Test tubes and nukes don't mix.

"Cold-Fusion" is probably nothing more than... I don't know, but it's certainly not its namesake. The only tabletop 'reactor' I know of that might achieve nuclear fusion is the Farnsworth/Hirchs Fusor, though I've heard doubts of it sustaining fusion at the Physics Forums.

Cheerio.

Name is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions not Cold-Fusion
Review #2
Here is my evaluation on the subject of recent scientific reports of low energy nuclear reactions in
metal matrices. It is based largely on the material you sent me, including the summary document and
appendix material.
In my opinion, there appears to be rather convincing evidence for the production of excess heat
and for the production of 4He in metal deuterides. The question is: Could this be the result of a nuclear
reaction involving the d+d reaction?
Nuclear physicists have measured the rates of the d(d,)4He reaction, as well as those of the
d(d,n)3He and the d(d,p)3H reactions. It is known that, when extrapolated to near zero energies, the rates
of the (d,n) and the (d,p) reactions are about seven orders of magnitude larger than that of the (d,)
2
reaction. Therefore it follows that if the 4He is being produced by the d(d,)4He reaction, there would be
seven orders of magnitude more neutrons and protons compared to the number of 4He nuclei produced.
As stated in the summary document “Searches for neutrons, tritons, and other energetic emissions in
quantitative association with the excess heat effect have uniformly produced null results.”
On the other hand, there have been reports of low-level neutron (and proton) emission. These
are quantitatively entirely too small in numbers to account for the heat production, and occur using current
densities in the test cell which are an order-of-magnitude smaller than those needed to produce the
excess heat (30 vs. 200-300 mA/cm2). This indicates that these observations, even if correct, are not
related to the observations of excess heat or the observed increase in 4He.
My Conclusion: There is no convincing evidence for the occurrence of nuclear reactions in condensed
matter associated with the reports of excess heat production. Independent of this, however, the reports
of low level neutron and proton emissions have not been refuted.
It is suggested that the observations of excess heat and 4He are consistent with:
D + D 􀃆 4He + 23.8 MeV (heat)
or d + d 􀃆 4He + 24 MeV (lattice)
This implies that, somehow, the excited 4He nucleus transmits its energy directly to the crystalline lattice
of the solid. This is reminiscent of the Moessbauer effect. However, in that case the recoiling nucleus
has an energy of ~2 x 10-3 eV. It is hard to imagine how 23.8 MeV of excitation energy, nearly 9 orders of
magnitude more than in the case of the Moessbauer effect, could be coupled to and transferred to the
phonons of the lattice!
The observations of low-level neutron and proton emissions is interesting, but appears to be
unrelated to the reported observations of excess heat and 4He. Further quantifying these results would
seem worthwhile, but not in connection with the generation of excess heat.
The excess heat reported remains unexplained. However, in my opinion, there is no evidence for
this being a nuclear physics phenomenon.
Review #3
Comments on the LENR paper
In general, this reviewer found the paper with its supporting appendices to be well-written and easy to
read. The authors have, necessarily, limited the scope of the paper to the issues of excess heat and
nuclear markers. To cover the entire fifteen years of the “cold fusion” controversy is too much to expect in
a document of manageable size.
While the paper might well cause some scientist to revise their thinking about “cold fusion,” I doubt if it will
do much to sway the thinking of the real skeptics. This is unfortunate in the opinion of this reviewer.
Whether or not LENR occur in metal-deuterium systems, the chemistry and physics of these systems are
