Cold fusion refers to nuclear fusion In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, nuclear fusion is the process by which multiple atomic nuclei join together to form a single heavier nucleus. It is accompanied by the release or absorption of energy. Large scale fusion processes, involving many atoms fusing at once, must occur in matter which is at very high densities of atoms at conditions close to room temperature, in contrast to the conditions of well-understood fusion reactions such as those inside stars and high energy experiments. Interest in the field increased dramatically after nuclear fusion was reported in a tabletop experiment involving electrolysis In chemistry and manufacturing, electrolysis is a method of using an electric current to drive an otherwise non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Electrolysis is commercially highly important as a stage in the separation of elements from naturally occurring sources such as ores using an electrolytic cell of heavy water Heavy water is water containing a higher-than-normal proportion of the hydrogen isotope deuterium, either as deuterium oxide, D2O or ²H2O, or as deuterium protium oxide, HDO or ¹H²HO. Physically and chemically, it resembles water, H2O; in water, the deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio is about 156ppm, . Heavy water is water that was highly enriched in on a palladium Palladium is a chemical element with the chemical symbol Pd and an atomic number of 46. Palladium is a rare and lustrous silvery-white metal that was discovered in 1803 by William Hyde Wollaston, who named it after the asteroid Pallas, which was named after the epithet of the Greek goddess Athena, acquired by her when she slew Pallas (Pd) electrode[1] by Martin Fleischmann Martin Fleischmann is a British chemist noted for his work in electrochemistry. He came to wider public prominence following his controversial publication of work with colleague Stanley Pons on cold fusion using palladium in the 1980s and '90s, then one of the world's leading electro-chemists Electrochemistry is a branch of chemistry that studies chemical reactions which take place in a solution at the interface of an electron conductor and an ionic conductor (the electrolyte), and which involve electron transfer between the electrode and the electrolyte or species in solution,[2] and Stanley Pons Stanley Pons is a French electrochemist known for his work with Martin Fleischmann on cold fusion in the 1980s and '90s in 1989. They reported anomalous heat production ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons The neutron is a subatomic particle with no net electric charge and a mass slightly larger than that of a proton. They are usually found in atomic nuclei. The nuclei of most atoms consist of protons and neutrons, which are therefore collectively referred to as nucleons. The number of protons in a nucleus is the atomic number and defines the type and tritium Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. The nucleus of tritium (sometimes called a triton) contains one proton and two neutrons, whereas the nucleus of protium (the most abundant hydrogen isotope) contains one proton and no neutrons. Naturally occurring tritium is extremely rare on Earth. The isotope name is formed from the Greek ".[3] These reports raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.[4]

Enthusiasm turned to skepticism as replication failures were weighed in view of several reasons cold fusion is not likely to occur, the discovery of possible sources of experimental error, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science Pathological science is the process in science in which "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions". The term was first used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory. Langmuir said a pathological science is.[7] However, some researchers continue to investigate cold fusion,[6][8][9][10] and some have reported positive results at mainstream conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.[11][12] Cold fusion research sometimes is referred to as low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) studies or condensed matter nuclear science,[13] in order to avoid negative connotations.[14][15]

In 1989, the majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy The United States Department of Energy is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government concerned with the United States' policies regarding energy and safety in handling nuclear material. Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive. There have been few mainstream reviews of the field since 1990. A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first.[16]

Contents

Prior use of the term

The term "cold fusion" was used as early as 1956 in a New York Times article about Luis W. Alvarez Luis W. Alvarez was an American experimental physicist and inventor, who spent nearly all of his long professional career on the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley. The American Journal of Physics commented, "Luis Alvarez (1911–1988) was one of the most brilliant and productive experimental physicists of the twentieth century' work on muon-catalyzed fusion.[17]

E. Paul Palmer of Brigham Young University Brigham Young University , located in Provo, Utah, United States, is a private, coeducational research university owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon Church). It is the oldest existing institution within the LDS Church Educational System, is America's largest religious university, and has the second-largest also used the term "cold fusion" in 1986 in an investigation of "geo-fusion", the possible existence of fusion in a planetary core It is thought that some gas giants orbiting very close to their primaries may have their atmospheres stripped away, leaving only their core behind. This as-yet hypothetical class of planets are called "Chthonian.".[18]

History

Before the Fleischmann-Pons experiment

The ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized as early as the nineteenth century by Thomas Graham Thomas Graham FRS was a nineteenth-century Scottish chemist who is best-remembered today for his pioneering work in dialysis and the diffusion of gases.[19] In the late 1920s, two Austrian born scientists, Friedrich Paneth Friedrich Adolf Paneth was an Austrian-born British chemist. Fleeing the Nazis, he escaped to Britain and became a British citizen in 1939 but returned as director of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in 1953 and Kurt Peters, originally reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen was absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. However, the authors later retracted that report, acknowledging that the helium they measured was due to background from the air.[19][20]

In 1927, Swedish scientist J. Tandberg stated that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an electrolytic cell An electrolytic cell decomposes chemical compounds by means of electrical energy, in a process called electrolysis; the Greek word lysis means to break up. The result is that the chemical energy is increased. Important examples of electrolysis are the decomposition of water into hydrogen and hydroxide, and bauxite into aluminium and other with palladium electrodes.[19] On the basis of his work, he applied for a Swedish patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy". After deuterium Deuterium, also called heavy hydrogen, is a stable isotope of hydrogen with a natural abundance in the oceans of Earth of approximately one atom in 6,500 of hydrogen . Deuterium thus accounts for approximately 0.0154% (alternately, on a mass basis: 0.0308%) of all naturally occurring hydrogen in the oceans on Earth (see VSMOW; the abundance was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with heavy water Heavy water is water containing a higher-than-normal proportion of the hydrogen isotope deuterium, either as deuterium oxide, D2O or ²H2O, or as deuterium protium oxide, HDO or ¹H²HO. Physically and chemically, it resembles water, H2O; in water, the deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio is about 156ppm, . Heavy water is water that was highly enriched in. Due to Paneth and Peters' retraction, Tandberg's patent application was eventually denied.[19]

