% Update of 18/09/2009 % No. of items: 285 % @article{J.Abbo1993, author = {A. Abbot}, title = {Italian court wrestles with cold fusion suit}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {363}, year = {1993}, pages = {107}, annote = {Report of the trial of the newspaper La Repubblica on charges of defamation of Preparata, Del Guidice, Bressani, Fleischmann and Pons, who stand to gain about US\$5 million (collectively). The paper had stated that cold fusion was a fraud. Douglas Morrison is the paper's scientific advisor, and Giovanni Licheri that of the court.} } @article{J.Abbo1996, author = {A. Abbott}, title = {Scientists lose cold fusion libel case}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {380}, year = {1996}, pages = {369}, annote = {Fleischmann, Pons and the Italian cold fusion workers Preparata, Bressani and Guidice sued the Italian newspaper La Repubblica for libel, a couple of years ago, and this long-running case just came to a judgement: The newspaper was acquitted and the claimants are to pay the costs. Had they won, they would have each received 1/5 of $8\times 10^9$ lire, or roughly \$$10^6$. The paper had referrred to cold fusion as "scientific fraud", but the judge deemed this to be merely free speech.} } @article{J.Albe1989, author = {A.~H. Alberts}, title = {Views on nuclear fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, year = {1989}, number = {May 15}, pages = {3}, annote = {Dutch physicist Alberts looks at possible fusion reactions, in which the branch to 4He is in equilibrium. This somehow explains the lack of nuclear particles, but at the same time he warns of the dangers of such emissions.} } @article{J.Albe1991, author = {A.~H. Alberts}, title = {Cold fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, year = {1991}, number = {3}, pages = {3}, annote = {Alberts criticises the editor of J. Electroanal. Chem. for uncritically (?) publishing the Preliminary Note by Bush et al (JEC 304 (1991) 271), without the refereeing process. Alberts writes that the critical paper by Wagner et al, pointing out a possible defect in some calorimetric experiments, should be given more attention.} } @article{J.Amat1992, author = {I. Amato}, title = {Cluster fusion: Close, but no cigar}, journal = {Science}, volume = {256}, year = {1992}, pages = {178}, annote = {A first report of the demise of the cluster impact fusion affair, upon the retraction of the results that started it. The Brookhaven Nat. Lab. team Beuhler, Friedman and Friedlander had, up to now, defended their work, claiming that their beams of heavy water clusters were indeed of homogeneous cluster size; they now admit that some smaller cluster contaminants got in and caused the "anomalous" results. This is revealed in Phys. Rev. Lett. of March 30. Amato writes that the researchers have not quite given up, however.} } @article{J.Amat1993, author = {I. Amato}, title = {Pons and Fleischmann redux?}, journal = {Science}, volume = {260}, year = {1993}, pages = {895}, annote = {Report of the P\&F-93 paper in Physics Lett. A. Science has asked a number of experts for their opinions on this. Huizenga says that all P\&F work shows systematic error; McKubre says that they still have an overall 6\% heat excess, compared with his 3\%; active cnf researcher Oriani finds it difficult to assess the paper; Nathan Lewis and Petrasso of MIT find it all too familiar.} } @article{J.Ande1990, author = {D.~M. Anderson}, title = {Letters}, journal = {Science}, volume = {249}, year = {1990}, pages = {463}, annote = {Referring to Taubes' "Cold fusion conundrum at Texas A\&M" in Science 248 (1990) 1299, the Associate Provost for Research etc at Texas A\&M charges Gary Taubes with careless reporting, claiming that there were sufficient controls in the labs of Bockris and others to eliminate fraud or other misconduct. The Administration was aware of Taubes' concerns and did, in fact, investigate. They conclude that at worst, inexperience with poorly reproducible results are to blame.} } @article{J.Ande1990, author = {G.~C. Anderson}, title = {The party continues...}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {344}, year = {1990}, pages = {277}, annote = {"Despite the urging of a recent DOE panel against 'any special funding' of cold fusion research, the department plans to double its budget next year for work in this field". \$$10^6$ for 1990 and twice that for 1991, in order to have some carefully controlled experiments done. Also, the state of Utah is giving \$$5 \times 10^6$ to a cold fusion centre, essentially to Pons and Fleischmann (has Hawkins been sacked?) and the Office of Naval Research has granted Pons US\$400,839 (what, no cents?) over 2.5 years.} } @article{J.Ande1991, author = {C. Anderson}, title = {Cold fusion tempest at MIT}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {353}, year = {1991}, pages = {98}, annote = {Report of Eugene Mallove's resignation from the MIT news office, with some of the charges Mallove levels at some MIT workers, in his letter of resignation. A MIT spokesman declines to comment but says that no complaints are dismissed out of hand. Mallove remains a lecturer in science journalism at MIT.} } @article{J.Andr1989, author = {R. Andreani}, title = {La fusione 'fredda'}, note = {In Italian}, journal = {Energ. Nucl. (Rome)}, volume = {6}, year = {1989}, pages = {8}, annote = {An early discussion; among other things, it mentions Italian cold fusion experiments.} } @article{J.Anon1926a, author = {Anon.}, title = {}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {118}, year = {1926}, pages = {455--456}, annote = {Report of Paneth and Peters' claimed transmutation of hydrogen to helium, see elsewhere under Paneth. Interestingly, the writer correctly pinpoints two major problems: the large amounts of energy required to fuse 4H into He, and that He could creep in as a contamination and give spurious results. The article is carefully and neutrally phrased, and its style would not be out of place in today's Nature.} } @article{J.Anon1926b, author = {Anon.}, title = {The reported conversion of hydrogen into helium}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {118}, year = {1926}, pages = {526--527}, annote = {For non-German readers, this is a good description, in English, of the paper by Paneth and Peters (1926).} } @article{J.Anon1989a, author = {Anon.}, title = {Cold fusion causes frenzy but lacks confirmation}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {338}, year = {1989}, pages = {447}, annote = {This is only two weeks after the news of CNF broke. The article reports apparent confirmation from other laboratories in Japan and Hungary, which were not heard from later.} } @article{J.Anon1989b, author = {Anon.}, title = {Prospect of achieving cold fusion tantalizes}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {338}, year = {1989}, pages = {529}, annote = {More confirmation reports, from Texas A\&M and Georgia (USA). Also gives some background to the FPH vs. Jones+ problems.} } @article{J.Anon1989c, author = {Anon.}, title = {Hot-footed towards cold fusion}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {338}, year = {1989}, pages = {537}, annote = {A summary of FPH's original paper in J. Electroanal. Chem., and some discussion.} } @article{J.Anon1989d, author = {Anon.}, title = {Cold fusion in print}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {338}, year = {1989}, pages = {604}, annote = {Advance notification that the next issue will contain Jones+'s article, and the comment that the fact that FPH's paper was not - as originally intended - published in Nature, should not be misunderstood. The decision was the authors', after they received the referees' reports. This does not invalidate the work.} } @article{J.Anon1989e, author = {Anon.}, title = {Scientific look at cold fusion inconclusive}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {338}, year = {1989}, pages = {605}, annote = {Report of the Dallas meeting of the American Chemical Society meeting. Apparently, there were some chemists there (out of 7000!) who took CNF to be a victory of chemistry over physics. Pons makes fun of tokamak physicists.} } @article{J.Anon1989f, author = {Anon.}, title = {Hopes for nuclear fusion continue to turn cool}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {338}, year = {1989}, pages = {691}, annote = {Claims of success from California, India and Brazil and mass spectroscopic evidence from Pons, of He(4) production. Also a report that Pons, at a press conference on 17 April, stated that trials with normal water also produced heat - this was later to be hotly disputed by Fleischmann. Huggins found that heavy-water cells produce 15\% more heat than light-water cells.