far from being understood. The “stigma” branded upon those who have chosen to study these systems
and on the research performed by these individuals has most certainly prevented progress towards
characterizing these systems. But, because of the prejudice which has developed around this field, a
higher standard of proof, deserved or not, has been put on the authors. In the opinion of this reviewer,
they could have done better.
This reviewer has some criticisms about the content of the paper. First, the results presented as
evidence for the existence of the various conclusions about the Pd/D system are mostly from the SRI
laboratory of one of the authors. While other results are referenced and in some cases mentioned in the
text, the case for the existence of LENR would have been strengthened by demonstrating reproducibility
using the results of other investigators and laboratories. This is particularly important considering the fact
that the observed effects are apparently difficult to achieve, and appear to occur relatively infrequently.
Some of the controversy over the effect is undoubtedly due to the fact that the “signal to noise ratio” of
positive results to backgrounds are low. Secondly, probably for completeness, results referred to as
“excess heat beyond the basic Fleischmann-Pons experiment” and which appear to complicate, or either
suggest more than one reaction path or raise doubt about the mechanism yielding the results, are
included. It would be much easier to accept LENR as the phenomenon responsible were it not for the
variable results introduced by these other metal-deuterium systems. For example, were excess heat and
3
4He the only observed products, accepting LENR, with the mechanism of
D + D to give heat and helium-4, would make sense. But the fact that 3He, T, and protons are reported
by some investigators makes the acceptance of LENR much less comfortable. The suggestion that the
experimental conditions affect the mechanism is the authors’ explanation, but this would suggest that
LENR in metal deuterides is an effect which occurs routinely in such systems. If so, an explanation as to
why these effects were not seen in the myriad of studies of metal-deuterium systems before would be
required.
The authors apparently elected not to discuss the reported cases where explosions have occurred with
these systems. While the explosions do not affect the conclusions of the paper, the origin, if related to a
LENR effect, could be important in determining whether or not the effect would have practical importance.
At present, accepting the concept of excess heat, the reported amounts appear to be too low to compete
with present sources of heat.
This reviewer’s conclusion is that the Pd/D system is far from being understood and that some
challenging and potentially new phenomena are being observed in high loading experiments with the
system. As such it should be the subject of further investigation irrespective of whether or not the
observed phenomenon is LENR. Ideally, this field of investigation will become acceptable within the
physical sciences community and those who wish to perform research on the system will have their work
judged without prejudice or dismissal out of hand. As to LENR, the evidence strongly suggests a nuclear
origin for the excess heat observed in palladium rods highly loaded with deuterium. However, the
inconsistencies in the observed products and the widely different experimental setups, e.g.
electrochemical, metal-gas, and beam, producing similar effects, coupled with the apparent low frequency
of occurrence for the phenomenon, leaves LENR still debatable.
Have the authors provided convincing evidence that the Pd/D system is worthy of continued
investigation? The answer is clearly yes. Have the authors provided evidence that LENR exists?
Maybe! Should DOE establish a sizeable program to investigate LENR? No. Should DOE consider
individual applications for financial assistance for research on the Pd/D system? Yes. Such applications
should be considered on their merit.