Fleischmann-Pons experiment

Events preceding announcement

Electrolysis cell schematic

Martin Fleischmann Martin Fleischmann is a British chemist noted for his work in electrochemistry. He came to wider public prominence following his controversial publication of work with colleague Stanley Pons on cold fusion using palladium in the 1980s and '90s of the University of Southampton The University of Southampton is a British public university located in the city of Southampton, England. The origins of the university can be dated back to the founding of the Hartley Institution in 1862 by Henry Robertson Hartley. In 1902 the Institution developed into the Hartley University College, with degrees awarded by the University of and Stanley Pons Stanley Pons is a French electrochemist known for his work with Martin Fleischmann on cold fusion in the 1980s and '90s of the University of Utah The University of Utah, also known as the U or the U of U, is a public, coeducational research university in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States. The university was established in 1850 as the University of Deseret by the General Assembly of the provisional State of Deseret, making it Utah's oldest institution of higher education. It received its hypothesized that the high compression ratio and mobility of deuterium that could be achieved within palladium metal using electrolysis might result in nuclear fusion.[21] To investigate, they conducted electrolysis experiments using a palladium cathode and heavy water within a calorimeter, an insulated vessel designed to measure process heat. Current was applied continuously for many weeks, with the heavy water Heavy water is water containing a higher-than-normal proportion of the hydrogen isotope deuterium, either as deuterium oxide, D2O or ²H2O, or as deuterium protium oxide, HDO or ¹H²HO. Physically and chemically, it resembles water, H2O; in water, the deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio is about 156ppm, . Heavy water is water that was highly enriched in being renewed at intervals.[21] Some deuterium was thought to be accumulating within the cathode, but most was allowed to bubble out of the cell, joining oxygen produced at the anode.[22] For most of the time, the power input to the cell was equal to the calculated power leaving the cell within measurement accuracy, and the cell temperature was stable at around 30 °C. But then, at some point (in some of the experiments), the temperature rose suddenly to about 50 °C without changes in the input power. These high temperature phases would last for two days or more and would repeat several times in any given experiment once they had occurred. The calculated power leaving the cell was significantly higher than the input power during these high temperature phases. Eventually the high temperature phases would no longer occur within a particular cell.[22]

In 1988, Fleischmann and Pons applied to the United States Department of Energy The United States Department of Energy is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government concerned with the United States' policies regarding energy and safety in handling nuclear material. Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, for funding towards a larger series of experiments. Up to this point they had been funding their experiments using a small device built with $100,000 out-of-pocket In operating a vehicle, gasoline, parking fees and tolls are considered out-of-pocket expenses for the trip. Insurance, oil changes, and interest are not, because the outlay of cash covers expenses accrued over a longer period of time.[23] The grant proposal was turned over for peer review Peer review is a generic term that is used to describe a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals with the related field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance, and provide credibility, and one of the reviewers was Steven E. Jones Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. For most of his career, Jones was known mainly for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion. In the fall of 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center, he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University. On October 20, 2006, of Brigham Young University Brigham Young University , located in Provo, Utah, United States, is a private, coeducational research university owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon Church). It is the oldest existing institution within the LDS Church Educational System, is America's largest religious university, and has the second-largest.[23] Jones had worked for some time on muon-catalyzed fusion, a known method of inducing nuclear fusion without high temperatures, and had written an article on the topic entitled "Cold nuclear fusion" that had been published in Scientific American Scientific American was founded by inventor and publisher Rufus M. Porter in 1845 as a single-page newsletter. Throughout its early years much emphasis was placed on reports of what was going on at the U.S. Patent Office. It also reported on a broad range of inventions including perpetual motion machines, an 1849 device for buoying vessels by in July 1987. Fleischmann and Pons and co-workers met with Jones and co-workers on occasion in Utah Utah is one of the most religiously homogeneous states in the Union. Between 41% and 60% of Utahns are reported to be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , which greatly influences Utah culture and daily life to share research and techniques. During this time, Fleischmann and Pons described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", in the sense that it could not be explained by chemical reactions A chemical reaction is a process that leads to the transformation of one set of chemical substances to another. Chemical reactions can be either spontaneous, requiring no input of energy, or non-spontaneous, often coming about only after the input of some type of energy, viz. heat, light or electricity. Classically, chemical reactions encompass alone.[22] They felt that such a discovery could bear significant commercial value and would be entitled to patent protection A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state (national government) to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of an invention. Jones, however, was measuring neutron flux, which was not of commercial interest.[23] In order to avoid problems in the future, the teams appeared to agree to simultaneously publish their results, although their accounts of their March 6 meeting differ.[24]

Announcement

In mid-March 1989, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on March 24 to send their papers to Nature Nature is a prominent British scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869. It is the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal. Most scientific journals are now highly specialized, and Nature is among the few journals that still publish original research articles across a wide range of scientific fields. There are many via FedEx FedEx Corporation , originally known as FDX Corporation, is a logistics services company, based in the United States with headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee. The name "FedEx" is a syllabic abbreviation of the name of the company's original air division, Federal Express, which was used from 1973 until 2000.[24] Fleischmann and Pons, however, pressured by the University of Utah which wanted to establish priority on the discovery,[25] broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on March 11, and disclosing their work via a press conference on March 23.[23] Jones, upset, faxed in his paper to Nature Nature is a prominent British scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869. It is the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal. Most scientific journals are now highly specialized, and Nature is among the few journals that still publish original research articles across a wide range of scientific fields. There are many after the press conference.[24]

Fleischmann and Pons' announcement drew wide media attention.[26] The 1986 discovery of high-temperature superconductivity High-temperature superconductors are materials that have a superconducting transition temperature (Tc) above 30 K, which was thought (1960-1980) to be the highest theoretically allowed Tc. The first high-Tc superconductor was discovered in 1986 by Karl Müller and Johannes Bednorz, for which they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1987 had caused the scientific community to be more open to revelations of unexpected scientific results that could have huge economic repercussions and that could be replicated reliably even if they had not been predicted by current theory.[27] Cold fusion was proposing the counter-intuitive idea that a nuclear reaction could be caused to occur inside a crystal structure, and many scientists immediately thought of the Mössbauer effect The Mössbauer effect , is a physical phenomenon discovered by Rudolf Mößbauer in 1957, and refers to the resonant and recoil-free emission and absorption of gamma ray photons by atoms bound in a solid form. It can be applied into the measurement of frequency with very high accuracy, typically 10-12Hz, since it was an example of this happening, and its discovery 30 years earlier had also been unexpected and it had been quickly replicated and explained within the existing physics framework.[28]