} } @article{J.Anon1989g, author = {Anon.}, title = {Cold fusion}, journal = {Science}, volume = {244}, year = {1989}, pages = {403}, annote = {Resume of Pool's article elsewhere in the same issue (p.420).} } @article{J.Anon1989h, author = {Anon.}, title = {Nuclear fusion in an electrolysis cell?}, journal = {Physik in unserer Zeit}, volume = {20}, note = {In German}, number = {May}, year = {1989}, pages = {93}, annote = {After an introduction on possible fusion reactions, describes the Jones+ results and those of FPH, without drawing conclusions other than to say that we cannot hope for a clean energy source from this - even if it turns out to work - because the radiation would give rise to radioactive byproducts.} } @article{J.Anon1989i, author = {Anon.}, title = {Cold fusion Couture}, journal = {Science}, volume = {245}, number = {July 7}, year = {1989}, pages = {31}, annote = {CNF T-shirts are sold at the U of Utah, showing smiling Pons and Fleischmann, a beaker with seawater and the sun. They sell like hot cakes.} } @article{J.Anon1989j, author = {Anon.}, title = {Cold water on cold fusion}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {124}, number = {1690, Nov. 11}, year = {1989}, pages = {25}, annote = {Report of the DoE report (see also David Lindley, Nature). The committee finds only academic interest and recommends no more than modest support.} } @article{J.Anon1989k, author = {Anon.}, title = {Test-tube fusion fails the final test}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {124}, number = {1695, Dec. 16}, year = {1989}, pages = {18}, annote = {Although this report starts with mention of the two Japanese claims of success, the report is mainly about two heavily negative publications: those of Nathan Lewis, and Williams et al, and thus the title conclusion.} } @article{J.Anon1990a, author = {Anon.}, title = {Cold fusion: battle of the books}, journal = {Science}, volume = {251}, number = {Mar. 22}, year = {1990}, pages = {1415}, annote = {Brief mention of the fact that Frank Close's book will be out (in the US) in May, and that there is another one on the way, by Eugene Mallove, favourable to cold fusion.} } @article{J.Anon1990b, author = {Anon.}, title = {Farewell (not fond) to cold fusion}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {44}, year = {1990}, pages = {365}, annote = {A comment referring to the polemic elsewhere in the same issue of Nature, by David Lindley, and summarising the past year of cold fusion. Clearly, the editors of Nature have written off cold fusion being a real phenomenon, and talk of Pons and Fleischmann possibly "making a clean breast of it" at the forthcoming conference (see N. Hall, below) - which they did not do. The editors feel that the cold fusion affair has damaged the image of science by the associated secrecy, and suggest that the scientists involved should now come forward and tell us exactly what they have done and admit that cold fusion has no economic potential.} } @article{J.Anon1990c, author = {Anon.}, title = {Utah scientist: No cold fusion}, journal = {Science}, volume = {248}, number = {Apr. 6}, year = {1990}, pages = {36}, annote = {Report on the Salamon et al paper in Nature, and of Pons' response, i.e. that the Salamon team left out a positive result. The Salamon et al paper does discuss this, however.} } @article{J.Anon1990d, author = {Anon.}, title = {Citations track the fate of cold fusion}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {126}, number = {1713, Apr. 21}, year = {1990}, pages = {29}, annote = {Cites an issue of Science Watch, published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Philadelphia, and shows their graph of citations of the FPH paper from April 1989 to January 1990, in monthly lumps and divided into positive, neutral and negative citations. This shows a decline in the monthly number of papers by January 1990, citations of FPH running at about 2/month. The numbers are small and no trend can be seen in the distribution of positive, neutral and negative citations, but overall, the ratio of (+,0,-) is (0.27,0.21,0.52).} } @article{J.Anon1990e, author = {Anon.}, title = {Cold fusion claims a victim}, journal = {Science}, volume = {248}, number = {Jun. 22}, year = {1990}, pages = {1487}, annote = {The victim is U of U's president Chase N. Peterson, because of his bungling of the \$500000 "anonymous donation" affair.} } @article{J.Anon1990f, author = {Anon.}, title = {Utah confusion}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {348}, number = {Nov. 1}, year = {1990}, pages = {1}, annote = {Comment on the "disappearance" of Pons, at the time of the important meeting of the Fusion Advisory Committee of the State of Utah, to decide whether to continue to support the NCFI. The writer notes that fusion researchers are beginning to separate into factions "professing the same beliefs but unable to stomach each other's company", and expresses surprise that the State of Utah can be completely rebuffed by Pons, yet continues to support him.} } @article{J.Anon1992, author = {Anon.}, title = {Propping up cold fusion}, journal = {Science}, volume = {256}, number = {Apr. 3}, year = {1992}, pages = {28}, annote = {A report of the support EPRI continues to give cold fusion, by financing McKubre's group. Despite the explosion, which killed one group member and injured others, the work will go on. EPRI revealed on 19-Mar that more funds would be given to SRI (where the work is done) but not - as some have claimed - \$12 million. The actual figure will be reviewed from time to time. The project is titled "Excess heat production in electrolytic experiments involving palladium as the host metal for deuterium"; the term "cold fusion" does not appear.} } @article{J.Anon1993a, author = {Anon.}, title = {Gotcha!}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {138}, number = {1868, Apr. 10}, year = {1993}, pages = {3}, annote = {No, several surprising bits of news were not April Fool jokes, despite being in that issue of NS. There were a lot of phone calls, which raised some questions. Alluding to A.C. Clarke, NS writes that magic might turn into plain old science; which might explain why the US House of Reps. once more listened to pleas to put money into cold fusion research. Had they waited one more week, writes NS, it could have been an April Fool joke.} } @article{J.Anon1993b, author = {Anon.}, title = {Utah puts fusion out in the cold}, journal = {Science}, volume = {262}, number = {Dec. 10}, year = {1993}, pages = {1643}, annote = {After 4 years and 8 months, The Univ. of Utah licensed off its patents to the new firm ENERCO for a sum "in the low six figures". The involvement has cost UU about \$0.7m in legal fees. The University will receive royalties for profits arising from the patents. ENECO's president Fred Jaeger says that they will work closely woth F\&P, thus "reuniting the inventors with the invention".} } @article{J.Anon1994, author = {Anon.}, title = {Derfor blev kold fusion en forsker-farce (That's why cold fusion became a research farce)}, note = {In Danish}, journal = {Illustreret Videnskab}, year = {1994}, number = {12}, pages = {62}, annote = {A short 1-page item, telling nothing new; it has a very brief resume of the cnf affair. The author states (erroneously) that physicists were on the skeptical side, while chemists believed in cnf; also that after a few months there were only a handful of believers left; and finally, that F\&P now work in France for an anonymous Japanese company. The title statement is not in fact explained, i.e. why it became a farce.} } @article{J.Anon1996a, author = {Anon.}, title = {Hollywood chain reaction}, journal = {Science}, volume = {272}, number = {Apr. 19}, year = {1996}, pages = {351}, annote = {Small review of the film Chain Reaction, in which Keanu Reeves plays a scientist who discovers energy too cheap to meter coming out of bubbles in an ultrasonic field.} } @article{J.Anon1996b, author = {Anon.}, title = {Cold fusion gets a drubbing in Italian Court}, journal = {Science}, volume = {272}, number = {Apr. 26}, year = {1996}, pages = {487}, annote = {Report of the court decision in Italy not to award damages to Fleischmann, Pons and several Italian cold fusion scientists, because of a statement in the newspaper La Repubblica, calling CNF "scientific fraud". There are quotes from Morrison and Fleischmann, who had not yet read the 14-page court ruling. Among other things, the decision was due to inconsistent information given to the court by P\&F.