Review #9
I have evaluated the experimental evidence for LENR in metal matrices as presented in the summary
document, “New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides” and various additional references provided by the
DOE. My comments are in response to the two questions posed in the letter that I received from Patricia
Dehmer and Dennis Kovar.
( Determine whether the evidence is sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that such nuclear reactions
occur.
1. Excess Heat
Evidence for excess heat in LENR experiments is compelling and well established. As is stated in the
summary, “…excess heat has been observed with a variety of calorimeters based on varying operating
principles and by different groups in different labs, all largely with similar results.” It is this effect that
initially captured the interest of the scientific community in 1989 because it was reported to be far in
excess of what would be produced by any known chemical reactions. Quantitative analysis of the excess
heat effect in many LENR experiments has yielded values of hundreds of ev/atom of palladium in
electrochemical loading experiments. SRI reported 450 eV/atom of Pd in a closed cell flow calorimeter.
This calorimeter employs redundant temperature sensors that operate on different principles thus
minimizing the possibility of systematic errors. The SRI group has done an impressive job of quantifying
the sources of uncertainty in their measurements and propagating their errors throughout their
calculations.
Since 1989 much has been learned about the necessary conditions required to produce excess heat in
LENR experiments. The original electrochemical cell and method employed by Pons and Fleischmann
was designed to permit many experiments to be conducted as well as large variations in experimental
parameters such as current density, which are not possible in closed calorimeters. A systematic study of
the many variables in these experiments was enabled by this approach and led to an understanding of
some of the requirements for producing excess heat. The downside of using an open calorimeter is the
complexity of the data analysis. Pons and Fleischman used heat calibration pulses to calculate the heat
transfer coefficient of their electrolysis cells with high accuracy (better than 1%). Control experiments
using light water or platinum electrodes in heavy water exhibited no excess enthalpy generation. It should
be noted that one of the best control experiments is a palladium/heavy water experiment in which no
excess enthalpy is generated. The original Pons and Fleishmann time series thermal data have been
examined independently by Wilfred Hanson using multiple statistical methods and found to be correct.
It is now clear that loading level and current density thresholds are required in order to observe excess
heat in these experiments. The values are consistent regardless of the approach used and the laboratory
where the experiment was conducted. Early failures to reproduce the heat effect were, in part, due to not
meeting these requirements. It has also been found that thermal and current density transients, which are
thought to effect the chemical environment such as deuterium flux, can trigger heat “events”. SRI has
published an expression for the correlation between excess power and current density, loading, and
20
deuterium flux. These discoveries have led to a better understanding of the phenomena and more
reproducibility.
2. Helium
The high levels of excess heat suggested that a nuclear process might be occurring in LENR
experiments. Various attempts have been made to detect the expected nuclear “ash” or radiation with
mixed results. One of the more compelling examples is a quantitative correlation between excess heat
and helium. The first such experiments were conducted by Miles in glass vessels that were shipped out
of state for analysis. The quantity of helium found in these studies was below ambient laboratory air and
there was a concern about helium diffusion through the vessels. That being said, Miles employed several
blanks and controls and demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between excess heat and
helium. This lead to Miles and others to perform experiments in metal containers. The correlation was
confirmed and consistent with a D + D reaction resulting in helium and 23.8 MeV in the form of heat. No
existing theory can account for this reaction.
3. Nuclear Emissions
There have been many reports of nuclear emissions from LENR experiments. The measurements
involved are highly complex and subject to interferences and artifacts. Some of these experiments appear
compelling and are worthy of thorough review by qualified experts who understand the intricacies of these
types of measurements. As I don’t fall in this category I will defer to my colleagues who are.
( Determine whether there is a scientific case for continued efforts in theses studies and, if so, to identify
the most promising areas to be pursued.
Electrolytic experiments are extremely difficult to conduct properly and are not geometrically compatible
with many detectors for radiation or nuclear particles. This explains the shift to non-electrochemical
approaches, which should continue. Emphasis should be placed on developing theories that explain
existing data and guide future experimental work. New experiments that test the underlying principles of
the theory should be performed.
The body of work that has resulted from LENR investigations is formidable and worthy of attention of the
broader scientific community. It is unfortunate that a few vocal individuals have manage to stigmatize this
field and those working in it. The implications of this work, if correct, could be profound. Other nations
have pursued LENR and continue to do so. Further work that would add to the understanding of LENR is