Attempts at replication in 1989

Scores of laboratories in the United States and abroad attempted to repeat the experiments. A few initially reported success, but most failed to validate the results; Nathan Lewis, professor of Chemistry at the California Institute of Technology The California Institute of Technology is a private research university located in Pasadena, California, United States. The Institute maintains a strong emphasis on the natural sciences and engineering, and operates and manages NASA's neighboring Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Caltech is a small school, with only about 2100 students (about 900, led one of the most ambitious validation efforts, trying many variations on the experiment without success, while CERN The European Organization for Nuclear Research , known as CERN (see History), pronounced /ˈsɜrn/ (French pronunciation: [sɛʁn]), is the world's largest particle physics laboratory, situated in the northwest suburbs of Geneva on the Franco–Swiss border (46°14′3″N 6°3′19″E / 46.23417°N 6.05528°E), established in 1954. The physicist Douglas R. O. Morrison said that "essentially all" attempts in Western Europe had failed.[29] Even those reporting success had difficulty reproducing Fleischmann and Pons' results.[30] One of the more prominent reports of success came from a group at the Georgia Institute of Technology The Georgia Institute of Technology is a public, coeducational research university in Atlanta, Georgia, in the United States. It is a part of the University System of Georgia and has satellite campuses in Savannah, Georgia; Metz, France; Athlone, Ireland; Shanghai, China; and Singapore, which observed neutron production.[31] The Georgia Tech group later retracted their announcement.[32] Another team, headed by Robert Huggins at Stanford University The Leland Stanford Junior University, commonly referred to as Stanford University or Stanford, is a private research university located in Stanford, California, United States. The university was founded in 1891 by the Californian railroad tycoon Leland Stanford and named for his recently deceased son. Its alumni have founded the companies Hewlett- also reported early success,[33] but it was called into question by a colleague who reviewed his work.[6] For weeks, competing claims, counterclaims and suggested explanations kept what was referred to as "cold fusion" or "fusion confusion" in the news.[34]

Mistake admitted by Fleischmann and Pons

In April 1989, Fleischmann and Pons published a "preliminary note" in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry.[21] This paper notably showed a gamma peak without its corresponding Compton edge, which indicated they had made a mistake in claiming evidence of fusion byproducts.[35][36] The preliminary note was followed up a year later with a much longer paper that went into details of calorimetry but did not include any nuclear measurements.[22]

Nevertheless, Fleischmann and Pons and a number of other researchers who found positive results remained convinced of their findings.[29] In August 1989, the state of Utah Utah is one of the most religiously homogeneous states in the Union. Between 41% and 60% of Utahns are reported to be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , which greatly influences Utah culture and daily life invested $4.5 million to create the National Cold Fusion Institute.[37]

In the ensuing years, several books came out critical of cold fusion research methods and the conduct of cold fusion researchers.[38]

Critical responses

"Triple tracks" in a CR-39 CR-39, or allyl diglycol carbonate , is a plastic polymer commonly used in the manufacture of eyeglass lenses. The abbreviation stands for “Columbia Resin #39,” because it was the 39th formula of a thermosetting plastic developed by the Columbia Resins project in 1940 plastic radiation detector claimed as evidence for neutron emission from palladium deuteride, suggestive of a deuterium-tritium reaction

The extraordinary nature of cold fusion claims[39] together with theoretical issues have caused the scientific community The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into "sub-communities" each working on a particular field within science. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, to come to a general skeptical conclusion Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism , sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term is most commonly applied to the examination of claims and theories which appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather with regards to the subject.[40] New experimental claims are routinely dismissed or ignored by the community.[41]

Response by the American Physical Society

In May 1989, the American Physical Society The American Physical Society is the world's second largest organization of physicists, behind the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft. The Society publishes more than a dozen scientific journals, including the world renowned Physical Review and Physical Review Letters, and organizes more than twenty science meetings each year. It is also a member held a session on cold fusion, at which were heard many reports of experiments that failed to produce evidence of cold fusion. At the end of the session, eight of the nine leading speakers stated they considered the initial Fleischmann and Pons claim dead with the ninth abstaining.[29] In July and November 1989, Nature published papers critical of cold fusion claims.[42][43] Negative results were also published in several scientific journals In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research. There are thousands of scientific journals in publication, and many more have been published at various points in the past . Most journals are highly specialized, although some of the oldest including Science Science is the academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and is considered one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals. The peer-reviewed journal, first published in 1880 is circulated weekly and has a print subscriber base of around 130,000. Because institutional subscriptions and online access serve, Physical Review Letters Physical Review Letters is one of the most prestigious journals in physics. Since 1958, it has been published by the American Physical Society as an outgrowth of Physical Review, and Physical Review C (nuclear physics).[notes 1]

Response by the Department of Energy

The United States Department of Energy organized a special panel to review cold fusion theory and research.[44]:39 The panel issued its report in November 1989, concluding that results as of that date did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from phenomena attributed to cold fusion.[44]:36 The panel noted the inconsistency of reports of excess heat and the greater inconsistency of reports of nuclear reaction byproducts. Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and, if verified, would require theory to be extended in an unexpected way. The panel was against special funding for cold fusion research, but supported modest funding of "focused experiments within the general funding system."[44]:37

List of supporting researchers

In September 1990, Fritz Will, Director of the National Cold Fusion Institute, compiled a list of 92 groups of researchers from 10 different countries that had reported excess heat, 3H, 4He, neutrons or other nuclear effects,[45] and cold fusion reports have been published over the years in Naturwissenschaften, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, and Journal of Fusion Energy.[46]

The Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger, in a shock to most physicists, declared himself a supporter of cold fusion after much of the response to the initial reports had turned negative. He tried to publish theoretical papers supporting the possibility of cold fusion in Physical Review Letters, was deeply insulted by their rejection, and resigned from the American Physical Society (publisher of Letters) in protest.[47]

Further studies

Laboratory relocation

Fleischmann and Pons themselves relocated their laboratory to France under a grant from the Toyota Motor Corporation. The laboratory, IMRA, was closed in 1998 after spending £12 million on cold fusion work.[48] Between 1992 and 1997, Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry sponsored a "New Hydrogen Energy Program" of US$20 million to research cold fusion. Announcing the end of the program in 1997, the director and one-time proponent of cold fusion research Hideo Ikegami[49] stated "We couldn't achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion." He added, "We can't find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future."[50] Also in the 1990s, India stopped its research in cold fusion because of the lack of consensus among mainstream scientists and the US denunciation of it.[51]

Naval studies

In February 2002, the U.S. Navy revealed that researchers at their Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California had been quietly studying cold fusion continually since 1989 by releasing a two-volume report, entitled "Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system," with a plea for proper funding.[52][53] Responding to this and similar requests from other cold fusion researchers, the DOE organized a second review of the field in 2004. Cold fusion researchers were asked to present a review document of all the evidence since the 1989 review. The report summarized its conclusions thus:

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review. The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

– Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, US Department of Energy, December 2004

The mainstream and popular scientific press presented this as a setback for cold fusion researchers, with headlines such as "cold fusion gets chilly encore", but cold fusion researchers placed a "rosier spin"[54] on the report, noting that it also recommended specific areas where research could resolve the controversies in the field.[55] In 2005, Physics Today reported that new reports of excess heat and other cold fusion effects were still no more convincing than 15 years previous.[56]

Research in India

A 2008 demonstration in Bangalore by Japanese researcher Yoshiaki Arata[57] revived some interest for cold fusion research in India. Projects have commenced at several centers such as the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and the National Institute of Advanced Studies has also recommended the Indian government to revive this research.[51]

Publications and conferences

In the 1990s, these groups and their supporters established periodicals such as Fusion Facts, Cold Fusion Magazine, Infinite Energy Magazine, and New Energy Times to cover the developments in cold fusion and related fringe science topics that were being excluded from the mainstream journals and the scientific press. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990 and has been held every 12 to 18 months in various countries around the world since then.

With the founding in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science — an example of the approach the cold fusion community has adopted in avoiding cold fusion as a term due to its negative connotations.[15] Cold fusion research is often referenced today under the name of "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR,[14] but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.[15]

Thirteen papers were presented at the "Cold Fusion" session of the March 2006 American Physical Society (APS) meeting in Baltimore.[58][59] In 2007, the American Chemical Society's (ACS) held an "invited symposium" on cold fusion and low-energy nuclear reactions while explaining that this does not show a softening of skepticism.[60] An ACS program chair said that "with the world facing an energy crisis, it is worth exploring all possibilities."[59]

On 22–25 March 2009, the American Chemical Society held a four-day symposium on "New Energy Technology", in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion. At the conference, researchers with the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons in a standard cold fusion cell design[61] using CR-39,[11] a result previously published in Die Naturwissenschaften.[62] The authors claim that these neutrons are indicative of nuclear reactions,[63] although skeptics indicated that a quantitative analysis would be necessary before the results are accepted by the scientific community, and that the neutrons could be caused by another nuclear mechanism than fusion.[62][64]

Experiments

Typical setup

A cold fusion experiment usually includes:

Electrolysis cells can be either open cell or closed cell. In open cell systems, the electrolysis products, which are gaseous, are allowed to leave the cell. In closed cell experiments, the products are captured, for example by catalytically recombining the products in a separate part of the experimental system. These experiments generally strive for a steady state condition, with the electrolyte being replaced periodically. There are also "heat after death" experiments, where the evolution of heat is monitored after the electric current is turned off.

The most basic setup of a cold fusion cell consists of two electrodes submerged in a solution of palladium and heavy water. The electrodes are then connected to a power source to transmit electricity from one electrode to the other through the solution.[61] Even when anomalous heat is reported, it can take weeks for it to begin to appear - this is known as the "loading time."

The Fleischmann and Pons early findings regarding helium, neutron radiation and tritium were later discredited.[66][67] However, neutron radiation has been reported in cold fusion experiments at very low levels using different kinds of detectors, but levels were too low, close to background, and found too infrequently to provide useful information about possible nuclear processes.[68][69]

Complaints about lack of funding

Cold fusion researchers have complained there has been virtually no possibility of obtaining funding for cold fusion research in the United States, and no possibility of getting published.[70] University researchers, it has been claimed, are unwilling to investigate cold fusion because they would be ridiculed by their colleagues.[71] In 1994, David Goodstein described cold fusion as "a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between cold fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here."[28]

Particle physicist Frank Close has gone even further, stating that the problems that plagued the original cold fusion announcement are still happening: results from studies are still not being independently verified and inexplicable phenomena encountered are being labeled as "cold fusion" even if they are not to attract the attention of journalists.[14]

Cold fusion researchers themselves acknowledge that the flaws in the original announcement still cause their field to be marginalized and to suffer a chronic lack of funding,[14] but a small number of old and new researchers have remained interested in investigating cold fusion.[72][10][15]

Reported phenomenon

Excess heat

An excess heat observation is based on an energy balance. Various sources of energy input and output are continuously measured. Under normal condition, the energy input can be matched to the energy output to within experimental error. In experiments such as those run by Fleischmann and Pons, a cell operating steadily at one temperature transitions to operating at a higher temperature with no increase in applied current.[22] In other experiments, however, no excess heat was discovered, and, in fact, even the heat from successful experiments was unreliable and could not be replicated independently.[73] If higher temperatures were real, and not experimental artifact, the energy balance would show an unaccounted term. In the Fleischmann and Pons experiments, the rate of inferred excess heat generation was in the range of 10-20% of total input. The high temperature condition would last for an extended period, making the total excess heat appear to be disproportionate to what might be obtained by ordinary chemical reaction of the material contained within the cell at any one time, though this could not be reliably replicated.[55]:3[74] Many others have reported similar results.[75][76][77][78][79][80]

A 2007 review determined that more than 10 groups worldwide reported measurements of excess heat in 1/3 of their experiments using electrolysis of heavy water in open and/or closed electrochemical cells, or deuterium gas loading onto Pd powders under pressure. Most of the research groups reported occasionally seeing 50-200% excess heat for periods lasting hours or days.[74]

In 1993, Fleischmann reported "heat-after-death" experiments: he observed the continuing generation of excess heat after the electric current supplied to the electrolytic cell was turned off.[81] Similar observations have been reported by others as well.[82][83]

Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat

The calculation of excess heat in electrochemical cells involves certain assumptions.[84] Errors in these assumptions have been offered as non-nuclear explanations for excess heat.