} } @article{J.Anon1997, author = {Anon.}, title = {Japan ends funding for 'cold' fusion project}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {389}, number = {Sep. 4}, year = {1997}, pages = {10}, annote = {Reports that the Japan MITI decided to terminate the cold fusion project when the five-year term expires next March. It will then have spent about \$25 million on it. MITI is quoted as saying that the project has resulted in advances in calorimeter design for excess heat measuremnent.} } @article{J.Anon2000, author = {Anon.}, title = {}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {167}, number = {2254, Sep. 2}, year = {2000}, pages = {96}, annote = {Feedback reports that Paul LaViolette, the maverick (ex) patent examiner in the US Patent and Trademarks Office, appeals against his dismissal, claiming that he was dismissed because of his belief in cold fusion. There is a precedent for treating sincerely held beliefs the same as religious beliefs, and LaViolette will base his suit on that. So far, he seems to have won a round. [He was later reinstated with back pay]} } @article{J.Arms1989, author = {R.~D. Armstrong}, title = {Editorial: The cold fusion debate}, journal = {Electrochim. Acta}, volume = {34}, year = {1989}, pages = {1287}, annote = {A plea for publication in the proper journals, giving full details.} } @article{J.Bash1994, author = {S. Bashkin}, journal = {Physics Today}, year = {1994}, number = {March}, pages = {95}, annote = {Following a review of Taubes' book "Bad Science" by Williams, Bashkin comments that the prehistory of cold fusion has been forgotten (which it has not), i.e. the 1926 work of Paneth and Peters and that of Tandberg in the 1930's.} } @article{J.Baue1991, author = {H.~H. Bauer}, title = {Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion}, journal = {J. Sci. Exploration}, volume = {4}, year = {1991}, pages = {267}, annote = {Electrochemist and science philosopher HH Bauer reviews Frank Close's book. While it compares well with the "pot boiler" by Peat, it appears to have major failings. For example, Close does not know the stature of Fleischmann, and does not explain some things of importance such as FPH's derivation of the famous fugacity of $10^{27}$ (HHB does not mention that this is itself a doubtful concept). As for the sections of the book of a science-philosophical nature, HHB considers them very weak, and suggests a separate book on the subject. There are complaints (not for the first time) about the proofreading and editing of the book.} } @article{J.Baue1992, author = {H.~H. Bauer}, title = {Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, by J. Huizenga}, journal = {J. Sci. Exploration}, volume = {6}, year = {1992}, pages = {395}, annote = {Science philosopher and electrochemist H.H. Bauer reviews Huizenga's book. Bauer begins with the statement that cold fusion, like the magnetic monopole or gravity waves, is yet to be verified, and no concensus has been reached. Huizenga's book presents an occasion to discuss cold fusion claims, but is wrong in many ways. While being valuable in giving an account of the DOE investigation, the book fails to be as up-to-date as it could be, is dogmatic and one-sided, partisan, shallow, offensively personal, and uses innuendo. Scientists in general and Huizenga in particular do not know much about the history of science but feel free to cite it nevertheless. Huizenga's invocation of pathological science is inappropriate and his history superficial, writes Prof. Bauer.} } @ARTICLE{J.Bebb2009, author = {P. Bebbington}, title = {Fringe benefit}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {203}, number = {2724}, year = {2009}, pages = {27}, annote = {Letter to the Editor, responding to Stiller's earlier Letter, in which Stiller complained about NS giving cold fusion any credence. Bebbington points out that fringe science sometimes leads to new knowledge, and NS enhances its reputation by publishing the interview with Fleischmann (see J.Cart2009).} } @article{J.Bish1989, author = {J.~E. Bishop}, title = {Development in atom fusion to be unveiled}, journal = {The Wall Street Journal}, number = {Mar. 23}, year = {1989}, pages = {B1}, annote = {Report, prior to the press conference given by Fleischmann and Pons, of their cold fusion claim, along with a well researched article on the background of the subject.} } @article{J.Bish1990, author = {J.~E. Bishop}, title = {Scientist says 'cold fusion' tests may have had some impure rods}, journal = {The Wall Street Journal}, number = {June 7}, year = {1990}, pages = {B4}, annote = {Kevin Wolf is reported to say that at least some of his palladium electrodes were contaminated by tritium. Bockris, however, in whose lab much greater amounts of tritium have been found, rejects this as an explanation. He is still convinced that they found tritium generated in the cells.} } @article{J.Bish1993, author = {J. Bishop}, title = {It ain't over till it's over... Cold Fusion}, journal = {Popular Science}, year = {1993}, number = {August}, pages = {47}, annote = {Written by the reporter who broke the news in 1989 in the Wall Street Journal, this is an update of the cnf affair, giving the 4+ year old history. Apart from the academic efforts in the area, the private enterprises that have sprung out are also mentioned, such as Tom Droege's basement work, the Clustron Inc. Co. with Mallove and Rothwell as principals, Harold Fox's several enterprises and Japan's investments. Bishop writes that 4He has not been found, citing as the sole exception Yamaguchi's work, and ignoring the China Lake results. He recommends Taubes book.} } @article{J.Bish1996, author = {J.~E. Bishop}, title = {A bottle rekindles scientific debate about the possibility of cold fusion}, journal = {Wall Street Journal}, number = {January 29}, year = {1996}, pages = {A7A}, annote = {JEB redundantly writes that "it's deja vu all over again", about the Patterson cell of beads, claimed to be producing massive amounts of excess heat. Several experts are quoted, both pro and con and JEB mentions that a US patent has been granted. "The dubious" Dr. Birnbaum, one of the experts is finally quoted using words such as "atrocious science" and "flimflam".} } @article{J.Bock1990, author = {J. O'M: Bockris}, journal = {Science}, volume = {249}, year = {1990}, pages = {463}, annote = { Referring to Taubes' "Cold fusion conundrum at Texas A\&M" in Science 248 (1990) 1299, Bockris says that the cold fusion experiments run in his labs are very laborious and time-consuming. "What was the purpose, then, of printing a gossip-based account which, by strong innuendo, suggests that a graduate student of mine faked his results?", he asks. He goes on to say that even if there were tritium in the Pd electrodes, it would not come out under the cathodic conditions and cites 26 other labs that have found tritium.} } @article{J.Bock1991a, author = {J. Bockris}, title = {Cold fusion II: the story continues}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {129}, number = {1752}, year = {1991}, pages = {50}, annote = {Unlike Frank Close, who writes Part I, p.46, in the same issue, JB is convinced that cold fusion takes place. He concentrates on the technical evidence, and points out some strong results, such as neutron bursts correlated with a rise in tritium level. He summarises the pros and cons in a table.} } @article{J.Bock1991b, author = {J.~O.~M. Bockris}, title = {Cold fusion results}, journal = {Science}, number = {Feb. 1}, volume = {251}, year = {1991}, pages = {499}, annote = {A letter rebutting R. Pool's claims that the Bockris school has not found tritium for a year. On the contrary, says Bockris, 37 groups have found it and Thomas Claytor of LANL can produce it at will. Also, Bockris says that there were no irregularities in the oral examination of Packham.} } @article{J.Bock1992a, author = {J.~O.~M. Bockris}, title = {Hesitant birth of cold fusion}, journal = {Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy}, volume = {7}, number = {4}, year = {1992}, pages = {91}, annote = {Bockris summarises his view of cold fusion. He mentions attacks on its proponents and relates some personal experiences to show that the scientific establishment is suppressing the field of study. Peer review is in doubt.} } @article{J.Bock1993, author = {J.~O.