warranted and should be funded by US funding agencies.
Review #11
Evaluate the experimental evidence presented for the occurrences of nuclear reactions in condensed
matter at low energies (less than a few electron volts).
I would like to preface my remarks by saying my area of technical expertise is in the area of
Material Science and I will focus my comments primarily to the material science aspects of
LENRs.
For the electrolysis experiments with palladium cathodes and heavy water, the correlation
of excess heat with helium measurements is compelling particularly given the control experiments
with light water. Calorimetric results for palladium electrodes do not consistently show excess
heat, but the care in which the measurements are done for experiments that do show excess heat
are convincing evidence of low energy nuclear reactions. The striking differences between
experiments conducted with light and heavy water also point to a nuclear phenomenon.
24
There seems to be a growing understanding of what makes a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ cathode.
The electrochemical process produces high Pd/D ratios (greater than 1) and this implies high
fugacity for D and effective pressure of up to 15 Kbars. When cracks form in the cathode,
deuterium can leak out of the cathode and the deuterium loading is insufficient to promote the low
energy nuclear reactions that are observed. The Palladium-Hydrogen phase diagram indicates
two solid solutions with a significant increase in lattice parameter as hydrogen content increases.
This lattice expansion results in significant compressive stresses in the surface and when the
yield strength of the Pd is exceeded, dislocations are nucleated to relieve stress. As hydrogen (or
deuterium) continues to diffuse there will be a build up of subsurface compressive stresses again
from the lattice parameter change and these stresses will now put the surface in tension. If the
surface layer is not strong enough to elastically deform, cracks will form to relieve the tensile
stresses. This is a thermal diffusive fatigue mechanism. It is observed that Palladium cathodes
that work best seem to be less pure than those that are of a higher purity. Boron and aluminum
impurities that are beneficial are also expected to strengthen the palladium alloy since they
occupy interstitial positions in the lattice. The surface contamination of the Pd cathodes is
another area which is claimed to effect reproducibility. There seems to be less consensus as to
which contaminates are ‘bad’ and which are ‘good’.
The high energy particle emissions from deuterium loaded foils presented by Professor
Jones provide evidence of low energy nuclear reactions from metal foils in the form of high
energy particles. Temporal correlation of particles emissions if confirmed by more sensitive
measurements would be strong evidence of unexpected solid state mediated nuclear reactions.
The lack of testable theories for low energy solid state nuclear reactions is a major
impediment to acceptance of experimental claims. In the palladium electrolysis experiments the
means by which helium-4 is formed from D-D fusion and how the ~24 MeV of energy is
transferred to the lattice rater than by emission of a gamma needs a more testable hypothesis
than has been developed at this point. The focus on octahedral site occupancy for deuterium
seems to be misplaced. As the Pd/D ratio exceeds 1, all the octahedral sites are occupied and
one would expect deuterium to occupy tetrahedral sites as well as double occupied octahedral
sites. Segregation of deuterium at dislocation cores should also be expected and may provide a
way to focus energy during dislocation motion. The combination of expertise in dislocation
mechanics and physics needed to model this problem is an example of how multidisciplinary the
problem may be.
Palladium cathodes containing boron and/or aluminum produce more ‘excess heat’ than
chemically pure cathodes. The explanation for this is the role of interstitials as strengtheners.
These interstitials also compete with deuterium to occupy octahedral sites. There seems to have
been very little research looking systematically at palladium solid solutions. Interstitial dopants
could be used to systematically either increase or decrease the lattice parameter changes as
deuterium is charged into the cathode.
Determine whether the evidence is sufficiently conclusive to determine that nuclear reactions occur.
There is strong evidence of nuclear reactions in palladium, and suggestions of reactions in the
titanium foil experiments. The body of evidence does not rise to the level of being conclusive at
this time. What is required for the evidence to be conclusive is either a testable theoretical model
or an engineering demonstration of self powered system that continues to produce heat without
an external power supply such that the device would appear to be a perpetual motion machine if
not for the nuclear reaction.
Determine whether there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies and, if so, to identify the
most promising areas to be pursued.
I believe the scientific case has been made for continued studies. For the palladium system,
systematic studies of alloying and dislocation effects combined with theoretical modeling may be
useful in understanding the parameters that control the observed excess heat effects. More
sensitive instrumentation for particle detection and energy determination should be applied to the
experiments described by Professor Jones. The confirmation of a solid state catalyzed nuclear
reaction would open a new field of basic research. The Mossbauer effect is perhaps the closest
example of such an effect, which suggests theoretical models which include atomic isomers..
Experimentally, experiments which include a Pd isotope effect might be useful in looking for an
isomer mechanism.




