Recent postsView all

The excitement of discovery
9 Dec 22
Concept-based assessment
13 Nov 22
5+ is different to +5
20 Sep 22
Training students to think criti…
8 Sep 22
Intergalactic-mindedness
15 Jul 22
Some thoughts on the May 2022 IB…
30 May 22
Anti-Markovnikov addition
16 Mar 22
Initial reflections on the new p…
31 Jan 22
Covering the mandatory practical…
26 Nov 21
Greenhouse gas bulletin and COP2…
25 Oct 21
Testing concepts using the H<>
18 Oct 21
“The Strangest Man”
29 Jul 21

Metallic hydrogen

Friday 10 February 2017

Back in 1989 Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons claimed to have achieved cold fusion. Cold fusion is the fusion of two small nuclei occurring at or near room temperature with the release of energy. Their reported experiment in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry involved electrolysing heavy water using a palladium electrode. Their report received an enormous amount of publicity at the time as, if true, it could potentially provide a plentiful and cheap source of energy.   However subsequent attempts to replicate the experiment proved unsuccessful and the claim by Fleischmann and Pons is now generally thought to be untrue.

Some people are now wondering whether a recent report which claims to have made metallic hydrogen for the first time will suffer a similar rejection by the scientific community.

In JIB Docs (2) Teamary this year (2017) Isaac Silvera and Ranga Dias from Harvard University reported that they had succeeded in making metallic hydrogen. This was achieved by compressing hydrogen gas using diamond anvils at an extremely high pressure of 495 GPa. In a rather similar way to the claims were put forward at the time as to how cold fusion would be of great benefit to society there are now claims that metallic hydrogen could theoretically revolutionise technology and also transform space exploration.

However an article in Chemistry World pulls together comments and objections from some of the leading researchers in the field who question the results of the Silvera and Dias experiment. Most of the objections centre around the the pressure of 495 GPa as such high pressures cause structural damage to the diamond anvil cells used in the experiment and it has even been suggested that the metallic properties reported may be due to the rhenium gasket used in the diamond anvil cells. Clearly what is needed now is for the experiment to be replicated by others before metallic hydrogen is accepted fully by the scientific community.



Comments


To post comments you need to log in. If it is your first time you will need to subscribe.