~M. Bockris}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {Sep. 6}, year = {1993}, pages = {4}, annote = {Bockris complains that an earlier article in C\&EN (June 14) was biased against cold fusion, by emphasising comments by well known opponents of cnf. Bockris writes that this is a deception, with 1000 workers worldwide, Japanese funding by \$50 million, 27 Russian research institutes all for cnf. He suggests dropping the name 'cold fusion' (although fusion certainly occurs, he writes) and substituting 'chemically stimulated nuclear reactions'.} } @article{J.Bore1993, author = {G. Borella}, title = {Uova d'aqua. (Egg of water)}, note = {In Italian}, journal = {Panorama}, number = {Apr. 18}, year = {1993}, pages = {166}, annote = {A popular article, describing the latest theory of Prof. Preparata, Milano, and coworker Del Guidice, as well as the persons themselves. Water, they point out, is quite anomalous. They suggest the existence of egg-like clumps and long-range cooperative properties in water, even at ambient temperatures. They then suggest that this may have bearing on cold fusion, as well as support the claims by Benveniste a few years ago, who claimed a kind of structural memory in water, and was ridiculed, especially by the journal Nature, in which his paper appeared.} } @article{J.Bown1993, author = {W. Bown}, title = {Frosty reception greets cold fusion figures}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {138}, number = {1871}, year = {1993}, pages = {6}, annote = {A commentary prompted by the news that "next week", there will appear a new paper by F\&P in Physics Letters A. Bown comments that scientists who have attempted a replication of the effect have concluded that it is chemical, if anything, and of little use in any case. One of the journal's editors, Vigier, is quoted as saying that it is not fusion, as fusion products - neutrons, tritium etc - are lacking. The graph shown from the paper shows excess heat, after deuterium charging, of about the same magnitude as the heat of deuteration. This is less than claimed previously. Fleischmann himself is said to be unsure whether the effect is nuclear, but thinks it could be a new fusion process. Morrison and Williams are quoted as skeptical.} } @article{J.Brau1989a, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 1}, journal = {J. Radionucl. Chem. Lett.}, volume = {136}, number = {3}, year = {1989}, pages = {1}, annote = {A short collection of publications relevant to cold fusion, news of which had just broken. The FPH and Jones+ papers and some newspaper reports are listed.} } @article{J.Brau1989b, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 2}, journal = {J. Radionucl. Chem. Lett.}, volume = {137}, year = {1989}, pages = {407}, annote = {Braun lists more cnf papers he has read, and provides a rough but useful classification, ticking off heat, neutrons, gamma rays, tritium, theory and hypotheses/comments, as applicable.} } @article{J.Brau1989c, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 3}, journal = {J. Radionucl. Chem. Lett.}, volume = {144}, year = {1989}, pages = {161}, annote = {More papers on cold fusion.} } @article{J.Brau1989d, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 4}, journal = {J. Radionucl. Chem. Lett.}, volume = {144}, year = {1989}, pages = {323}, annote = {More papers on cold fusion.} } @article{J.Brau1989e, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 5}, journal = {J. Radionucl. Chem. Lett.}, volume = {145}, year = {1989}, pages = {1}, annote = {More papers on cold fusion.} } @article{J.Brau1989f, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 6}, journal = {J. Radionucl. Chem. Lett.}, volume = {145}, year = {1989}, pages = {245}, annote = {More papers on cold fusion. Braun comments that the situation is quiet.} } @article{J.Brau1990a, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 7}, journal = {J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett.}, volume = {145}, year = {1990}, pages = {385}, annote = {Braun's selected, annotated bibliography continues.} } @article{J.Brau1990b, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 8}, journal = {J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett.}, volume = {146}, year = {1990}, pages = {289}, annote = {Braun continues to list cold fusion articles that he has read. He notes that reports now appear in journals, rather than on newspaper front pages.} } @article{J.Brau1991a, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 9}, journal = {J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett.}, volume = {153}, year = {1991}, pages = {1}, annote = {As the name implies, no. 9 in the series.} } @article{J.Brau1991b, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 10}, journal = {J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett.}, volume = {154}, year = {1991}, pages = {1}, annote = {No. 10 in the series.} } @article{J.Brau1991c, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 11}, journal = {J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett.}, volume = {154}, year = {1991}, pages = {237}, annote = {No. 11 in the series.} } @article{J.Brau1991d, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 12}, journal = {J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett.}, volume = {155}, year = {1991}, pages = {141}, annote = {No. 12 in the series.} } @article{J.Brau1992, author = {T. Braun}, title = {World flash on cold fusion. No. 13 (the final one in the series)}, journal = {J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett.}, volume = {164}, year = {1992}, pages = {137}, annote = {No. 13 in the series, and THE END. Prof. Braun comments on the number 13 and its appropriateness to the cold fusion situation. He refers the reader to Prof. Bruce Lewenstein's chronology for more information.} } @ARTICLE{J.Brau2009, author = {S. E. Braude}, title = {Editorial}, journal = {J. Sci. Explor.}, volume = {23}, year = {2009}, pages = {403--405}, annote = {* Editorial for a special issue of JSE mostly dedicated to cold fusion. JSE "fearlessly and non-dogmatically tackles topics that strongly polarize segments of the scientific commuunity". So here, we have a thoughtful spectrum of papers on the subject. With the exception of papers by Little (Litt2009a, Litt2009b) and Swartz (Swar2009a), the papers are actually extended abstracts from a symposium. These are introduced by J. Marwan, see J.Marw2009.} } @article{J.Bria1990, author = {J.~P. Briand}, title = {'Cold' fusion eighteen months later}, journal = {Recherche}, volume = {21}, number = {225}, year = {1990}, pages = {1282}, annote = {A brief skeptical review of the cold fusion affair, with 15 references. The difficulties of weak radiation measurement and calorimetry are pointed out, and the fact that physicists are generally skeptical.} } @article{J.Brit2007, author = {D. Britz}, title = {The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: a Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion by Edmund Storms.}, journal = {J. Sci. Expl.}, volume = {21}, year = {2007}, pages = {801--805}, annote = {Book review. Britz reviews the book by Ed Storms. See the Books file for details on the book.} } @article{J.Broa1990, author = {W. Broad}, title = {Contamination at 3 Labs Casts Doubt On Results Pointing to Cold Fusion}, journal = {New York Times June}, number = {June 8}, year = {1990}, pages = {B6}, annote = {Kevin Wolf of Texas A\&M and Edmund K. Storms and Carol Talcott of Los Alamos all retract their tritium findings; the tritium was in the palladium they used, in the first place (they used the same source). This was reported the previous day in the Wall Street Journal.} } @article{J.Broo2016, author = {M. Brooks}, title = {In from the cold}, journal = {New Scientist}, year = {2016}, number = {17 September}, pages = {34--37}, annote = {Somewhat skeptical update of LENR/cold fusion.} } @article{J.Bush1992, author = {B. Bush}, title = {(4)He studies misrepresented}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {Sep. 7}, year = {1992}, pages = {5}, annote = {Bush criticises Huizenga's letter, in which H alleges that no evidence for helium production in cold fusion experiments exists, thereby implicating the China Lake study, mentioned in Huizenga's book. Contrary to Huizenga's rejection of this study, Bush confirms that there was a high correlation between helium and heat, the chance of getting these results by accident being exceedingly small.} } @article{J.Byun1990, author = {J.