grant to get money for their experiments. And the grant process included peer review. Now appear of you means that you would have peers, qualified scientists who would look over an application grant application to determine if the application was had merit. If it was scientifically sound in its approach in its outline. And here we get the first kink in our story. One of those reviewers was a nuclear physicist named Steven Jones. And Steven Jones was also exploring the possibility of cold fusion. However, Jones was not looking for changes in temperature the way Pons and Fleischmann were he was looking for evidence of neutrons because in deterioration fusion reactions, you wouldn't just end up with only helium four. However, you would actually end up with one of three possible outcomes. So you would either have helium, four plus a helium, three atom plus some a high energy neutron, or you would end up with helium four tritium and high energy proton, or you would end up with helium for another helium, four atom and gamma-ray. So those are the three potential outcomes of the this deteriorate deteriorates Uson process. So you if you have a way of testing for one of those byproducts, then you could look to see if there were evidence of fusion reactions happening at that point. So if you had a way of just detecting helium than that would be a pretty darn convincing argument that fusion had actually happened if you're detecting helium being given off by this reaction because it. I tell you something has to be generating that helium, but Jones's work was looking at neutrons specifically. So he had detected some neutrons through his experiment, but keep in mind. He was only looking for neutrons, not for helium, but there were so few neutrons detected. The team had concluded that fusion might be happening. But at such a low rate that it was useless for any practical purpose. You would not be able to harness this for energy. If in fact, fusion was happening Fleischmann and Pons research, however, suggested a much higher rate of fusion, much much greater than what Jones's research had shown. So Jones gets this article submission as part of the peer review process. And he reads it and he reaches out to the department of energy and says, hey, these guys over here doing research, that's kind of the research I'm doing and we're both investigating the same thing, but we're looking at it through different evidence..

Coming up next