AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) Undid revision 463040190 by AnnaBennett (talk) New Energy Times isn't WP:RS |
|||
(84 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{AfDM|page=CETI Patterson Power Cell (2nd nomination)|year=2011|month=November|day=29|substed=yes|origtag=afdx|help=off}} |
|||
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> |
|||
The '''CETI Patterson Power Cell''' is an [[electrolysis]] device invented by James A. Patterson, a retired chemist,<ref name="voss"/> which was claimed to generate more energy than it used. Promoted by Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI), it is one of several [[cold fusion]] cells which have been the subject of media interest but little independent testing. |
|||
Mainstream scientists give little credence to the device. Physicist [[Robert L. Park]] lists the device in his book ''[[Voodoo Science]]'' as an example of fraudulent [[fringe science]]. |
|||
The '''CETI Patterson Power Cell''' is a patented [[electrolysis]] device invented by [[James A. Patterson]].<ref>Krivit, Steven B. [http://newenergytimes.com/v2/views/Group1/Patterson.shtml "James 'Doc' Patterson, May 17, 1922 – February 11, 2008"]. ''New Energy Times,'' issue 27, March 20, 2008. Retrieved November 26, 2011.</ref> The device is composed of a non-conductive housing filled with a large number of small plastic beads coated with [[thin film]] layers of [[nickel]] and a metal hydride, as well as a solution of a conductive salt in water, through which an electric current flows.<ref name="patent">{{patent|US|5494559|"System for electrolysis"}}.</ref> During the operation of the device, some of the water in it is reduced to [[oxygen]] and [[hydrogen]] gasses and these gasses are allowed to flow out of the device. |
|||
==Construction== |
|||
Dr. Dennis Cravens, a [[physicist]], worked with Dr. Patterson in 1995 to optimize the heat-generating capacity of the Patterson Power Cell. On December 4, 1995, Patterson and Cravens jointly applied for a United States patent. The patent was granted on March 4, 1997.<ref>[http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5607563.html United States Patent No. 5,607,563]. ''System for electrolysis.''</ref> |
|||
⚫ | |||
The cell has a non-conductive housing. The cathode is composed of thousands of 1 mm [[microsphere]]s (co-polymer beads), with a flash coat of copper and multiple layers of electrolytically deposited [[thin film]] (650 Angstrom) [[nickel]] and [[palladium]]. The beads are submerged in water with a lithium sulfur (LiSO4) electrolyte solution. This makes the fluid conductive so that electric current can flow though it.<ref name="patent"> {{patent|US|5494559|"System for electrolysis"}}</ref> When asked about reliability Patterson stated: "When they don't work, it's mostly due to contamination. If you get any sodium in the system it kills the reaction - and since sodium is one of the more abundant elements, it's hard to keep it out."<ref name=wired2>{{cite journal |first=Charles |last=Platt |journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |date=November 1998 |volume=6 |number=11 |url=http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html |title=What If Cold Fusion Is Real?}}</ref> CETI holds at least 3 U.S. patents on the beads. |
|||
<!-- Do try to find the other patents but only those that are relevant, Patterson is said to have over 150 US patents. --> |
|||
==Claims and observations== |
|||
A Patterson Power Cell was demonstrated<ref>[[Charles Platt (author)|Platt, Charles]] (November 1998). [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html?pg=8&topic=&topic_set= "What if cold fusion is real?"]. ''[[Wired News]],'' Issue 6.11, page 8. Retrieved November 28, 2011.</ref> at ''POWER–GEN 95'', a power generation conference and exhibition. |
|||
Its proponents claim that the device uses less than 1 [[watt]] and yet is capable of generating thousands of times this amount of [[electric power|power]] which is released as heat.<ref name=wired2/> This supposedly happens as [[hydrogen]] or [[deuterium]] nuclei fuse together to produce heat through some form of [[LENR|low energy nuclear reaction]].<ref name="voodoo science">[[Robert L. Park|Park, Robert L.]] ''[[Voodoo Science|Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud]]''. Oxford: [[Oxford University Press]], 2002, p. 114–118. Retrieved December 5, 2007.</ref> The byproducts of nuclear fusion, e.g. a [[tritium]] [[Atomic nucleus|nucleus]] and a [[proton]] or an <sup>3</sup>He nucleus and a [[neutron]], have not been detected in a reliable way, leading a vast majority of experts to think that no such fusion is taking place.<ref name="voss">Voss, David. [http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1258 "Whatever happened to cold fusion?"], ''[[Physics World]],'' March 1, 1999. Retrieved December 5, 2007.</ref> |
|||
It is further claimed that if [[radioactive]] [[isotope]]s such as [[uranium]] are present, the cell enables the hydrogen nuclei to fuse with these isotopes, transforming them into stable [[Chemical element|elements]] and thus neutralizing the radioactivity; and this would be achieved without releasing any radiation to the environment and without expending any energy.<ref name="voodoo science" /> This claim has never been properly verified.<ref name="voodoo science" /> To date, the neutralization of radioactive isotopes has only been achieved through intense neutron bombardment in a [[nuclear reactor]] or large scale high energy [[particle accelerator]], at a large expense of energy.<ref name="voodoo science" /> |
|||
On February 7, 1996, [[ABC News]] shows [[Good Morning America]] and [[Nightline (US news program)|Nightline]] featured stories about the Patterson Power Cell.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jze7KtdHfh8&NR=1 ''ABC News report on the Patterson power cell''] (Video). [[Nightline (US news program)|Nightline]], February 7, 1996.</ref> |
|||
John Huizenga, professor of nuclear chemistry at the University of Rochester, who was head of a government panel convened in 1989 to investigate the cold fusion claims of Fleischmann and Pons, and who wrote a book about the controversy, said "I would be willing to bet there's nothing to it", when asked about the Patterson Power Cell.<ref name="voodoo science" /> |
|||
==Replications== |
|||
Scott Little and [[Hal Puthoff]] made an independent test and they were unable to measure any excess heat from the cells.<ref>[http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/rifex/rifexcal.pdf Calorimetric Study of Pd/Ni Beads From the CETI RIFEX Kit], Scott Little and [[Hal Puthoff]]</ref> |
|||
[[George H. Miley]] is a professor of nuclear engineering and a [[cold fusion]] researcher who claims to have replicated the Patterson Power Cell. During the 2011 World Green Energy Symposium, Miley stated that his device continuously produces several hundred watts of energy. <ref>Xiaoling Yang, George H. Miley, Heinz Hora. [http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/1103/450/1 "Condensed Matter Cluster Reactions in LENR Power Cells for a Radical New Type of Space Power Source"]. ''[[American Institute of Physics]] Conference Proceedings,'' March 16, 2009, vol. 1103, pp. 450–458. The conference was [http://www.worldgreenenergysymposium.us/newsroom.html "2011 World Green Energy Symposium"]. October 19–21, 2011</ref> Miley's claims have not convinced mainstream researchers, who believe that the results can be explained by contamination or by misinterpretation of data.<ref name="voss"/> <!-- source is from 1999 --> |
|||
In the television show ''[[Good Morning America]]'', Quintin Bowles, professor of mechanical engineering at the [[University of Missouri–Kansas City]], also claimed to have successfully replicated the Patterson power cell.<ref name="GMA">{{cite video | people= | date=1996-01-07 | url= | title=Good Morning America | medium=Television Show | location=United States | publisher=ABC News}}</ref> In the book ''Voodoo Science'', Bowles is quoted stating: "It works, we just don't know how it works".<ref name="voodoo science"/> |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{reflist}} |
|||
<references /> |
|||
==Further reading== |
==Further reading== |
||
* Bailey, Patrick and Fox, Hal (October 20, 1997). [http://www.padrak.com/ine/PPC97.html ''A review of the Patterson Power Cell.''] Retrieved November 19, 2011. An [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=658224&isnumber=14327 earlier version] of this paper appears in: Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1997; Proceedings of the 32nd Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. Publication Date: 27 Jul-1 Aug 1997. Volume 4, pages 2289–2294. Meeting Date: 07/27/1997 - 08/01/1997. Location: Honolulu, HI, USA. ISBN 0-7803-4515-0 |
* Bailey, Patrick and Fox, Hal (October 20, 1997). [http://www.padrak.com/ine/PPC97.html ''A review of the Patterson Power Cell.''] Retrieved November 19, 2011. An [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=658224&isnumber=14327 earlier version] of this paper appears in: Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1997; Proceedings of the 32nd Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. Publication Date: 27 Jul-1 Aug 1997. Volume 4, pages 2289–2294. Meeting Date: 07/27/1997 - 08/01/1997. Location: Honolulu, HI, USA. ISBN 0-7803-4515-0 |
||
[[Category:Fusion power]] |
|||
[[Category:Chemical processes]] |
[[Category:Chemical processes]] |
||
[[Category:Electrochemistry]] |
[[Category:Electrochemistry]] |
||
[[Category:Electrolysis|*]] |
[[Category:Electrolysis|*]] |
||
[[Category:Fringe physics]] |
Revision as of 02:22, 1 December 2011
The CETI Patterson Power Cell is an electrolysis device invented by James A. Patterson, a retired chemist,[1] which was claimed to generate more energy than it used. Promoted by Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI), it is one of several cold fusion cells which have been the subject of media interest but little independent testing.
Mainstream scientists give little credence to the device. Physicist Robert L. Park lists the device in his book Voodoo Science as an example of fraudulent fringe science.
Construction
The cell has a non-conductive housing. The cathode is composed of thousands of 1 mm microspheres (co-polymer beads), with a flash coat of copper and multiple layers of electrolytically deposited thin film (650 Angstrom) nickel and palladium. The beads are submerged in water with a lithium sulfur (LiSO4) electrolyte solution. This makes the fluid conductive so that electric current can flow though it.[2] When asked about reliability Patterson stated: "When they don't work, it's mostly due to contamination. If you get any sodium in the system it kills the reaction - and since sodium is one of the more abundant elements, it's hard to keep it out."[3] CETI holds at least 3 U.S. patents on the beads.
Claims and observations
Its proponents claim that the device uses less than 1 watt and yet is capable of generating thousands of times this amount of power which is released as heat.[3] This supposedly happens as hydrogen or deuterium nuclei fuse together to produce heat through some form of low energy nuclear reaction.[4] The byproducts of nuclear fusion, e.g. a tritium nucleus and a proton or an 3He nucleus and a neutron, have not been detected in a reliable way, leading a vast majority of experts to think that no such fusion is taking place.[1]
It is further claimed that if radioactive isotopes such as uranium are present, the cell enables the hydrogen nuclei to fuse with these isotopes, transforming them into stable elements and thus neutralizing the radioactivity; and this would be achieved without releasing any radiation to the environment and without expending any energy.[4] This claim has never been properly verified.[4] To date, the neutralization of radioactive isotopes has only been achieved through intense neutron bombardment in a nuclear reactor or large scale high energy particle accelerator, at a large expense of energy.[4]
John Huizenga, professor of nuclear chemistry at the University of Rochester, who was head of a government panel convened in 1989 to investigate the cold fusion claims of Fleischmann and Pons, and who wrote a book about the controversy, said "I would be willing to bet there's nothing to it", when asked about the Patterson Power Cell.[4]
Replications
Scott Little and Hal Puthoff made an independent test and they were unable to measure any excess heat from the cells.[5]
George H. Miley is a professor of nuclear engineering and a cold fusion researcher who claims to have replicated the Patterson Power Cell. During the 2011 World Green Energy Symposium, Miley stated that his device continuously produces several hundred watts of energy. [6] Miley's claims have not convinced mainstream researchers, who believe that the results can be explained by contamination or by misinterpretation of data.[1]
In the television show Good Morning America, Quintin Bowles, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, also claimed to have successfully replicated the Patterson power cell.[7] In the book Voodoo Science, Bowles is quoted stating: "It works, we just don't know how it works".[4]
References
- ^ a b c Voss, David. "Whatever happened to cold fusion?", Physics World, March 1, 1999. Retrieved December 5, 2007.
- ^ US 5494559 "System for electrolysis"
- ^ a b Platt, Charles (November 1998). "What If Cold Fusion Is Real?". Wired. 6 (11).
- ^ a b c d e f Park, Robert L. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 114–118. Retrieved December 5, 2007.
- ^ Calorimetric Study of Pd/Ni Beads From the CETI RIFEX Kit, Scott Little and Hal Puthoff
- ^ Xiaoling Yang, George H. Miley, Heinz Hora. "Condensed Matter Cluster Reactions in LENR Power Cells for a Radical New Type of Space Power Source". American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, March 16, 2009, vol. 1103, pp. 450–458. The conference was "2011 World Green Energy Symposium". October 19–21, 2011
- ^ Good Morning America (Television Show). United States: ABC News. 1996-01-07.
Further reading
- Bailey, Patrick and Fox, Hal (October 20, 1997). A review of the Patterson Power Cell. Retrieved November 19, 2011. An earlier version of this paper appears in: Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1997; Proceedings of the 32nd Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. Publication Date: 27 Jul-1 Aug 1997. Volume 4, pages 2289–2294. Meeting Date: 07/27/1997 - 08/01/1997. Location: Honolulu, HI, USA. ISBN 0-7803-4515-0