~H. Byun}, title = {Cold nuclear fusion}, note = {In Korean}, journal = {Hwahak Kwa Kongop Ui Chinbo}, volume = {30}, year = {1990}, pages = {86}, annote = {"Review and reflections on the controversies surrounding cold fusion, including a list of Korean organizations and personnel funded to carry out related studies are given, with 12 refs". Quote from Chem. Abstr. 113:199182 (1990)} } @ARTICLE{J.Cart2009, author = {J. Cartwright}, title = {Interview: fusion in a cold climate}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {203}, number = {2717}, year = {2009}, pages = {28--29}, annote = {An interview with Martin Fleischmann, who regrets nothing except the scientific community's unscientific behaviour with respect to cold fusion.} } @article{J.Char1992, author = {D. Charles}, title = {Piece of teflon led to fatal explosion}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {134}, number = {1827}, year = {1992}, pages = {4}, annote = {Although the investigation continues at SRI, some conclusions have been reached about the cause of the explosion of a cold fusion cell in January '92, which killed Andrew Riley and injured some others. The events are thought to have been: a loose piece of teflon near the gas outlet blocked that outlet, as some gas escaped with a rush. The same rush also wet the catalyst in the head space, consisting of some Pd spheres. After this, the cell accumulated up to 30 atm of pressure of D2 and O2, which could not recombine fast enough on the wet catalyst. When Riley moved the cell, perhaps some Pd was exposed, setting up an explosive burn of the D2 with the O2; the bottom of the cell was blown out and the cell, now a rocket, hit Riley. Charles comments that several cold fusion workers have seen Pd electrodes glow red-hot when exposed to air after electrolysis. Cold fusion work at SRI has been suspended since the accident, but researchers are asking for more funds, partly for equipment to prevent recurrence of such an accident.} } @article{J.Chow1994, author = {M. Chown}, title = {Net backs probe into cold fusion}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {144}, number = {1956}, year = {1994}, pages = {11}, annote = {Reports that 'physicists' have pooled to send Tom Droege to Atlanta to examine the Griggs machine, supposed to generate more heat than the power put into it. This arose from discussions in the Usenet group 'Sci.Physics.Fusion'. More than \$1000 has been raised, Douglas Morrison is quoted as saying.} } @article{J.Chub1996, author = {S.~R. Chubb}, title = {More on Schwinger's views on cold fusion}, journal = {Physics Today}, number = {Sep.}, year = {1996}, pages = {15,117}, annote = {Chubb adds to a previous obituary for Schwinger, pointing out the Nobel prize winner's activity in cold fusion. He stresses that Schwinger believed in high D/Pd loadings. He cites only secondary sources.} } @article{J.Chub2001, author = {S. Chubb}, title = {Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {39}, year = {2001}, pages = {288}, annote = { Scott Chubb reviews the book of that title, by Beaudette, favourably. It is indeed a sober, thoughtful and well written effort, and makes the strong point that excess heat has not been competently disputed, as well as raising some science-sociological issues. Chubb focusses on the question of whether Nature has fooled various people.} } @article{J.Clos1990, author = {F. Close}, title = {Cold fusion I: the discovery that never was}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {129}, number = {1752}, year = {1990}, pages = {46}, annote = {A condensate of Close's book, which has just appeared. Close pronounces cold fusion dead, and goes behind the scenes to prove it. According to him, the prominent figures in this field have been less than honest on some crucial points. He dismisses the persistent small group of researchers with positive results with "... though it is still being pursued in isolated pockets around the globe". See also Part II, by Bockris.} } @article{J.Clos1991, author = {F. Close}, title = {Frank Close replies}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {130}, number = {1765}, year = {1991}, pages = {12}, annote = {Reply to Fleischmann's commment on the same page (heading: Talking Point). The issue is the story of the gamma peak in the original FPH(89) paper, which FC is trying to explain.} } @article{J.Clos1992a, author = {F. Close}, title = {Test-tube fusion: The loud beginning}, journal = {Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy}, volume = {7}, number = {4}, year = {1992}, pages = {84}, annote = {A condensation of FC's book on the subject, focussing especially on the mobile gamma peak. Nuclear effects seem to be ruled out.} } @article{J.Clos1992b, author = {F.~E. Close}, title = {Cold fusion research}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, volume = {70}, number = {15, Apr. 13}, year = {1992}, pages = {2}, annote = {A reply to Eugene Mallove's letter, criticising the reviews of his book on cold fusion, by Trevor Pinch and then by Frank Close. EM accused both of arrogant misunderstanding. Close replies that his dismissal of cold fusion is not due to arrogance, but to many analyses of the available evidence. Close goes on to argue that where excess heat is found, it must be due to an unknown chemical effect, as no nuclear products are found commensurate with the heat. Evidence of tritium, neutrons and charged particles are not, as EM claims, impressive but sporadic and too low in intensity. The few quality results are at variance with each other, and the simplest explanation, feels Close, is an error. EM invokes the test of history and FC is willing to wait for it.} } @article{J.Clos1992c, author = {F. Close}, title = {The cold war remembered}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {358}, year = {1992}, pages = {291}, annote = {Frank Close, himself the author of one of the better books on cold fusion, here reviews John Huizenga's "Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century". Close likes the book and his only criticism is on a point where he believes Huizenga's history of events is out by a crucial few days. Close considers Huizenga's outline of the helium episodes - Walling and Simon's publication of their paper even after P\&F's helium retraction, and Pons's sabotage of the double-blind helium study - as highlights of the book.} } @article{J.Clos1993, author = {F. Close}, title = {From farce to fiasco}, journal = {American Scientist }, volume = {81}, number = {January}, year = {1993}, pages = {83}, annote = {Frank Close's review of "Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century" by John Huizenga. Close has himself written a similarly critical book on the subject, and here appears to agree with Huizenga, who will not allow any possibility that some real phenomenon might lie behind cold fusion.} } @article{J.Cogh1992, author = {A. Coghlan}, title = {Test-tube fusion lives on in exile}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {135}, number = {1837}, year = {1992}, pages = {8}, annote = {Report from a meeting of the British Association, where Fleischmann showed a video of a cold fusion cell. All the water inside it evaporated. This showed that the setup could generate 3 gigawatts per cubic metre.} } @article{J.Cook1989, author = {C. Cookson}, title = {Test tube nuclear fusion claimed" and (p.26) "Nuclear fusion in a test tube}, journal = {Financial Times (London)}, number = {March 23}, year = {1989}, pages = {1,28,26}, annote = {Simultaneously with the Wall Street Journal article (see Bishop 1989), this is one of the two newspaper reports on cold fusion that startled the world in March 1989.} } @article{J.Crai1991, author = {H. Craig}, title = {All over now}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {351}, year = {1991}, pages = {264}, annote = {As a comment on Pippard's review of Frank Close's book Too Hot to Handle, Harmon Craig wrote this poem:\\ The cheers for Cold Fusion\\ Were last year's illusion:\\ What's left of a quorum\\ Is the Pons Asinorum. } @article{J.Craw1989a, author = {M. Crawford}, title = {Budget squeeze causes fission in fusion labs}, journal = {Science}, number = {April 14}, volume = {244}, year = {1989}, pages = {138}, annote = {This is about funding problems for plasma fusion; CNF is mentioned.} } @article{J.Craw1989b, author = {M. Crawford}, title = {Cold fusion: Is it hot enough to make power?}, journal = {Science}, number = {April 28}, volume = {244}, year = {1989}, pages = {423}, annote = {Discusses the possibilities.