Wikiversity/Cold fusion/Theory/Kim

From CFC
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal discussion philosophy.png An editor has expressed concern that this article may not fit into the scope of Wikiversity. Do not use this template unless you have read and understand the Wikiversity project proposal.

You may wish to:

  • Move this page to a site where is is more appropriate.
  • Find a school or topic that this article belongs under.
  • Move this page into your userspace.

If a use cannot be found for this page on Wikiversity, then it may be deleted by a custodian after a period of 5 days. It may be deleted immediately if it meets speedy deletion criteria. If the deletion is contested, then please list the page at requests for deletion for discussion instead.

Tagged by This page is under review per recently closed WV:RFD. Please ignore the 5 day deadline above, as the review will take longer than that. Mu301Bot (discusscontribs) 23:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC) (signed on behalf of User:Mu301)
PrirodneNauke.svg Resource type: this resource may consist of Fringe science.

The Kim theory suggests that the deuterons are Bose-Einstein condensed. This doesn't work because the Bose-Einstein transition temperature is too low, and even if they were condensed, the condensate still has negligible fusion. Kim's calculations mistakenly use a product wavefunction for the condensate, when the correct condensate wavefunction is entangled, with very small probability of d-d collision. this text added by an IP editor moved from the main theory page. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The above comment was added even though Kim theory had not been explained at all. It would seem that the IP editor may have read Kim's paper, but did not refer to it. Here it is: [1].

The paper was published in Naturwissenschaften in 2009. I know enough about the topic to know that the objection is shallow. We actually don't know what happens to fusible materials in a BEC. There have been some mysterious phenomena reported. Regardless, the goal of the theory page is simply to present the theories. In that presentation, I suggest, *published criticism* of the theories can be appropriate to mention, on the main Theory page, and we will be doing that. Personal unpublished opinions, whether by qualified scientists, or Randy from Boise -- who also has a right to an education -- should be on discussion subpages, which are where we learn through discussion.

If Kim made an error in that paper, the right thing to do if an author is knowledgeable, is to submit a correction to the journal of publication. I know that Naturwissenschaften just published a Comment from Steve Krivit critiquing the Storms review of the field, "Status of cold fusion (2010)."[2] I know much of the story behind that. My sense is that the Krivit comment, almost three years after the article was published, was the best they got. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a critique of Kim BEC based on Gibbs energy limitations:

"We know that clusters of D do not exist in such material even at high D concentration. The various theories fail to show how or why a cluster based on the proposed mechanism forms. For example, the BEC forms only near absolute zero because the enthalpy is too small to compensate for the required entropy change. Therefore, a net Gibbs energy can only result when the T term is very small.

Kim assumes the enthalpy is large when a BEC forms in a lattice. He provides no reason to believe this assumption. In addition, if a BEC could form, it would be found in all PdD as the stable lattice forms and not be a rare event as is required to be consistent with how LENR behaves.'' --JohnCMaguire (discusscontribs) 21:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

John, I believe you were quoting someone. If so, you should show the source. I suspect you may have obtained this from a private mailing list, and cannot attribute it. You may still, then, present this as a possible criticism (as you did). You may also obtain permission from the source, possibly. That would be best. Thanks.
I am familiar with the criticism. It is not complete; the argument is really about possible rate, and the critic is assuming that the rate will be too low. (My position which I have presented to physicists many times without them correcting me, so I have some hope it is correct, is that BECs form at room temperature, at some rate, which depends on the velocity distribution in the material, which Kim explicitly states is not known, and I think he is correct.
The real issue is far more complex. Basically, Kim does not consider Nuclear Active Environment, and places the "action" in the lattice. However, FPHE cold fusion is a surface effect, that is, I consider, well-known. (I.e., the evidence is very strong). This argument that the BEC would be found in all PdD is really an argument that it would be found in the lattice, which is not the case, apparently. However, there may be surface sites that facilitate NAE formation, or that are NAE. The critic has not considered the real rate question, because he rejects BECs out of hand as impossible at room temperature. They are not impossible. They would be difficult to detect, normally.
Cold fusion theory is exceedingly difficult, in my opinion. There is no satisfactory theory of mechanism. There are what some consider "plausible theories," which means that someone knowledgeable doesn't fall over laughing. Or falls over and then says, "Well, maybe, if ...."
Kim is positing large BECs. Those become very much unlikely, we might think. Takahashi proposes small BECs, essentially four-atom BECs in one study. Those might be much more likely, but, then still have the energy distribution problem. Where does the fusion energy go? Kim does not acknowledge the Hagelstein limit of 20 keV on charged particles from FPHE cold fusion. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)