Review # 12
To examine and evaluate the experimental and theoretical evidence for the occurrences of nuclear
reactions in condensed matter at low energies; To determine whether the evidence is sufficiently
conclusive to demonstrate that such nuclear reactions occur
There exists a large variation in the quality of the work in this field. It is also very easy to find
faulty or incomplete measurements in many of the papers published in the ICCF Proceedings. However, I
believe that we should concentrate on the small number of careful works for the purpose of assessing an
unknown field. In other words, we should look at the best available experiments in order to get more
information on whether there is some new physics involved.
There are two kinds of experiments that address the occurrence of nuclear reactions:
a) Study of low-energy nuclear reaction in the presence of electronic screening in a solid-state
environment (e.g., charged-particle emission measurements by Jones). Unfortunately, current
measurements are not done professionally, and more work is needed. Nevertheless, this is a
reasonable scientific problem.
b) Experiments involving excess power/heat. More careful experiments have been done in recent
years (e.g. SRI work). There seem to be increasing evidence for the production of excess heat,
even though the reason is totally unknown. Reproducibility has been improved, but it still has not
reached a satisfactory level. Yes, it is likely that an unknown process (in materials physics or in
nuclear physics) is responsible. However, the link to nuclear reaction is still not strong enough at
the present time.
In order for (b) to have anything to do with low-energy nuclear reactions, an enhancement of the
reaction rate in the solid state has to be verified. Yet the evidence is not conclusive yet. In addition,
current understanding of nuclear processes is not sufficient to explain many of the findings in (b).
Compared with the experimental efforts, the theoretical work is even more unconvincing. To
make a case for nuclear reactions to happen in condensed matter at low energies as suggested or
speculated by experiment, theory has to be formulated to explain (1) the enhanced nuclear reaction rate
in the condensed matter environment, (2) the completely different Branching Ratio for the d-d reaction
from the gas phase, and (3) the mechanism for the dissipation of the 24 MeV energy through the lattice.
None of these has been demonstrated, nor any promising directions have been shown. Because of these
deficiencies, one is having a difficult time in understanding the experimental implications. My comments
on each of the three areas are given below.
(1) It was mentioned at several places in the documents or presentations that high deuterium loading
might result in double occupation of the octahedral site in Pd, and thus bring the deuterium atoms
closer together and enhance their interaction. However, it has been shown by first-principles
electronic calculations [P. K. Lam and R. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1895 (1989)] that the lowest
energy configuration for two deuterium atoms at one octahedral site is an arrangement along the
(111) orientation with a D-D distance of 1.3 Angstroms, which is still significantly larger than that
in the molecule (0.74 Angstroms). On the other hand, so far the quantum nature of deuterium in
the metal has not been taken into account. Previous electronic calculations did show that the
potential well was not harmonic, and the zero-point motion was quite significant [C. Elsasser et
al., J. Phys.: Condensed Matter 4, 5207 (1992)]. Most importantly, the two deuterium atoms have
to be described by correlated wave functions with a mutual interaction V(r1, r2) �‚ V(r1 - r2) inside
the crystal, which is completely different from the situation in usual scattering experiments on the
gas phase. These critical issues for a decent theory have been completely ignored so far and
would require an interdisciplinary effort in the future.
(2) The most puzzling part for nuclear theory is the lack of neutrons commensurate with the heat
production and the complete reversal of the ratio for the reaction channels. This is still the crucial
and seemingly insurmountable physics problem that needs to be resolved.
26
(3) The lack of gamma rays being detected from the sample forced researchers to invent a coupling
between the nuclear interaction and lattice vibrations. Being able to write down the equations
does not imply physical justifications. An effective interaction normally involves some type of
fundamental interactions that lead to the coupling. For example, the effective electron-electron
interaction mediated by phonons, through electron-phonon coupling, leads to superconductivity.
Under the carpet, the electron-phonon coupling arises from the electromagnetic interaction, one
of the four known fundamental interactions in physics. To create a coupling between nuclear
interaction and phonons at such a low energy region (namely, the electromagnetic interaction) is
beyond one�fs imagination at the moment.
A series of conjectures is formulated in Hagelstein�fs paper, but a lot of them appear to be too ad
hoc. In particular, the phonon mediated site-other-site reaction is, at most, a �gconjecture�h. The exchange
of a large angular momentum with phonons is unprecedented. This paper has a lot of holes and is not
likely to go through any peer review process of reputable journals. Better theory could be done, however,
by considering the points mentioned in (1).
In summary, in my opinion, there is no theory for low-energy nuclear reaction yet. Therefore, the
burden of proof lies on experiment. Although there is still a long way to go, the experimental efforts are
moving in the right direction to provide a converging conclusion, one way or the other. The current
evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that nuclear reactions occur in metal deuterides yet.
To determine whether there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies and, if so, to identify
the most promising areas to be pursued
I would not recommend a large-scale program on Cold Fusion, but a few carefully selected
projects on the relevant science are worth considering. The proposals should go through the normal
reviewing process. Some areas are listed below:
Progress has been made in characterizing the Pd electrode over the past 15 years, but more
needs to be done to better understand the sample properties. In other words, materials problems need to
be addressed, as well as the physics and chemistry of metal deuterides.
It would be crucial to have independent verifications of the �gcharged-particle emission�h from metal
deuterides. In other words, more careful measurements are needed to sort out the proposed �gscreening�h
effect.
