Advertisement

The “Cold Fusion” Problem

  • A. J. Leggett
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSB, volume 218)

Abstract

As I write this (early May, 1989) it is just over six weeks since the first claims (3,4) of observation of “cold fusion” burst upon the world, and it is still not entirely clear whether we are dealing with a potentially revolutionary new source of energy, a minor but intriguing new physical phenomenon or simply a catalog of experimental and statistical errors. No doubt the picture will have changed by the time this lecture is given, let alone by the time it is published; anyway, for present purposes I will take the view that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that an unexpectedly high rate of nuclear fusion is taking place in deuterium trapped in metals such as palladium and titanium that it makes sense to ask what kinds of constraint theory can put on possible mechanisms for this phenomenon, if indeed it is genuine.

Keywords

Fusion Rate Helium Atom Bohr Radius Cold Fusion Deuterium Concentration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. J. Leggett and G. Baym, Nature 340, 45 (1989).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. J. Leggett and G. Baym, Phys. Rev. Lett., 63, 191 (1989).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261, 301 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. E. Jones, E. P. Palmer, J. B. Czirr, D. L. Decker, G. L. Jensen, J. M. Thorne, S. F. Taylor and J. Rafelski, Nature 338, 737 (1989).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. A. Fowler, G. R. Caughlan and B. A. Zimmermann, Ann. Rev. Astron.Astrophys. 5, 525 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. E. Koonin and M. Nauenberg, Nature 339, 690 (1989).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. E. Jones, Nature 321, 127 (1986).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The WKB approximation can be shown to give an upper limit on the tunnelling probability in one dimension, but unfortunately not in three, the case of present interest. Fortunately we can bypass this difficulty by using the exact results for the Coulomb potential, see below. The WKB approximation gets the order of magnitude right.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. E. Koonin, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Lässer and G. L. Powell, Phys. Rev. B34, 578 (1986).ADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Bach, Radiation Effects (G8) 78, 77 (1983).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. J. Thomas and J. M. Mintz, J. Nuc. Mat. 116, 336 (1983).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions (National Bureau of Standards, Wash. D.C., Ch. 14 (1964)).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. Leggett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations