Cold-fusion demonstration: an update

Comments (38)

• 1 ender June 16, 2008 6:56 PM

  I still find it very fishy that only He4 reactions would occur. Whatever it is, it isn't fusion.

• 2 Steven B. Krivit June 16, 2008 11:52 PM

  Hi Jon,

  Nice job explaining this. I think you got to the basics and the essence of Arata's hypotheis. I'm still waiting to hear back from Arata about any further explanations he might offer. We'll publish them, and the video of the lecture and demo along with our July 10 issue of New Energy Times.

  Best regards,
  Steven B. Krivit
  Editor, New Energy Times

• 3 Don Jennings June 17, 2008 4:38 AM

  Am I right in asserting there should be radiation associated with any nuclear reaction? If so, why don't they include a scintillation counter in the experiment? A positive detect of extra radiation seems to me would be a good indication there is more than chemistry going on.
  Also, has there been a calculation of the BTU's involved in this experiment? Quantitative measure of the actual amount of heat? BTU's or Calories?

• 4 bob segman June 17, 2008 6:36 AM

  Interesting, but no wilder than applying this nanotechnology idea in larger ways to help the energy industry. It had quite a following as I recall when it was proposed.

  Carbon Nanotube Powerlines

• 5 Oskar June 17, 2008 6:38 AM

  I wonder if it could be a deuterium effect on the thermocouple? Hydrogen and deuterium are notorious for dissolving in metals (as they are supposed to in the sample) and since this usually involves breaking up into atoms they might do this at slightly different rates which may affect the thermocouple. Has a control experiment with a dummy sample been performed?

• 6 Andrei Kirilyuk June 17, 2008 1:53 PM

  There where it is possible, direct detection of the claimed phenomenon results is certainly preferable to any indirect one. Contrary to emphasised "practical" importance of heat generation in this case, physically it is a secondary effect, while the main phenomenon of interest is the nuclear fusion reaction (if this is what is really stated). Then the decisive direct measurement would consist in helium nuclei detection during the experiment. I hope that suitable experimental methods should exist, maybe a magnetic resonance technique. If the reaction in question does take place, one should observe a very distinct growth of helium concentration in the sample and hopefully even its dynamics, in relation to the temperature evolution.

  There is also a universal practical aspect. In any case the "promising" enough original experiment (this or another one) should be then quickly reproduced elsewhere in order to confirm it and hopefully find additional features by varying system parameters (e.g. sample composition and structure). And that means that suitable financial support should be ready for quick enough realisation (desirably in several places) of such "control" experiments. So the practical question is: do we have a reliable source of such necessary "free" funds ready to be quickly invested in the experiment reproduction? For example, there was information recently about a rather big reduction of British public investment in inefficient high-energy physics facilities. Be it right or wrong decision, but a very small part of the liberated funds can be sufficient for this experiment reproduction. In any case, we are always dealing with the subjective will of "responsible people" (mainly public authorities and scientific administrations) to invest in "our common future" that really starts today in view of the evidently peaking energy and ecologic problems. And the impression is that the concrete will is essentially missing, even despite very high problem pressure. It does smell oil-money corruption or ultimate bureaucratic laziness and irresponsibility ... make your choice!

  Returning back to physics, it also occurs to me that while everybody is naturally concentrated on the basic effect itself, its supposed practical application (which should not be left too far away!) can give rise to new problems. It becomes clear, for example, that even in the best case of such really occurring "solid-state (fusion) reaction", one should deal then with the necessity to quickly and easily return the "working" material to its initial state, without reaction products in its lattice sites (let's assume that the heat evacuation itself is not a big problem). Among other things, one should ensure that this process takes much less energy than has been previously gained in the (rare) fusion reaction, which is not immediately evident for this case (but I may ignore existing detailed information about it).

  In any case, the search for "really efficient" (and necessarily elaborated enough) schemes of fusion energy liberation should grow, and everything indicates that official science has not even started yet the real motion on that way. While problems are moving upon us and pressing, pressing... And the rich are amusing on their top deck (remember the Titanic case?), and the high governors are playing their political games, and the big media are talking nonsense... Show-business as usual, in the best of all possible worlds... Maybe a greater collapse is indeed needed in this strange bordello, if it cannot react even to the growing "socio-economic crisis", let alone the long-lasting and now really huge crisis in science that underlies everything they can profit from... Nice journey, Titanic!

• 7 tim73 June 18, 2008 3:43 PM

  At least the temperature difference is clear enough and cannot be explained by some calibration error.

  You have to remember that there is a TEAM of professionals behind retired professor Arata and they are also putting their reputations on the line too.

  Maybe, just maybe...of course this has to pass those different NIH-syndrome thresholds of universities around the world. ;-)

• 8 Frank Znidarsic June 18, 2008 4:31 PM

  My work on cold fusion

  http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/index.html

  enjoy

  Frank Znidarsic

• 9 David J. Lambert June 20, 2008 6:52 AM

  Perhaps Arata is observing muon catalyzed deuterium-deuterium fusion.

  For those unfamiliar with it, muon catalyzed fusion was first observed in 1956, and is a well-known phenomenon. Cosmic rays hitting atoms in the upper atmosphere create fast downward-moving positive and negative muons; they constantly bombard our bodies. They enter solid objects, and eventually come to a halt in them. When negative muons come to a halt in materials highly enriched in deuterium, they can catalyze the fusion of some of the deuterium nuclei into helium-4, which is what Arata is claiming, though the only proof he offers is excess heat.

  Unfortunately, each muon catalyzes only a limited number of fusions before one of 2 things occurs:
  1) the muon sticks to the produced helium nucleus
  2) the muon decays, its half-life is microseconds

  The number of fusions goes up with deuterium density, and muons catalyze deuterium-tritium fusion much better than deuterium-deuterium fusion, but tritium must be made in nuclear reactors. Negative muons can be made in accelerators, but this takes a lot of energy.

  The flux of negative muons from the upper atmosphere is not high, and the number of fusions per muon is never high enough for the energy obtained in the fusions to exceed the energy spent creating artificial muons and tritium.

  For more info on muon catalyzed fusion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion.

  If muon catalyzed fusion significantly contributes to the heat excess, it will be easy to test for it:
  1) Do the experiment high above sea level to increase the heat excess.
  2) Do the experiment deep underground in a mine to decrease the amount of excess heat.
  3) Vary the amount, position, and type of shielding around the experimental apparatus to increase or decrease the number of stopped muons and the amount of excess heat.

  I'd love to see Arata's experiment get reproduced, and I'd like to see detection of helium production, gamma rays, and a dependence on the negative muon flux.

  I've seen published numbers for the negative muon flux at sea level. It should not be hard for someone to find those numbers, and then do calculations to see if muon catalyzed deuterium-deuterium fusion could generate a measurable heat excess.

  My inclination is to believe the heat from muon catalyzed fusion is not measurable, since there are many people out there who are far smarter than I am, and if it were observable, I'd think I'd have heard of it by now.

  I think the odds that Arata, Pons, and Fleischmann are wrong to be so high that I think it would be a waste of time for me to put in any effort here. The repeated claims of a conspiracy, one hallmark of a crank, doesn't help. If they prove they're right and get the Nobel Prize, I'll happily eat crow.

• 10 Herbert Ruf June 20, 2008 3:35 PM

  As an experimental physicist, I would like to see the error bars associated with the measurements, as well as the results from at least 10 repetitions of this experiment. I haven't looked for the original report, wherein these things may be presented, but in any report of results such should be mentioned.

• 11 Kirk June 20, 2008 3:38 PM

  A controversial topic. However, science exists to answer questions.

  Looking at Arata's other work (which you can find by diligently following the links in the blog), he has published that a mass spectrometer shows the presence of He, increasing proportionally to the amount of heat generated. This is certainly interesting.

  It would also be interesting to have quantitative numbers for the amount of excess heat generated. A possible (non-nuclear) energy source is the high pressure gas, and it would be nice to also know the pressure in the vessel as a function of time.

• 12 Jon Cartwright June 20, 2008 3:59 PM

  Kirk: see the pink line rising from just after 70 minutes on the time axis in the first two plots. This is the pressure of hydrogen/deuterium, which apparently increases because the sample becomes saturated. Arata says he leaves the gas to build up pressure so that any contaminants are driven out of the cell.

  He claims this does not significantly increase the excess heat.

  Jon Cartwright

• 13 Andrei Kirilyuk June 22, 2008 2:04 PM

  Yes, Kirk, it's the importance of being diligent, especially in science. It would be better for all of us to read the original papers in full detail. But on the other hand, it's the incredible force of this new way of doing science by direct internet interaction (see my comment on a recent post here) that someone's new knowledge can immediately come to the possession of everybody and we can progress much more efficiently, often even without all of us being fine experts on the matter.

  Specifically, if helium formation has indeed been observed in correlation with heat production, then it displaces the centre of interest very much in the direction of further verification, desirably by other research teams. And if such verification is not performed soon enough, then it would confirm that "strange" stagnation of cold fusion research on the background of singular energy problems and equally peaking inefficiency of hot fusion attempts. It's objectively difficult to choose between conspiracy and plain stupidity as a reason behind such inexplicably "closed", arrested development, but let's hope that in this case we'll have more constructive news soon enough and will be able to avoid that painful choice... Positive confirmation will lead to establishment of the physical reality of energy-positive cold fusion reaction as such (it would be even better to design new experiments while taking into account possible mechanisms/explanations of the effect!), which is the first thing to do, irrespective of further modification suitable for efficient practical application. But a negative result will also be of value as it should permit us to see the characteristic "traps" to avoid and hopefully give further ideas for more promising cold-fusion schemes. In any case, it will certainly be useful to preserve a constructively critical spirit of these efforts, while remembering that other known possibilities of practical problem solution are yet much more ambiguous/difficult, despite any superficial illusions about them.

  And if there are other, equally well presented, professional cold-fusion schemes (preferably with clearly confirmed energy-positive result), they should go the same route, here and elsewhere!

• 14 Prof. Brian Josephson June 22, 2008 5:44 PM

  Re Ender's query, this is an experiment in a condensed matter environment, so there is the possibility in theory of the energy being transferred to that environment in the form of heat, rather than being exported as radiation. D+D => He4 + heat would be fusion. Something analogous occurs in the Mössbauer effect (recoil momentum being taken up by the condensed matter environment rather than by a particle in that case), though the explanation there does not carry over directly. Finding something 'fishy' is not a scientific argument!

  What I feel to be the most conclusive evidence for low energy nuclear reactions to date, and perhaps more clear cut than the Arata experiment, is the continuing work of Claytor et al. (see the library at lenr.org for details), not subjected to the same processes of publicity and publication on the NET web site, where tritium, apparently generated in a similar though not identical experiment, was detected by the characteristic signature of its decay. Alternative explanations for the appearance of tritium were investigated and excluded.

  The refusal of the scientific community to accept the reality of low energy nuclear reactions should have stopped at that point, but instead the major journals simply refused to publish the results.

• 15 Ted Lemon June 22, 2008 7:01 PM

  As someone who has spent many yeard doing the kind of calorimetry Arata demonstrates here, I'd have to throw up a few red flags here. Jon Cartwright and LENR-CANR/CMNS members, take note.

  In fact, there ARE differences in heat transfer characteristics between Hydrogen and Deuterium. Many of the mistakes made by cold fusion researchers in the past (several of which I have reproduced, and demonstrated to be mistakes) were based on the failure to understand these differences.

  H2 and D2 molecules disassociate into H and D atoms on the surface of the catalyst. They float about in the chamber until they recombine. When they recombine, they give off energy. However, D tends to recombine more slowly than H, and preferentially on a metalllic surface.

  Thus when comparing Hydrogen to Deuterium in a catalyst-rich environment, like Arata's cell, you will frequently see differences in temperature between different components of the cell. A cell top may be warmer with D than it is with H. That's not fusion, it's just slight changes in heat transfer.

  I'm not saying that Arata's results are untrue. But until they have been confirmed by a second, more reliable form of calorimetry, they are not trustworthy. This is the standard that all cold fusion experiments, which involve calorimetric measurements, must be held to. Until a second, independant form of calorimetry confirms the results, we shouldn't brag about them too loudly. Because the unfortunate fact is, so many cold fusion claims have been debunked once a more rigorous form of calorimetry is used. And so few cold fusion scientists, including Arata, seem to really understand how easy it is to make mistakes in these sorts of calorimetry-based experiments.

  For an example of different sorts of calorimeters, see Storm's excellent set of papers on LENR-CANR.COM.

  In Arata's case, he needs to find some way to integrate the heat output across the entire device, and then measure that integrated heat output. For example, he could immerse the entire device in water, and use a classic double-wall calorimeter setup. Then confirm the excess heat claims for the Deuterium vs. the Hydrogen. Only then are these results trustworthy.

  I cannot overstate how easy it is to make seemingly minor mistakes in calorimetry and produce spurious results. The fact that Arata has a team is not relevant. These mistakes can escape even the most diligent single group. Only by multiple measurements with multiple calorimeter designs and multiple teams can we dig out and stomp the invevitable mistakes.

• 16 albert alberts June 23, 2008 1:27 PM

  Finally this discussion raises to an acceptable level without the usual blunt skeptic "pathological disbelief" (Josephson Lindau 2005 lecture)attacks. The detection of helium-4 changing in time (as found earlier by Arata, ENEA, McKubre SRI)or tritium by a.o. Bockris, Claytor, definitely is a "smoking gun".It seems that Arata-Zhang after 20 years have been able to arrive at a reproducable experiment avoiding the frustatingly long (weeks) incubation periods in previous electrolysis experiments.
  This could open up the road to runs on a larger scale (now they used about 20 grams of zirconia-palladium) and magnification of the heat effect.
  In view of the ever more critical energy situation I simply think that it is a scientific DUTY to look into nuclear fusion in "solid state confinement".We have had DT and DD-fusion in neutron generators since 1955, recently made desktop with pyroelectric crystals by Putterman (2005 UCLA) and Leung (Berkeley).I think the late Edward Teller took "cold Fusion" serious around 1990 on the basis of his knowledge of piezoelectric neutron emission in solid state.
  Prof.Arata (85)received an medal from the Japanese Emperor last year, a "canard" comparable to the 1989 Fleischmann-Pons affair would damage Japanese science as a whole.
  Being an intuitive cold fusioneer (the late Schwinger's term)from day 1, I am really curious as to what the next step in this field will be and I compliment physicsworld.com for keeping us posted.
  Upcoming july 10 New Energy Times on-line will provide more detail and probaly comments by an on-site witness J. Rothwell.

• 17 Brian Josephson June 27, 2008 10:28 PM

  According to Albert Alberts: "Upcoming july 10 New Energy Times on-line will provide more detail". It rather looks as if the Japanese team have entered into an exclusive agreement with New Energy Times so we'll hear nothing more of the details till then. Rothwell himself was not in a good position to observe so can't say very much. Sigh -- the field can do without that kind of situation!

• 18 Zeph�r June 29, 2008 1:30 AM

  ...finally this discussion raises to an acceptable level without the usual blunt skeptic "pathological disbelief" (Josephson Lindau 2005 lecture) attacks...

  This doesn't mean, most of us have forgotten this issue...;-) Such problems will not disappear, if we'll not talk about it. How is it possible, the cold fusion was refuted as impossible both experimentally, both by contemporary theories whole eighteen years - and now it's demonstrated apparently in the most trivial arrangement imaginable? What we're supposed to think about credibility of the whole generation of cold fusion deniers? Isn't it flagrant example of politically motivated scientific misconduct? Here's something rotten in the kingdom of contemporary Science.

• 19 Zeph�r June 29, 2008 1:38 AM

  ...avoiding the frustatingly long (weeks) incubation periods in previous electrolysis experiments...

  This is just a demagogy, as the later co-deposition experiments didn't exhibit such incubation period - and they're repreducible as well.

  http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#apsreport

  But was mainstream science interested about their reproduction at all? If yes, can you prove it by some citation in peer-reviewed press?

  If not - where's the problem again?

• 20 acer July 3, 2008 2:46 AM

  What we're supposed to think about credibility of the whole generation of cold fusion deniers? Isn't it flagrant example of politically motivated scientific misconduct? Here's something rotten in the kingdom of contemporary Science.

• 21 albert alberts July 6, 2008 7:16 AM

  Thursday july 3 the esteemed prof. Josephson advocated "cold fusion" again at the rather high profile yearly Lindau meeting of Nobel Laureates (on-line Google), citing the Claytor-tritium and Arata-Zhang experiments. Very brave, considering the enduring skepsis in the front row of the audience. The remark was highlighted in a sample film, some people in Germany finally took it serious. I dont think all this will not -as it should- change the deplorable funding situation of the field in the UK, Germany and Holland on short term. Despite oil going over 144$. Coal is coming back -ever compared the number of casualties of coal-mining to that of fission technology?- and the green doctrine rules now practically worldwide.
  The barefoot cold fusioneers just have to make more heat and more helium and bring proof in the pudding.
  I hope they will succeed.

• 22 Kirk Shanahan July 7, 2008 5:06 PM

  For a comment on the Claytor experiment, see the following (and related posts) from 4 years ago:

  Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
  From: "Kirk Shanahan"
  Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:18:49 +0000 (UTC)
  Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 9:18 am
  Subject: Re: Plasma Triggered Tritium at Los Alamos

  
  Just go to
  http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.fusion
  and search using "Claytor Shanahan".

  
  Kirk Shanahan {My opinions..noone else's}

• 23 Kirk Shanahan July 7, 2008 5:24 PM

  re: Arata and Zhang He detection expts.

  To start, look here for some comments on Arata and Zhang�s MS work:

  Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
  From: Rich Murray
  Date: 1998/03/25
  Subject: Shanahan: long list of problems in Arata QMS He data

  
  Then look here too:

  Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
  From: kirk.shana...@srs.gov (Kirk L. Shanahan)
  Date: 1 Apr 2002 05:52:01 -0800
  Local: Mon, Apr 1 2002 9:52 am
  Subject: Re: Search for 3He and 4He in Arata Cathodes.

  This one has some good info:

  Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
  From: slaj...@u.washington.edu (S. Lajoie)
  Date: 3 Apr 2002 00:03:36 GMT
  Local: Tues, Apr 2 2002 8:03 pm
  Subject: Re: Search for 3He and 4He in Arata Cathodes.

  
  Again, just search sci.physics.fusion for Arata, Clark, Oliver to get lots more refs.

• 24 Kirk Shanahan July 7, 2008 5:39 PM

  albert alberts wrote:

  "Thursday july 3 the esteemed prof. Josephson advocated "cold fusion" again at the rather high profile yearly Lindau meeting ..., citing the Claytor-tritium and Arata-Zhang experiments."

  So sad. It seems Prof. Josephson has gone off and commented publically without doing his homework first (see
  my prior 3 comments).

  Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}}

• 25 Brian Josephson July 11, 2008 3:56 PM

  The video of the expt. is on the internet at last; go to
  http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=solid+fusion+arata
  for the links.

  Re Shanahan's comments, in the first place while it is true that in my Lindau lecture I referred to the Arata expt., I did not give it unqualified support, which I am not in a position to do given the limited information available to me. I gave stronger support to the Claytor expt., and if Shanahan can email me precise details of his objections I will consider them and, if appropriate, withdraw that support.

• 26 Kirk Shanahan July 11, 2008 7:27 PM

  "if Shanahan can email me precise details of his objections ..."

  Done.

  Kirk Shanahan {[{My opinions...noone else's}]}

• 27 Brian Josephson July 11, 2008 10:01 PM

  A detailed report on the experiment, by Rothwell and Storms, is now also available online, at

  http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf

  The authors say of the experiment, as described so far, that 'many questions remain', indicating incidentally that cold fusion/LENR supporters are not as uncritical about CF evidence as critics would like to make out.

  Shanahan has emailed me, as I suggested, giving his reasons for doubting Claytor's claims, but his email suggests to me that he is not fully acquainted with the current situation, in which there is quite a bit of additional evidence supporting the original claims. Hence, at this point, I see no reason to abandon my strong support for that particular experiment.

• 28 Ludwik Kowalski July 11, 2008 11:51 PM

  A suggestion was made that heat in Arata experiment resulted from muonic cold fusion. The flux of cosmic muons at the sea level is about 1 per cm^2 per second.
  

  Suppose the area of the Arata's vessel is 400 cm^2. Then about 400 muons cross the vessel each second. Most of them simply pass through the vessel. Suppose the one out of 1000 muons produced a muonic atom. That is probably an exaggeration.
  

  Suppose that every muonic atom gives birth to three cold fusion events, before it decays. That is another exaggeration. It is well known that each cold fusion event produces 23.6 MeV of energy.
  

  At what rate would heat be generated, under the above assumption? The number of muonic atoms formed would be (400/1000)=0.4 per second. Multiplying this by 3 one gets 1.2 cold fusion reactions per second. Multiplying this by 23.6 one gets the heat generation rate equal to 16.3 MeV/s. That is only 2.6 pW (picowatts are not calorimetrically measurable). The power would be only 2.6 microwatts if every intercepted muon produced three cold fusion events (instead 1 out 1000). That would also be too small to measure.

• 29 Brian Josephson July 12, 2008 11:08 AM

  Yet more information out about the Arata demo: following his posting of the video on the internet, Krivit has published his own analysis, based in part on correspondence with the experimenters, at

  http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.htm

  So thanks to NET's policy of keeping information secret to as to have a scoop, we have one report by a non-scientist based on the video and correspondence with the experimenters, and one with a scientist co-author (Storms) based on incomplete knowledge of the experimental details. However, the other co-author, Jed Rothwell, has studied the Krivit report and made one change in the joint report as a result. He still considers the experiment unsatisfactory in some respects.

  People who read the NET newsletter (link as above) will note that it contains an attack on me (see the link 'regarding messages' in §2 of the newsletter, which section itself involves a discussion group posting taken out of context), not untypical of NET 'ethos', apparently sparked off by my criticism of the much delayed release of the video and of Krivit's policy of not sharing information. All rather sad really, as where the criticisms are not actively misleading they are of a trivial character. I will be publishing my own critique in due course.

• 30 Brian Josephson July 19, 2008 9:51 AM

  It's a pity that Jon is, I gather, unable to attend the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science next month to report on it for Physics World, as the field could really do with some objective reporting in the scientific media. I hope some way can be found to let him attend on Aug. 11th. and 12th. at least, the days recommended in the 'Invitation to the Press' link.

• 31 Mark Iverson July 20, 2008 6:15 PM

  The following in an excerpt from Charles Beaudette's book, "Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed", 2002. The section is titled, "The Meltdown"...
  
  Mr Beaudette is an MIT graduate (1952) and retired electrical engineer...

  Seems to me that if you could replicate this effect and video the meltdown of the lab bench and concrete floor, you'd have all the f*cking evidence you'd need. Anyone dismissing it would then clearly be a pathological skeptic, perhaps even delusional!
  
  -Mark

  ----------------------
  The Meltdown

  An early experiment consisted of a one-centimeter cube of palladium suspended in a flask of heavy (deuterated) water containing dissolved lithium metal. Pons's son Joey, who did not have technical training, was a quick, intelligent helper, and he worked for his father as a sort of sorcerer's apprentice. By the late fall of 1984, the experiment had been running continuously for several months. At one point, Pons raised the current from its nominal rate of 0.75 amperes to 1.5 amperes, and at the end of the day, sent Joey to turn off the current. They left the laboratory for the night.

  Joey came in the next morning and found the experiment in a shambles.

  Fleischmann and Pons reported in their Preliminary Note, ". . . a substantial portion of the [palladium] fused (melting point 1,554C), part of it vapourised, and the cell and contents and a part of the fume cupboard housing the experiment were destroyed."

  Kevin Ashley was a graduate student of Pons in the chemistry department. He witnessed the scene the morning after the meltdown. "This one morning I walk in, the door is open and Pons and Fleischmann are in the room with Joey. The lab is a mess and there is particulate dust in the air. On this lab bench are the remnants of an experiment. The bench was one of those black top benches that was made of very, very hard material. There were cabinets under one end of the bench, but the experiment was near the middle where there was nothing underneath. I was astonished that there was a hole through the thing. The hole was about a foot in diameter. Under the hole was a pretty good sized pit in the concrete floor. It may have been as much as four inches deep."

  "What really surprised me," Ashley continued, "was that Stan and Martin Fleischmann had these looks on their faces as though they were the cat that had just swallowed the canary. They were clearly not displeased with this mess. They were happy about what had happened. I was rather surprised by this; very surprised by this."
  ----------------

• 32 Brian Josephson July 21, 2008 9:11 AM

  Beaudette (author of the book quoted) is not just any electrical engineer -- he helped develop the fax machine and the modem, and has patents on 'image processing for variable speed page scanning'. But no doubt some of the sceptics are equally ingenious!

• 33 Brian Josephson July 21, 2008 9:42 AM

  Re meltdowns, Mark Iverson didn't mention that Pons and Fleischmann did do a calculation to check that chemical or related energies could not have been responsible.

  This kind of energy release cannot at this time be produced on demand, but similar events have occurred occasionally. Of particular interest is the event that occurred in an experiment of T. Mizuno, reported at

  http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalouse.pdf

  Here there was an explosion resulting from the boiling of the water. It was witnessed by a visitor as well as Mizuno himself; fortunately neither was seriously injured though Mizuno was deaf for a week afterwards. Of particular interest is the fact that the instruments worked up to the time of the explosion and recorded the rising temperature. Calculations show that the energy required to heat the water to the degree observed exceeded by a factor of hundreds anything explicable in conventional terms. Except for the lack of reproducibility on demand, this is perhaps the most compelling evidence for cold fusion to date!

• 34 john July 30, 2008 8:19 AM

  i just dont get it. Why is there so much difficulty in proving whether cold fusion occurs?!?!? If you put in deuterium, and you get out helium, or some other nuclei more massive than helium, then, you've got fusion. Its goddamn f'ing that simple, surely.

• 35 Kirk Shanahan August 12, 2008 4:39 PM

  john wrote on July 30, 2008 8:19 AM:
  " i just dont get it. Why is there so much difficulty in proving whether cold fusion occurs?!?!? If you put in deuterium, and you get out helium, or some other nuclei more massive than helium, then, you've got fusion. Its goddamn f'ing that simple, surely."

  No, it's not. The amount of apparent excess heat produced, and the amount of nuclear ash detected, are normally at the trace level, and not commensurate with each other when compared to hot fusion expectations. This means a) you have the typical nightmares of trying to do trace level work on an unknown process and b) the prior experience of the field (physics of fusion) is not applicable, and therefore an equivalent amount of data must be produced independently. That latter is made difficult by the fact that the replication obtained so far is only general, i.e. people see effects, but never at the same levels. So, when conventional explanations exist for the observations (the calibration constant shift problem for calorimetry and contamination + concentration or just improper analytical methods for the nuclear ash measurements), it becomes very difficult to promote a new, paradigm-shaking explanation effectively.

  The problem with the cold fusioneers is that they don't want to do the work required to establish this new physics. Instead they assert loudly and try to gain acceptance of their ideas by simply repeating them many times, instead of responding to criticisms by redesigning experiments to address the noted problems.

  Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}}

• 36 Jim G August 25, 2008 9:19 AM

  The third graph rather glaringly omits to track pressure. Any time a graph shows pressure increasing, one can expect to see temperatures elevating as well. What are the relative specific heats of the two test gases ?
  Lacking more than one temperature sensor type would also be another omission. The A and B plots on the 3rd graph, also seen to infer differing thermal resistance of Cell-Air. Note that for A Tin-Ts is rather smaller than Ts-Ta , whilst for B Tin-Ts is somewhat similar to Ts-Ta. Those results conflict from a heat-generation model. It does not state the environment condition changes from A to B, but anyway illustrates a large variance.

• 37 James W October 9, 2008 1:14 AM

  Just wondering if there has been any updates on this yet. Is anyone working to repeat this experiment?

• 38 Jelle Boersma November 9, 2008 4:23 AM

  Perhaps the following theoretical idea related to how cold fusion may occur
  is highly naive, but since I could not find any documentation discussing this the
  only way to find out is to bring it up, Thanks for any feedback.
  Could it be that cold-fusion is facilitated by quantum-entanglement of two
  deuterium nuclei with the external degrees of freedom (eg the phonons
  in the metal-lattice in which the D-nuclei are dissolved).
  The idea is that if two D-nuclei are entangled with independent exterior degrees
  of freedom then the density matrix describing the subsystem of two D-nuclei
  will be diagonal and the interaction hamiltonian vanishes even when the two
  nuclei have overlapping wave-functions in space and time .
  In other words, the electrostatic repulsion between two D-nuclei could be temporarily neutralized, along with the weak and the strong interactions.
  For two decohered nuclei at the same location it would take recoherence (through alignment of the exterior degrees of freedom with which the two nuclei are entangled) to restore the interactions. If the two nuclei recohere with sufficient overlap so that the strong attraction exceeds the electrostatic repulsion then fusion may occur.