Good theoretical studies on the behavior and interactions of deuterium in metals are also needed.
Very few exist at the moment.
Addition comments
The quality of work is so inconsistent in this field, including the work of some key players, which
makes it difficult to clear the black cloud and to increase the credibility of the field. Repeated retractions
and conflicting experimental results in the past certainly did not help. Hopefully as time on, a few careful
studies will provide a definitive conclusion. Unfortunately, that has not happened yet, although some
progress has been made.
I found the nuclear reaction aspect intriguing, but not fully convincing. However, our scientific
training taught us to be open-minded. Before the answer is available, we should concentrate on the
science problems that can be defined. Some of those have been identified in this review.
Review #13
The charges to the review panel were to:
1) Evaluate the experimental evidence presented for the occurrences of nuclear reactions in condensed
matter at low energies (less than a few electron volts)
27
2) Determine whether the evidence is sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that such nuclear reactions
occur.
3) Determine whether there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies and, if so, to identify
the most promising areas to be pursued.
I have considered the documents and the mail reviews provided to the panel before its meeting
on August 23-24, the presentations that were made to the panel on August 23, the discussions among
panelists on August 23 and 24 and the documents and responses to questions that were provided
subsequent to the meeting. (Jim Horwitz is to be commended for the extremely effective way in which he
handled all of the documentation and the queries to cold fusion proponents and their responses.)
I came to the panel meeting with a high degree of skepticism about the “cold fusion” claims and
the radical changes in thinking about nuclear physics that they demand. I still retain some of that
skepticism after considering the evidence. However, particularly because of what seem to me to be very
careful experiments carried out by McKubre and his associates at SRI, I conclude that the answers to
charges 1) and 2) above are yes – there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that very low energy
nuclear reactions can occur in condensed matter at rates that are totally unexpected
It is disappointing that McKubre has not been able to do an integral of the total power in and out
from the beginning of an experiment to show that there is a net out. However, the difference of out-power
minus in-power integrated over a period of hours at least in a few clearly presented cases seems to
greatly exceed the energy that could be stored as chemical energy in the cell. There also seems to be
reasonably convincing evidence for He production.
The irreproducibility of the evidence for excess heat generation and He production in different
batches of Pd expected to be the same, or in different experimental runs on the same material and the
non-predictability of the conditions under which or precise timing at which they will be observed is very
disconcerting for a scientific claim. The proponents’ assertion that there is reproducibility if 50% (or maybe
even less) of experimental attempts indicate at least some excess heat, never mind how much or when it
occurs is frustrating to the objective scientist and has some of the characteristics of “pathological
science”. The lack of understanding of what is happening in the material that makes the results so
unpredictable – even after 15 years of effort – is very unsatisfying. McKubre et al have succeeded in
parameterizing “necessary” (but not “sufficient”) conditions for improved predictability of “success” (for
some batches of material) in their high current density electrochemical cells. However, some cells don’t
work, and cells which do work are quite noisy in their power production, and they “stop working” for no as
yet controllable reason. Then there are the gas loading experiments that require no electrochemistry but
do require thermal gradients to get “positive” results. The common thread shared by these two very
different kinds of experiments is elusive.
In spite of the lack of reproducibility and predictability, positive observations have been made a
number of times and by several different groups under what seem to be credible experimental conditions.
I conclude there must be something of nuclear origin going on. It defies both the expectation for the d,d
fusion rate and its branching ratio and that is a lot of defiance!
In response to charge 3), yes, I think it is important to get to the bottom of the science that is going
on, not with some massive attack on it, but in considered support of well conceived proposals submitted
to address the scientific issues. In the current state of the field, finding nothing in a given experiment
teaches us nothing whether it is in a search for charged particles, neutrons, gamma rays, He, or T. The
only normalizing measurement seems to be heat generation. Although electrochemical cells are in my
opinion the most convincing evidence that something strange is going on, and although they have been
developed to demonstrate heat generation with great care they exclude the important material
experimental variable of temperature. I do not believe they are the way to get to the bottom of the
science.
Because of the “noisiness” and the unpredictability of heat generation in electrochemical cells it
seems to me the central scientific issue must not be in the coupling of d’s to Pd in a normal lattice but
someway to the defect structure of the solid which is doubtless extremely dynamic under conditions of
high d loading (electrochemically or from the gas phase). I think it’s time to look at the properties of the
material under conditions of high d loading while measuring heat generation and doing this combination
28
as a function of temperature. This sounds like a tall order, but maybe with x-ray scattering the dynamic
features of the material can be examined while (and if) heat is being generated. Without the
measurement of heat generation I don’t think any experiment is going to be convincing. How do you know
anything - of low energy nuclear reaction interest such as cold fusion – is going on? It may be feasible to
look for charged particles in combination with heat generation, an additional test of the conclusion based
on existing data that the nuclear branching ratio is completely different than it is known to be in d,d fusion
at all higher energies. But once again, the heat generation has to be measured at the same time. If and/or
when the reproducibility of heat generation is 100%, such simultaneous measurements will not be
required, but that condition doesn’t seem likely to happen soon.

Greenview Helps Clarify the Controversy Over Cold Fusion
  Experts provide practical perspective to a new and challenging scientific field.

Palo Alto, CA (PRWEB via PR Web Direct) December 7, 2004 -- Cold Fusion is bubbling again, but it is difficult to know what to believe in the debate between scientists and critics. The Greenview Group can help cut through this confusion, with expert advice for scientific, industrial, and media organizations seeking to better understand the field.

Why the renewed controversy? The Department of Energy recently announced a new review of Cold Fusion research—a move that caught many by surprise. The public is discovering that, contrary to popular belief, Cold Fusion did not disappear 15 years ago, but went underground in labs all over the world. Hundreds of scientific papers are now coming to light, based on government-sponsored work in France, Italy, Japan, and China, and intense but low-profile work in the United States. If finally developed, the economic implications could be enormous.

However, there are problems. Like any science so revolutionary and so contrary to the status quo, the Cold Fusion field is fragmented. Quality of work is uneven and results are sometimes contradictory. This presents a dilemma for organizations that need to understand the implications of the field, but don’t know where to begin.

The Greenview Group can help. Greenview team members have been closely involved at every level of Cold Fusion research, yet have extensive careers in science and technology that provide a balanced perspective. What is real and what is not? Where are breakthroughs most likely? How could this impact your existing business and existing programs? Greenview’s mission is to answer these questions.

Representatives of scientific and industrial organizations are welcome to visit the Greenview website at www.greenviewgroup.com or email directly at e-mail protected from spam bots. Members of the press may also contact e-mail protected from spam bots

Contact:
Tom Benson
Media Relations
The Greenview Group
(818) 332-3305
 

You're correct. If energy is released, the system must increase in temperature.

The term "Cold Fusion" was chosen to differentiate it from "Hot Fusion," more or less conventional thermonuclear fusion in which a material is thermally excited until kinetic energy alone is able to slam the particles together hard enough to cause them to fuse.. The tempurature at which this occurs varies with many conditions but thermonuclear fusion typically happens at millions to hundreds of millions of degrees.

"Cold Fusion" phenomena occurs at relatively low temperatures--much more conventional temperatures of solid palladium lattices (35 degrees Celsius) to several tens of thousands of degrees (in an arc discharge.) These experiments are typically very difficult to evaluate because 'anomolous heat' is terribly difficult to quantify.

Even though many claims persist, no one has yet demonstrated a 'Cold Fusion" device that could produce significant power. The evidence for this I submit is the relative absence of victims of neutron and X-radiation exposure which would surely occur if 'test tube' cold fusion reactors produced anything more than 100W of fusion power. Commercial neutron generators that are capable of producing biologically harmful fluxes of neutrons typically produce no more than a few microwatts of fusion power. A 100W reactor should prove to be quite harmful to those exposed in the immediate vacinity. A kilowatt or megawatt reactor would almost instantly kill anyone nearby from the radiations that would surely be emitted. The fact that no one has been killed at these "Cold Fusion" demonstrations is a pretty good indicator that any fusion power produced is probably very low order...perhaps in the nanowatt or picowatt range.

The Big Science Chill

By Sonia Arrison
TechNewsWorld
01/07/05 5:00 AM PT

When smart people in California's tech mecca fail, they pick up the pieces and the community pats them on the back for taking a risk in the name of progress. Some entrepreneurs even take a different stab at the same idea with the hope that they'll be able to do it better. So why does the pure science community play by different rules?


Win a plasma TV! Pending project for: Intrusion detection/prevention, Vulnerability assessment, or Endpoint security compliance. Complete our brief 5-question survey now! One in 300 respondents will win a 42" Plasma TV!

Many people think of scientific disciplines, such as chemistry or physics, as purely fact-based endeavors, not concerned with the fuzzy field of politics. That's rarely the case because when humans are involved, things often get messy.

A perfect example is the question of cold fusion. Back in 1989, scientists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced they had discovered cold fusion, or nuclear energy that could be released at room temperature and would produce clean, cheap energy. A media frenzy followed, but excitement over the announcement quickly dissipated when others had trouble replicating their results.

Whether or not cold fusion will eventually work on a consistent basis is still up in the air. But the political fallout from the Pons and Fleischmann announcement was so bad that it almost completely wiped out research in an extremely important field. Because of this announcement, and the subsequent failure to reproduce results, cold-fusion research became stigmatized and regarded by many scientists as a hoax.
What Happened to Persistence?