} } @article{J.Craw1989c, author = {M. Crawford}, title = {Utah looks to Congress for cold fusion cash}, journal = {Science}, volume = {244}, number = {May 5}, year = {1989}, pages = {522}, annote = {Utah's fund raising moves.} } @article{J.Craw1989d, author = {M.~H. Crawford}, title = {Utah keeps the faith}, journal = {Science}, volume = {245}, number = {August 18}, year = {1989}, pages = {705}, annote = {A 9-member panel at the U of Utah voted \$4.5 million for CNF. A chemist on the panel voted against; Wilford Hansen of the Physics Dept. abstained.} } @article{J.Craw1990, author = {M.~H. Crawford}, title = {Utah scientist: no cold fusion}, journal = {Science}, volume = {248}, year = {1990}, pages = {36.}, annote = {Refers to an article in Nature by Salamon, who could find no trace of a nuclear reaction when his team set up apparatus under Fleischmann and Pons'.} } @article{J.Croo1994, author = {R.~M. Crooks}, title = {Cold Fusion revisited (Review of Taubes "Bad Science")}, journal = {Science}, volume = {263}, number = {January 7}, year = {1994}, pages = {106}, annote = {RMC says straight-out that this is far and away the best book written on cold fusion; the others were either rushed into publication or serve as a soap box. He goes on to describe the book, and has few complaints except that Taubes appears to have geographic prejudices against some universities "in the provinces". RMS has talked to 10 out of the 257 persons interviewed by Taubes, and these 10 vouch for the correctness of the rendition ("80 to 90\%").} } @article{J.Crum1997, author = {L.~A. Crum}, title = {Shocking revelations}, journal = {Science}, volume = {276}, number = {May 30}, year = {1997}, pages = {1348}, annote = {The authors, themselves active in the field of sonoluminesence, here give a roundup of current theory of the effect. The Casimir theory of Eberlein, the electron bremsstrahlung theory, the old Jarman theory of shock waves and a new theory involving a chemical reaction, are mentioned, as well as some recent findings.} } @article{J.Czir1992, author = {J. B. Czirr and B. K. Harrison and G. L. Jensen and S. E. Jones and E. P. Palmer}, journal = {American Scientist}, volume = {80}, number = {Mar-Apr}, year = {1992}, pages = {107}, annote = {Polemic response to Rousseau's article in a previous issue of this journal, in which he names cold fusion as an example of pathological science, and mistakenly associates the Jones group with the FPH group. The present writers point out that they have repeatedly distanced themselves from the claims of FPH and do not subscribe to measurable amounts of excess heat. Also, all of their work has been properly peer-reviewed and they have not engaged lawyers to threaten others. Some of Rousseau's chronology is also in error (to do with the Jones/FPH collaboration ideas). The writers then describe the history of their involvement with cold fusion, as evidence that the work is standard science and not pathological. Nascent fields of science, they write, should not be branded as pathological purely because they produce unexpected results, inevitable for a nascent field. There are many contemporary examples of such fields and they are not commonly called pathological. See Rousseau, ibid Jan-Feb 1992, p. 54, and a response in this issue, p.108.} } @article{J.Daga1989, author = {R. Dagani}, title = {Fusion confusion: New data, but skepticism persists}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, volume = {67}, number = {April}, year = {1989}, pages = {4}, annote = {An early update on the CNF affair, then only one month old. F\&P confirm all claims, including the detection of 4He by mass spectrometry. RD writes that a preliminary note was published in "a Swiss electrochemical journal"; JEC is meant. Pons is quoted saying that "Recent tests ... produced about eight times more energy than is consumed as electricity".} } @article{J.Daga1990a, author = {R. Dagani}, title = {Advocates, skeptics alike still puzzled by cold fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, volume = {68}, number = {16}, year = {1990}, pages = {28}, annote = {Report of the 1st Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, March 1990, Salt Lake City, Utah. Most attendees appeared to be either positive, hopeful or at least openminded; very few real skeptics attended (Petrasso and Kellogg were there). Pons insisted that he keeps getting excess heat, up to 100-1000 times what is expected from conceivable chemical reactions. F\&P also still claim tritium but give no details. Forthcoming publications are promised, one (July) in Fusion Technology and a 100-page article in J. Electroanal. Chem. (there is no mention of whether this has been accepted; 100 pp is a big slice of that journal). Nine labs claim tritium; Murphy of Texas A\&M claims both D2O and Li are necessary. Problems are obvious, such as the strange ratios, e.g. T/n should be unity but isn't, etc. This leads to desperate suggestions: some delegates suggest that there might be several different nuclear reactions occurring, some in the bulk (producing heat), some at the surface (tritium?). These chemists are aware of the fact that He, if formed in the Pd, would be trapped there, and F\&P have had their electrodes analysed for He - none was found.} } @article{J.Daga1990b, author = {R. Dagani}, title = {Cold fusion dogged by more controversy}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {June 18}, year = {1990}, pages = {5}, annote = {A round-up of the recent troubles, mentioning the resignation of Univ. of Utah president, Chase N. Peterson and the background to this; the legal threats to the Salamon team by lawyer Gary Triggs (and his retraction of the threats) and the tritium contaminations, as well as the doubts about Bockris' high tritium levels.} } @article{J.Daga1991, author = {R. Dagani}, title = {Cold fusion: Utah pressures Pons, Fleischmann}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {Jan. 14}, year = {1991}, pages = {4}, annote = {Fritz Will, the director of the Cold Fusion Institute at Utah, tells C\&EN that Pons and Fleischmann have been severed from it and that their funding will be cut off unless they disclose certain data and fully cooperate with a new review committee. The council has, however, approved the release of the remaining \$900,000 to the CNFI.} } @article{J.Daga1993, author = {R. Dagani}, title = {Latest cold fusion results fail to win over skeptics}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {June 14}, year = {1993}, pages = {38}, annote = {Report of the Fleischmann and Pons paper in the journal Phys. Lett. A, which has fuelled the controversy on cold fusion. There are comments by McKubre, Noninski, Huizenga, Bard, Morrison and Hagelstein, all taking the expected point of view. The authors themselves could not be reached by Ron Dagani. Vigier, an editor of the journal and the person who facilitated the paper, is cited as believing that "very tight electron orbits" are the underlying mechanism for the excess heat claimed.} } @article{J.Daga1996, author = {R. Dagani}, title = {Cold fusion lives - sort of}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {Apr. 29}, year = {1996}, pages = {69}, annote = {Ron Dagani reports on the new magazine Infinite Energy. He says forget Nature and Science, here we have either the cutting edge, or we are over the edge. He mentions that cold fusioneers no longer insist on a nuclear fusion reaction and he discusses the CETI (Patterson) cell of beads. He wonders why "cold fusion" still lingers on, and likens it with the urine movement (advocating the therapeutic value of drinking urine), similarly lingering. He concludes that it is up to "cold fusion" proponents to prove their point.} } @article{J.Davi2003, author = {B. Daviss}, title = {Reasonable doubt}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {177}, number = {2388, Mar. 29}, year = {2003}, pages = {36--43}, annote = {An account of the cold fusion story with special emphasis on certain workers, such as Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles (see their photos). This is a neutral account, leaving room for the thesis that cold fusion is real. Frank Gordon, department chief of Szpak's lab, believes that some modest funding should be devoted to cold fusion. The piece focusses especially on the travails of the Szpak team and Miles, both of whom feel poorly treated.