One assumption made by Fleischmann and Pons is that the efficiency of electrolysis is nearly 100%, meaning nearly all the electricity applied to the cell resulted in electrolysis of water, with negligible resistive heating and substantially all the electrolysis product leaving the cell unchanged.[22] This assumption gives the amount of energy expended converting liquid D2O into gaseous D2 and O2.[85]

The efficiency of electrolysis will be less than one if hydrogen and oxygen recombine to a significant extent within the calorimeter. Several researchers have described potential mechanisms by which this process could occur and thereby account for excess heat in electrolysis experiments.[86][87][88]

Another assumption is that heat loss from the calorimeter maintains the same relationship with measured temperature as found when calibrating the calorimeter.[22] This assumption ceases to be accurate if the temperature distribution within the cell becomes significantly altered from the condition under which calibration measurements were made.[89] This can happen, for example, if fluid circulation within the cell becomes significantly altered.[90][91] Recombination of hydrogen and oxygen within the calorimeter would also alter the heat distribution and invalidate the calibration.[88][92][93]

Neutron radiation

Fleischmann and Pons reported a neutron flux of 4,000 neutrons per second, as well as tritium, while the classical branching ratio for previously known fusion reactions that produce tritium would predict, with 1 watt of power, the production of 1012 neutrons per second, levels that would have been fatal to the researchers.[94]

In 2009, Mosier-Boss et al. reported what they called the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons, using CR-39 plastic radiation detectors,[95][96] although some scientists say that the results will need a quantitative analysis in order to be accepted by the physics community.[62][64]

Helium-4

Considerable attention has been given to measuring 4He production.[12] In 1999 Schaffer says that the levels detected were very near to background levels, that there is the possibility of contamination by trace amounts of helium which are normally present in the air, and that the lack of detection of Gamma radiation led most of the scientific community to regard the presence of 4He as the result of experimental error.[73] In the report presented to the DOE in 2004, 4He was detected in five out of sixteen cases where electrolytic cells were producing excess heat.[55]:3,4 The reviewers' opinion was divided on the evidence for 4He; some points cited were that the amounts detected were above background levels but very close to them, that it could be caused by contamination from air, and there were serious concerns about the assumptions made in the theoretical framework that tried to account for the lack of gamma rays.[55]:3,4

Nuclear transmutations

In 1999 several heavy elements had been detected by other researchers, especially Tadahiko Mizuno in Japan, although the presence of these elements was so unexpected from the current understanding of these reactions that Schaffer said that it would require extraordinary evidence before the scientific community accepted it.[73] The report presented to the DOE in 2004 indicated that deuterium loaded foils could be used to detect fusion reaction products and, although the reviewers found the evidence presented to them as inconclusive, they indicated that those experiments didn't use state of the art techniques and it was a line of work that could give conclusive results on the matter.[55]:3,4,5

There have been reports that small amounts of copper and other metals can appear within Pd electrodes used in cold fusion experiments.[97] Iwamura et al. report transmuting Cs to Pr and Sr to Mo, with the mass number increasing by 8, and the atomic number by 4 in either case.[98] Cs or Sr was applied to the surface of a Pd complex consisting of a thin Pd layer, alternating CaO and Pd layers, and bulk Pd. Deuterium was diffused through this complex. The surface was analyzed periodically with X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and at the end of the experiment with glow discharge mass spectrometry.[98] Production of such heavy nuclei is unexpected from current understanding of nuclear reactions and would require extraordinary experimental proof to convince the scientific community of these results.[73]

Proposed explanations

Cold fusion researchers have described possible cold fusion mechanisms (e.g., electron shielding of the nuclear Coulomb barrier), but they have not received mainstream acceptance.[99] In 2002, Gregory Neil Derry described them as ad hoc explanations that didn't coherently explain the experimental results.[100]

Many groups trying to replicate Fleischmann and Pons' results have reported alternative explanations for their original positive results, like problems in the neutron detector in the case of Georgia Tech or bad wiring in the thermometers at Texas A&M.[101] These reports, combined with negative results from some famous laboratories,[102] led most scientists to conclude that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion, at least not on a significant scale.[103][104]

There are at least three reasons that fusion is an unlikely explanation for the experimental results described above.[105]

Probability of reaction

Because nuclei are all positively charged, they strongly repel one another.[30] Normally, in the absence of a catalyst such as a muon, very high kinetic energies are required to overcome this repulsion.[106] Extrapolating from known rates at high energies down to energies available in cold fusion experiments, the rate for uncatalyzed fusion at room-temperature energy would be 50 orders of magnitude lower than needed to account for the reported excess heat.[107][108]

Since the 1920s, it has been known that hydrogen and its isotopes can dissolve in certain solids at high densities so that their separation can be relatively small, and that electron charge inside metals can partially cancel the repulsion between nuclei. These facts suggest the possibility of higher cold fusion rates than those expected from a simple application of Coulomb's law. However, modern theoretical calculations show that the effects should be too small to cause significant fusion rates.[109] Supporters of cold fusion pointed to experiments where bombarding metals with deuteron beams seems to increase reaction rates, and suggested to the DOE commission in 2004 that electron screening could be one explanation for this enhanced reaction rate.[110][111]

Observed branching ratio

Deuteron fusion is a two-step process,[112] in which an unstable high energy intermediary is formed:

D + D → 4He* + 24 MeV

High energy experiments have observed only three decay pathways for this excited-state nucleus, with the branching ratio showing the probability that any given intermediate will follow a particular pathway.[113] The products formed via these decay pathways are:

n + 3He + 3.3 MeV (50%)
p + 3H + 4.0 MeV (50%)
4He + γ + 24 MeV (10−6)

Only about one in one million of the intermediaries decay along the third pathway, making its products comparatively rare when compared to the other paths.[73] If one watt of nuclear power were produced from deuteron fusion consistent with known branching ratios, the resulting neutron and tritium (3H) production would be easily measured.[73] Some researchers reported detecting 4He but without the expected neutron or tritium production; such a result would require branching ratios strongly favouring the third pathway, with the actual rates of the first two pathways lower by at least five orders of magnitude than observations from other experiments, directly contradicting mainstream-accepted branching probabilities.[114] Those reports of 4He production did not include detection of gamma rays, which would require the third pathway to have been changed somehow so that gamma rays are no longer emitted.[73]

Conversion of gamma rays to heat

The γ-rays of the 4He pathway are not observed.[73] It has been proposed that the 24 MeV excess energy is transferred in the form of heat into the host metal lattice prior to the intermediary's decay.[113] However, the speed of the decay process together with the inter-atomic spacing in a metallic crystal makes such a transfer inexplicable in terms of conventional understandings of momentum and energy transfer.[115]

Patents

Although the details have not surfaced, it appears that the University of Utah forced the 23 March 1989 Fleischmann and Pons announcement in order to establish priority over the discovery and its patents before the joint publication with Jones.[25] The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced on 12 April 1989 that it had applied for its own patents based on theoretical work of one of its researchers, Peter L. Hagelstein, who had been sending papers to journals from the 5th to the 12th of April.[116] On 2 December 1993 the University of Utah licensed all its cold fusion patents to ENECO, a new company created to profit from cold fusion discoveries.[117]

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion.[118] Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, said that this was done using the same argument as with perpetual motion machines: that they do not work.[118] Patent applications are required to show that the invention is "useful", and this utility is dependent on the invention's ability to function.[119] In general USPTO rejections on the sole grounds of the invention's being "inoperative" are rare, since such rejections need to demonstrate "proof of total incapacity",[119] and cases where those rejections are upheld in a Federal Court are even rarer: nevertheless, in 2000, a rejection of a cold fusion patent was appealed in a Federal Court and it was upheld, in part on the grounds that the inventor was unable to establish the utility of the invention.[119][notes 2]

Researchers in the US can still obtain grants and patents by giving a different name to the research in order to disassociate it from cold fusion,[120] although this strategy has had little success in the US: the very same claims that need to be patented can identify it with cold fusion, and most of these patents cannot avoid mentioning Fleischmann and Pons' research due to legal constraints, thus alerting the patent reviewer that it is a cold-fusion-related patent.[120] David Voss said in 1999 that some patents that closely resemble cold fusion processes, and that use materials used in cold fusion, have been granted by the USPTO.[121] The holder of three such patents says that his applications were initially rejected when they were reviewed by experts in nuclear science, but that he managed to have a second application reviewed instead by experts in electrochemistry, who approved them.[121] When asked about the resemblance to cold fusion, the patent holder said that it used nuclear processes involving "new nuclear physics" unrelated to cold fusion.[121] Melvin Miles was granted in 2004 a patent for a cold fusion device, and in 2007 he described his efforts to remove all instances of "cold fusion" from the patent description to avoid having it rejected outright.[122]

At least one patent related to cold fusion has been obtained in Europe.[123]

A patent only legally prevents others from using or benefiting from one's invention. However, the general public perceives a patent as a stamp of approval, and a holder of three cold fusion patents said the patents were very valuable and had helped in getting investments.[121]

ICCF (International Conference on Cold Fusion)

  1. ICCF-1 Salt Lake City, 1990
  2. ICCF-2 Como, Villa Olmo, 1991
  3. ICCF-3 Nagoya, 1992
  4. ICCF-4 Hawaii, 1993
  5. ICCF-5 Monte Carlo, 1995
  6. ICCF-6 Sapporo, 1996
  7. ICCF-7 Vancouver, 1998
  8. ICCF-8 Lerici, 2000
  9. ICCF-9 Beijing
  10. ICCF-10 Cambridge (USA), 2003
  11. ICCF-11 Marseille,[124] 2004
  12. ICCF-12 Yokohama,[125] 2005
  13. ICCF-13 Moscow,[126] 2007
  14. ICCF-14 Washington, D.C.,[127] 2008
  15. ICCF-15 Rome, 2009[128]
  16. ICCF-16 Chennai, India, 2011[129]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ E.g.:
    • Miskelly, GM; Heben MJ; Kumar A; Penner RM; Sailor MJ; Lewis NL (1989), "Analysis of the Published Calorimetric Evidence for Electrochemical Fusion of Deuterium in Palladium", Science 246 (4931): 793–796, doi:10.1126/science.246.4931.793, PMID 17748706
    • Aberdam, D; Avenier M; Bagieu G; Bouchez J; Cavaignac JF; Collot J et al. (1990), "Limits on neutron emission following deuterium absorption into palladium and titanium", Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (10): 1196–1199, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.1196
    • Price, PB; Barwick SW; Williams WT; Porter JD (1989), "Search for energetic-charged-particle emission from deuterated Ti and Pd foils", Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (18): 1926, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.1926
    • Roberts, DA; Becchetti FD; Ben-Jacob E; Garik P; Musser J; Orr B; Tarlé G et al. (1990), "Energy and flux limits of cold-fusion neutrons using a deuterated liquid scintillator", Phys Rev C 42 (5): R1809–R1812, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.42.R1809
  2. ^ Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703, (Fed. Cir. 2000). decision. Sources:

References

  1. ^ Voss 1999
  2. ^ "60 Minutes: Once Considered Junk Science, Cold Fusion Gets A Second Look By Researchers". CBS. 2009. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60minutes/main4952167.shtml.
  3. ^ Fleischmann & Pons 1989, p. 301 ("It is inconceivable that this [amount of heat] could be due to anything but nuclear processes... We realise that the results reported here raise more questions than they provide answers...")
  4. ^ Browne 1989, para. 1
  5. ^ Browne 1989, Close 1992, Huizenga 1993, Taubes 1993
  6. ^ a b c Malcolm W. Browne (3 May 1989). "Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion". The New York Times: pp. A1, A22. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE2D71539F930A35756C0A96F948260&pagewanted=all.
  7. ^ Chang, Kenneth (2004-03-25). "US will give cold fusion a second look". The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E0DC1530F936A15750C0A9629C8B63. Retrieved 2009-02-08.
  8. ^ Voss 1999, Platt 1998, Goodstein 1994, Van Noorden 2007, Beaudette 2002, Feder 2005, Hutchinson 2006, Kruglinksi 2006, Adam 2005
  9. ^ William J. Broad (31 October 1989). "Despite Scorn, Team in Utah Still Seeks Cold-Fusion Clues". The New York Times: pp. C1. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6DA1331F932A05753C1A96F948260&pagewanted=all.
  10. ^ a b Randy 2009
  11. ^ a b American Chemical Society. "'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source". Press release. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/acs-fr031709.php.
  12. ^ a b Hagelstein et al. 2004
  13. ^ Biberian 2007, Hagelstein et al. 2004
  14. ^ a b c d "Cold fusion debate heats up again", BBC, 2009-03-23, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7959183.stm
  15. ^ a b c d Simon 2002, p. 132-133
  16. ^ Choi 2005, Feder 2005, US DOE 2004
  17. ^ Laurence 1956
  18. ^ Kowalski 2004, II.A2
  19. ^ a b c d US DOE 1989, p. 7
  20. ^ Paneth and Peters 1926
  21. ^ a b c Fleischmann & Pons 1989, p. 301
  22. ^ a b c d e f g Fleischmann et al. 1990
  23. ^ a b c d Crease & Samios 1989, p. V1
  24. ^ a b c Lewenstein 1994, p. 8
  25. ^ a b Shamoo 2003, p. 86, Simon 2002, pp. 28–36
  26. ^ For example, in 1989, the Economist editorialized that the cold fusion "affair" was "exactly what science should be about." Footlick, JK (1997), Truth and Consequences: how colleges and universities meet public crises, Phoenix: Oryx Press, pp. 51, ISBN 9780897749701 as cited in Brooks, M (2008), 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, New York: Doubleday, pp. 67, ISBN 978-1-60751-666-8
  27. ^ Simon 2002, pp. 57–60, Goodstein 1994
  28. ^ a b Goodstein 1994
  29. ^ a b c Browne 1989
  30. ^ a b Schaffer 1999, p. 1
  31. ^ Broad 1989
  32. ^ Wilford 1989
  33. ^ Broad, William J. 19 April 1989. Stanford Reports Success, The New York Times.
  34. ^ Bowen 1989
  35. ^ Tate 1989, p. 1
  36. ^ Platt 1998
  37. ^ Joyce 1990
  38. ^ Taubes 1993, Close 1992, Huizenga 1993, Park 2000
  39. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 3
  40. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 3, Adam 2005 - ("Extraordinary claims . . . demand extraordinary proof")
  41. ^ Schaffer and Morrison 1999, p. 3 ("You mean it's not dead?" – recounting a typical reaction to hearing a cold fusion conference was held recently)
  42. ^ Gai et al. 1989, pp. 29–34
  43. ^ Williams et al. 1989, pp. 375–384
  44. ^ a b c US DOE 1989
  45. ^ Mallove 1991, p. 246-248
  46. ^ Di Giulio 2002
  47. ^ Jagdish Mehra, K. A. Milton, Julian Seymour Schwinger (2000), Oxford University Press, ed., Climbing the Mountain: The Scientific Biography of Julian Schwinger (illustrated ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, p. 550, ISBN 0198506589, http://books.google.com/?id=9SmZSN8F164C&pg=PA550&vq=resigned+american+physical+society+cold+fusion&dq=Julian+Schwinger+cold+fusion
  48. ^ Voss 1999
  49. ^ Andrew J. Pollack (November 17, 1992), Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In Japan, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/17/science/cold-fusion-derided-in-us-is-hot-in-japan.html
  50. ^ Pollack 1997, p. C4
  51. ^ a b Jayaraman 2008
  52. ^ Mullins 2004
  53. ^ |Szpak, Masier-Boss: Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system, Feb 2002
  54. ^ Feder 2005
  55. ^ a b c d e US DOE 2004
  56. ^ Feder 2005
  57. ^ "Cold fusion success in Japan gets warm reception in India", Thaindian News, 2008-05-27, http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci-tech/cold-fusion-success-in-japan-gets-warm-reception-in-india_10053182.html
  58. ^ Chubb et al. 2006, Adam 2005 ("Anyone can deliver a paper. We defend the openness of science" - Bob Park of APS, explaining that hosting the meeting does not show a softening of scepticism)
  59. ^ a b Van Noorden 2007
  60. ^ Van Noorden 2007, para. 2
  61. ^ a b "New Cold Fusion Evidence Reignites Hot Debate", IEEE Spectrum, http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/new-cold-fusion-evidence-reignites-hot-debate
  62. ^ a b c Barras 2009
  63. ^ Scientists in possible cold fusion breakthrough, AFP, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2QobOQnlULUZ7oalSRUVjnlHjng, retrieved 2009-03-24
  64. ^ a b Berger 2009
  65. ^ Storms 2007, p. 144-150
  66. ^ US DOE 1989, p. 24
  67. ^ Taubes 1993
  68. ^ Storms 2007, p. 151
  69. ^ Hoffman 1994, p. 111-112
  70. ^ Feder 2004, p. 27
  71. ^ Adam 2005 (comment attributed to George Miley of the University of Illinois)
  72. ^ Adam 2005 - ("Advocates insist that there is just too much evidence of unusual effects in the thousands of experiments since Pons and Fleischmann to be ignored")
  73. ^ a b c d e f g h Schaffer 1999, p. 2
  74. ^ a b Hubler 2007
  75. ^ Oriani et al. 1990, pp. 652–662, cited by Storms 2007, p. 61
  76. ^ Bush et al. 1991, cited by Biberian 2007
  77. ^ e.g. Storms 1993, Hagelstein et al. 2004
  78. ^ Miles et al. 1993
  79. ^ e.g. Arata & Zhang 1998, Hagelstein et al. 2004
  80. ^ Gozzi 1998, cited by Biberian 2007
  81. ^ Fleischmann 1993
  82. ^ Mengoli 1998
  83. ^ Szpak 2004
  84. ^ Biberian 2007 - (Input power is calculated by multiplying current and voltage, and output power is deduced from the measurement of the temperature of the cell and that of the bath")
  85. ^ Fleischmann 1990, Appendix
  86. ^ Shkedi et al. 1995
  87. ^ Jones et al. 1995, p. 1
  88. ^ a b Shanahan 2002
  89. ^ Biberian 2007 - ("Almost all the heat is dissipated by radiation and follows the temperature fourth power law. The cell is calibrated . . .")
  90. ^ Browne 1989, para. 16
  91. ^ Wilson 1992
  92. ^ Shanahan 2005
  93. ^ Shanahan 2006
  94. ^ Simon 2002, p. 49, Park 2000, p. 17-18
  95. ^ Mosier-Boss et al. 2009
  96. ^ Sampson 2009
  97. ^ Storms 2007, p. 93-95
  98. ^ a b Iwamura, Sakano & Itoh 2002, pp. 4642–4650
  99. ^ Storms 2007
  100. ^ Derry 2002, pp. 179,180
  101. ^ Bird 1998, pp. 261–262
  102. ^ Malcolm W. Browne(1989-05-03)The New York Times
  103. ^ Bird 1998, pp. 261–262
  104. ^ Heeter 1999, p. 5
  105. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 1, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4 ("It has been said . . . three 'miracles' are necessary")
  106. ^ Schaffer and Morrison 1999, p. 1,3
  107. ^ Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4, Goodstein 1994, Huizenga 1993 page viii "Enhancing the probability of a nuclear reaction by 50 orders of magnitude (...) via the chemical environment of a metallic lattice, contradicted the very foundation of nuclear science."
  108. ^ Czerski 2008
  109. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 1
  110. ^ Hagelstein et al. 2004:14-15
  111. ^ Sinha 2006 "Inclusion of effective-charge reduction from electron screening raises the cross section by another 7-10 orders of magnitude."
  112. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 1, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4, Goodstein 1994
  113. ^ a b Schaffer 1999, p. 2, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4
  114. ^ Schaffer 1999, p. 2, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4 , Goodstein 1994 (explaining Pons and Fleischmann would both be dead if they had produced neutrons in proportion to their measurements of excess heat)
  115. ^ Goodstein 1994, Scaramuzzi 2000, p. 4
  116. ^ Broad, William J. (1989-04-13), 'Cold Fusion' Patents Sought, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/13/us/cold-fusion-patents-sought.html
  117. ^ Lewenstein 1994, p. 43
  118. ^ a b Weinberger, Sharon (2004-11-21), "Warming Up to Cold Fusion", Washington Post: p. W22, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54964-2004Nov16.html (page 2 in online version)
  119. ^ a b c 2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility Rejections (R-5) - 2100 Patentability. II. Wholly inoperative inventions; "incredible" utility, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
  120. ^ a b Simon 2002, pp. 193,233
  121. ^ a b c d Voss 1999, in reference to US patents 5,616,219, 5,628,886 and 5,672,259
  122. ^ Sanderson 2007, in reference to US patent 6,764,561
  123. ^ Fox 1994 in reference to Canon's EP patent 568118
  124. ^ ICCF-11
  125. ^ ICCF-12
  126. ^ ICCF-13
  127. ^ ICCF-14 Washington
  128. ^ ICCF-15 Roma
  129. ^ ICCF-16 Chennai

Bibliography

External links

Categories: Nuclear fusion | Nuclear physics | Electrolysis | Pathological science | Fringe physics | Discovery and invention controversies

 

The above information uses material from Wikipedia and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Some facts may not have been fully verified for accuracy. [Disclaimers]
This page was last archived by our server on Sun Aug 1 04:34:45 2010. [ refresh local cache ]
Displaying this page or its contents does not use any Wikimedia Foundation's resources.
The owners of this site proudly support the Wikimedia Foundation.

[Hide]▼
'Cold Fusion' News
DISA releases open-source administration app - FCW.com
news.google.com
DISA releases open-source administration app

FCW.com

The software was written mostly in Adobe ColdFusion , with Microsoft SQL Server 2005 database. Any relational database can be used, though the current ...



and more »
Google News Search: Cold fusion,
Fri Sep 4 08:57:42 2009
'Cold Fusion' Images
coldfusion jpg
images.payplay.fm
coldfusion jpg
600px x 600px | 93.50kB

[source page]



Yahoo Images Search: Cold fusion,
Wed Jul 21 16:14:33 2010
'Cold Fusion' Blogs
ColdFusion Builder Custom Dictionaries | Matt Gifford AKA ColdFuMonkeh
mattgifford.co.uk
ColdFusion Builder Custom Dictionaries | Matt Gifford AKA ColdFuMonkeh

Matt

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:35:56 GM

Dictionaries.. wonderful things. Languages evolve over time, and the extensive range of words and vocabulary inevitably adapts to 'roll with the changes'.

Google Blogs Search: Cold fusion,
Mon May 24 09:46:03 2010
'Cold Fusion' Answers
What are your opinions of the Cold Fusion conspiracy theories?
Q. What are your opinions of the Cold Fusion conspiracy theories?
Asked by Sands - Mon Dec 31 15:43:35 2007 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments

A. There is a lot of suspicion that those still pursuing the possibilities of this, are influenced by the research money available. This money has largely come from one or two institutions in the mid-west of the USA. There are serious doubts over both the basis of the theory and all claimed experimental results.
Answered by Julius S - Mon Dec 31 16:01:26 2007

Yahoo Answers Search: Cold fusion,
Sun Mar 28 19:41:57 2010
[Hide]▲