In 1999, Time magazine called cold fusion one of the 100 worst ideas of the century, and others ridiculed it as nothing more than an "Elvis sighting." But not everyone agrees. Scientists such as SRI International's Michael McKubre and Peter Hagelstein, who designed the X-ray laser that was to be a part of President Reagan's "Star Wars" anti-ballistic missile system, are betting cold fusion can work. And governments around the world are putting money into research.

Given that there are smart, competent people on both sides of the debate, one might wonder what happened to the American attitude of accepting past failures and trying to build on them. In this respect, the scientific community could learn a lot from Silicon Valley.

When smart, well-regarded people in California's tech mecca fail, they pick up the pieces and the community pats them on the back for taking a risk in the name of progress. Heck, some entrepreneurs even take a different stab at the same idea with the hope that they'll be able to do it better. So why does the pure science community play by different rules?
Slaves to Data

Perhaps it's because there's a public perception that scientifically derived data cannot be subject to interpretation, and that skews behavior. Or, as some researchers have suggested, maybe it's because the scientific community acts under a paternalistic type of data-releasing regime that says results should not be announced to the impressionable public until they are sanctioned by the top dogs of the group.

This scientific McCarthyism has a chilling effect on research and could be holding America back from major scientific breakthroughs. If we could figure out cold fusion, we'd have a clean, cheap energy source that would last for an incredibly long time. And that would mean less reliance on oil exporting countries, as well as a cleaner environment and a better standard of living. So even if some experts say it's a long shot, isn't it worth working towards?

Yet the U.S. Department of Energy continues to tiptoe around the issue, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refuses to grant a patent on any invention claiming cold fusion. That's almost a categorical denial of any research money for this important field. Further, getting an article on cold fusion published in any scientific journal is almost impossible. The scientific community is starting to look pretty regressive and reactionary.
Saving Good Ideas

"We have always been open to proposals that have scientific merit as determined by peer review," said the Energy Department's James Decker. But what happens when the peers in question might lose their hot fission research money if cold fusion were possible? Or consider the comments of an embittered Fleischmann to a Wired reporter in 1998: "What you have to ask yourself is who wants this discovery? Do you imagine the seven sisters [the world's top oil companies] want it? ... And do you really think that the Department of Defense wants electrochemists producing nuclear reactions in test tubes?"

The answer is that Americans want a clean, cheap and abundant energy source if they can get it. And they certainly don't want some other country, potentially one with terrorists, to figure it out first.

Bureaucracy in both the private and public sectors can kill good ideas. America needs a return to the days when renaissance men and women populated the field of scientific discovery. If the cold fusion issue is indicative of where scientific inquiry is today, creativity and thinking outside the bureaucratic box appear to be sorely needed. Our world depends on it
"What you have to ask yourself is who wants this discovery? USA
Do you imagine the seven sisters [the world's top oil companies] want it? yes
And do you really think that the Department of Defense wants electrochemists producing nuclear reactions in test tubes?" hell or yes

Thanks, Jaro.

However, if something really different is occuring, something really exotic (which is a remote possibility) then perhaps a few watts of fusion could occur without the emission of energetic radiation. However, this would require a fundamentally new physics for understanding how efficient energy couplings could exist that do not allow for the production of 'conventional' fusion-type radiations. The probability of processes involving 'undiscovered' physics is small--but not vanishingly small. And this is why rumors of cold fusion persist. Something interesting is perhaps going on--but as yet, no significant (economical or commercial) energy production is occuring.

This is in contrast to Dr. Enrico Fermi's "Atomic Pile" reactor at the University of Chicago (1942?) that at first produced only a few watts of fission energy, but progressed to several kilowatts (as I recall) when Fermi was doing his chain reaction experiments. This first nuclear reactor was never really intended to produce power but it did require some cooling air to flow through it as it did warm up slightly. It produced small--but easily measurable power. Thermocouples throughout the device detected temperature rises coincident with the nuclear reactions that were occuring.
Later breeder reactors as Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Hanford, Washington, produced significant power levels when breeding plutonium for the first atomic bombs. These reactors actually produced signifcant power which was partially used to run the rest of the plants. It wasn't until almost 10 years later before the first experimental commerically operating nuclear power plants were established.