} } @article{J.Davi2005, author = {F. David}, title = {L'exp{\'e}rience de Mizuno}, journal = {Fusion (Paris)}, number = {August}, year = {2005}, pages = {4--5}, note = {In French}, annote = {This reports a highschool science project by two Louisiana school girls, who tried to reproduce the plasma electrolysis experiment of Mizuno's. Out of 40 runs, an average of 17\% excess heat was measured.} } @article{J.Davi2007, author = {B. Daviss}, title = {Cold fusion rides again}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {194}, number = {2602}, year = {2007}, pages = {32--34}, annote = {Mainly a report on the paper by Szpak et al in Naturwissenschaften (2007), also providing a potted history of the field. Slight tongue in cheek tone.} } @article{J.DeAn, author = {A. DeAngelis}, title = {Views on nuclear fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {May 15}, year = {1989}, pages = {3}, annote = {Ultrashort Comment, suggesting that what is going on is a nuclear reaction between Pd and deuterium, producing different isotopes of Pd. This might be the first suggestion of LT transmutation, which received greater attention years later.} } @article{J.DelG1996, author = {E. {Del Giudice} and G. Preparata}, title = {Jury still out on cold fusion?}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {381}, year = {1996}, pages = {729}, annote = {The two Italian authors object to Nature's report, a few issues back, of the outcome of the Italian court case they and 3 others led against the newspaper La Repubblica, and which they lost. Nature had implied that the court thus upheld the newspaper's claim that cold fusion is scientific fraud. The authors correct this, pointing out that nowhere was this stated in the court's decision. In fact, the court acknowledges that anomalous excess heat has been produced, as advised by the court consultant. The authors end by predicting ridicule for the True Unbelievers of cold fusions, soon.} } @article{J.Dick1989, author = {S. Dickman}, title = {1920s discovery, retraction}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {338}, year = {1989}, pages = {692}, annote = {Description of the work of Paneth and Peters in 1926 and -27, giving all the references; mentions also Tandberg's Swedish patent application.} } @article{J.Doug1989, author = {J. Douglas}, title = {In hot pursuit of cold fusion}, journal = {EPRI J.}, volume = {14}, year = {1989}, pages = {20}, annote = {An early, thorough article on cold fusion.} } @article{J.Eber1989, author = {K. Ebert}, title = {Elektrochemisch induzierte Fusion von Deuterium (Electrochemically induced fusion of deuterium)}, note = {In German}, journal = {Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab.}, volume = {37}, year = {1989}, pages = {470}, note = {In German}, annote = {Early comment, reporting on the initial F\&P press conference and the paper in JEC. The article is not very critical, raising only a slight doubt as to the applicability of the Nernst equation to an overvoltage (the famous 0.8eV).} } @article{J.Elbe1990, author = {B. Elbek}, title = {What has happened with cold fusion?}, journal = {Kvant}, volume = {1}, number = {1}, year = {1990}, pages = {3}, note = {In Danish}, annote = {Bent Elbek, one of the first to comment on The Affair (albeit only in a local journal, like this one), does another roundup, after 18 months. He waxes a little philosophic on the topic of burden of proof (it is on those who make cold fusion claims, not on the skeptics) and mentions muon catalysis. At the end, he censures cold fusioneers for their unscientific publication habits, like press conferences, and sees the possibility of "cold fusion in the future, but hardly in the form one briefly believed in in 1989".} } @article{J.Fede2004, author = {T. Feder}, title = {DOE warms to cold fusion}, journal = {Physics Today}, number = {April}, year = {2004}, pages = {27}, annote = {James Decker of the DOE is quoted as saying that some scientists visited him in 2003, and he decided to reopen the case for cold fusion, although most scientists remain deeply skeptical.} } @article{J.Flei1991, author = {M. Fleischmann}, title = {Cold fusion: reply to critics}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {130}, number = {1765}, year = {1991}, pages = {12}, annote = {Fleischmann commments on Frank Close's statements with respect to the gamma peak in the FPH(89) paper. This peak was later shifted and deformed, and the circumstances surrounding this are obscure. FC has pointed out the confusion, and MF here writes that the change was simply due to a different kind of interpolation, and that FC has not looked at the literature properly.} } @article{J.Fogl1992, author = {J.~W. Fogle}, title = {Media and science: Differing perspectives}, journal = {Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy}, volume = {7}, number = {4}, year = {1992}, pages = {98}, annote = {The director of Public Relations at the U of Utah looks at some issues in cold fusion, such as peer review, media coverage, secrecy, the role of law, patent issues, reporter objectivity and the personal heat engendered by the field.} } @article{J.Fox1990, author = {B. Fox}, title = {Patents blow the lid on cold fusion}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {128}, number = {1742}, year = {1990}, pages = {12}, annote = {Having applied for a string (7) of patents on cold fusion in the USA, Fleischmann and Pons have now also applied for an International patent (application WO 90/10935), which reveals all. Interestingly, the Utah chemists Walling and Simons (the "innocent chemists") have their names on the patent, for their "theory" of what might be happening (i.e. the process, for some unknown reason, leads to (4)He and gamma emission). Hawkins, the coauthor of the seminal paper, who was inadvertently left out of the author list in that paper, does not appear in the patent. Barry Fox states that the patent's wording is vague throughout.} } @article{J.Fox1994, author = {B. Fox}, title = {Cold fusion rides again}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {142}, number = {1931}, year = {1994}, pages = {23}, annote = {The Japanese company Canon has issued a patent on cold fusion, describing a cell in which deuterium is absorbed by a metal, and temperature cycling promotes cold fusion.} } @article{J.Fran1991, author = {A. Frank}, title = {Fooling ourselves}, journal = {Exploratorium Quarterly}, number = {Winter}, year = {1991}, pages = {12}, annote = {Adam Frank, a graduate student in (presumably) one of the natural sciences, here expands on his interpretation of how scientific cheating might come about. In many cases, he writes, it is the researcher fooling him/herself. Some celebrated cases are cited, such as Summerlin (who knew he was cheating), Baltimore (who probably didn't want to know his postdoc was cheating), Blondlot (who fooled himself), and Pons and Fleischmann, who also engaged in wishful thinking, says Frank. He also cites Kepler, echoing other recent reports that Kepler might have massaged some of Tycho Brahe's numbers; this is in fact an old chestnut, and a misunderstanding. Science historians know that Kepler did not massage, but rather corrected known errors (Abstracter's comment).} } @article{J.Free1992, author = {D.~H. Freedman}, title = {A Japanese claim generates new heat}, journal = {Science}, volume = {246}, number = {Apr. 24}, year = {1992}, pages = {438}, annote = {A report of the results of Takahashi, who has caused a stir "even in a field where eyebrows have become permanently raised". DHF reports that the claim is for 100 W for months at a time, or up to 40 times the erergy put into the cells, and more power than is generated in an equal volume of fuel rod in a nuclear reactor. Takahashi used small sheets of palladium, and a varying electrolysis current. Neutron emissions were not only very low but inversely proportional to the heat emissions; this "closes the door" to a nuclear explanation of this, according to Petrasso, who was asked for comment. But Takahashi favours an exotic four-body reaction.} } @article{J.Garl1998, author = {L. Garlaschelli}, title = {Fusione raffreddata (Fusion cooled off)}, journal = {Chim. Ind. (Milano)}, volume = {80}, year = {1998}, pages = {1073}, note = {In Italian}, annote = {Organic chemist LG comments on CNF here. A brief run through the history is given, then the normal d-d fusion stated, and what the author regards as F\&P's hypothesis that d-d fusion goes the 4He way instead. After ten years, LG writes, it is an embarrasssment for science, but there remain some working in the field, also in Italy (Preparata and Gozzi are mentioned, among others). LG appears skeptical.} } @article{J.Garw1989, author = {R.~L. Garwin}, title = {Concensus on cold fusion still elusive}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {338}, year = {1989}, pages = {616}, annote = {Report of Erice (Italy) meeting, where Fleischmann as well as Jones and Czirr were present. Garwin correctly pinpoints the problems with the heat measurements of FPH and the lack of accompanying radiation, and is skeptical.} } @article{J.Garw1991, author = {R. L. Garwin}, title = {"Fire from Ice" (Book review)}, journal = {Science}, volume = {254}, number = {Nov. 29}, year = {1991}, pages = {1394}, annote = { Garwin reviews Eugene Mallove's book at some length. Garwin makes a hobby of debunking false claims and has scored in the areas of gravity waves and polywater. He stresses here that experimental results are of primary importance, which Mallove also says in defense of cold fusion in the face of its theoretical rejection. However, the experiments cited by Mallove are found, on closer examination, to be inconclusive. Garwin writes that cold fusion may, after all, be an example of pathological science.} } @article{J.Garw1999, author = {R.~L. Garwin}, title = {Cold fusion prediction}, journal = {Science}, volume = {285}, number = {Aug. 27}, year = {1999}, pages = {1357}, annote = {Garwin, who has had a hand in assessing cold fusion grants in the past, reacts to Mallove's Letter in Science 284 (1999) 1929, in which, among other things, Mallove accuses Garwin of ignoring the evidence for cold fusion. Garwin points to a bet made by Mallove with Barry Merriman, Mallove predicting that cold fusion would be widely accepted by July 19, 1996. The outcome is controversial, both sides claiming victory. Garwin writes that he would like to see cold fusion a reality, but his calendar now reads 1999, and he has yet to see any practical devices based on it.} } @article{J.Gers1989, author = {D. Gershon}, title = {Cold fusion, anyone?}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {340}, year = {1989}, pages = {412}, annote = {The firms Thermonetics and Hart Scientific offer calorimeters and the J.M. Ney Company offers palladium electrodes to FPH's specifications, all for others eager to have a go.} } @article{J.Glan1996, author = {J. Glanz}, title = {The spell of sonoluminescence}, journal = {Science}, volume = {274}, number = {Nov. 1}, year = {1996}, pages = {718}, annote = {A review of the field, good description of it and all the theories are named. These are widely different from each other; in other words, we do not understand the phenomenon. There are pictures of bubbles expanding and collapsing again. Future research plans are mentioned.} } @article{J.Gold1992, author = {M. Goldhaber}, title = {Cold fusion: not nuclear}, journal = {Science}, volume = {257}, number = {July 17}, year = {1992}, pages = {310}, annote = {M. Goldhaber comments on an earlier issue of Science, in which one David H. Friedman asserts that the Hagelstein theory has it that neutrons are absorbed by the Pd. Goldhaber writes that this can only be the Pd nuclei, and such absorption would release secondary products such as radioactive Pd isotopes, beta- and gamma rays, all easily detected. They have not been, and therefore the process does not occur. In fact, since neither tritium, helium or neutrons have been found, nuclear explanations of excess heat in cold fusion electrolyses are not due to nuclear processes.} } @article{J.Good1994, author = {D. Goodstein}, title = {Pariah Science. Whatever happened to cold fusion?}, journal = {Amer. Scholar }, volume = {63}, number = {4}, year = {1994}, pages = {527}, annote = {A 'cold fusion' skeptic gives some impressions of the field, and concludes that cnf has not been treated fairly. Goodstein knows Scaramuzzi personally and knows that he is above scientific reproach. Nevertheless, Italian physicists are scathing about his preoccupation with the subject. He also notes that while excess heat claims are dismissed, the lower-level neutron claims are considered possible ("good" and "bad" cold fusion).} } @article{J.Goug1992, author = {W. C: Gough}, title = {"Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion, by F. Close." (Book review)}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {22}, year = {1992}, pages = {188}, annote = {WC Gough finds this book exciting, as a mystery story, and he keeps up this metaphor throughout the review. The "murder" is the fact of cold fusion. He comments on scientists' belief system, and its role in the weakening of the peer review process. G implies that this has worked against cnf research. Close is criticised as detective for jumping to conclusions. The true culprit, i.e. the real explanation of cold fusion, has yet to be found, says Gough.} } @article{J.Grad1992, author = {J. Grad}, title = {Cold fusion still controversial}, journal = {Engineers Australia}, volume = {64}, number = {14}, year = {1992}, pages = {18}, annote = {Triggered by the upcoming cold fusion conference in Nagoya in October, this report sums up the field. Grad believes that the conference will be a more sober affair than the previous conferences, and many participants, he thinks, will avoid the term "cold fusion" altogether. While Huizenga is quoted against the phenomenon, Grad writes that too much evidence now points to some real nuclear effect, and lately experimenters have achieved some degree of reproducibility, he believes. He quotes a recent statement by Wada, as well as describing his original experiment, which is shown in a figure. Takahashi is also quoted, claiming excess heat, neutrons and tritium. Tritium has also been found by Dr. Will, at 50 times the background, but Will regrets the lack of solid evidence for excess heat. Hagelstein's theory is mentioned.} } @article{J.Gree1990, author = {D.~S. Greenberg}, title = {Cold fusion and other matters}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {346}, year = {1990}, pages = {326}, annote = {An interview by Greenberg with the legendary (i.e. mythical) Grant Swinger, published in The Grant Swinger Papers, 2nd Ed. Science \& Government Rept, 6226 Northwest Station, Washington DC 20015: 1990, \$8.95. Cold fusion gets a good mention here. Swinger is impressed with the way money has been obtained but notes that others do the same thing. E.g. tokamak fusion gets \$ $4\times 10^8$/a and - just like cold fusion, but now for 30 years (!) - has not shown a thing. There are lots of other money eaters with flimsy bases.} } @article{J.Haal1999, author = {J. E. Haaland}, journal = {Science}, volume = {284}, year = {1999}, pages = {1930}, annote = {The author reacts to an article by Voss in the same journal, critical of the granting of a cold fusion patent. He writes that the article showed a lack of open-mindedness.} } @article{J.Hadf1992, author = {J. Hadfield}, title = {Lukewarm reception for Japanese cold fusion}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {136}, number = {Oct. 31}, year = {1992}, pages = {10}, annote = {PH reports from Tokyo, having been to several meetings, among them the Nagoya cold fusion conference. He mainly reports the new results of Yamaguchi, who has had some news exposure with his Pd platelet, coated on one side with Pd oxide, charged from the gas phase with D2 and then coated on the other side with Au. (4)He then appears after some hours, claims Yamaguchi, who however detected no neutrons; this is a different kind of fusion. Hadfield refers to what must be mass spectrometry of emitted particles, quoting a 0.64\% mass difference between D2 and He atoms. Yamaguchi repeated this experiment five times, successful every time. Critics suspect that the He came from the glass.} } @article{J.Hage41994, author = {J.~L. Hagelstein}, title = {In memory of Julian Schwinger}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {26}, number = {4T}, year = {1994}, pages = {xi}, annote = {One of three dedication pieces on the occasion of the death of Julian Schwinger, Nobel Prize winning physicist, who before his death strongly supported 'cold fusion' on theoretical grounds.} } @article{J.Hall1990, author = {N. Hall}, title = {Utah keeps embers of cold fusion aglow}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {126}, number = {1711}, year = {1990}, pages = {25}, annote = {Report on the first annual conference held at the National Cold Fusion Center at the University of Utah. About 200 people attended, 40 gave papers of positive results. However Petrassi, who was there, said that none of these show the expected number of nuclear particles, indicating non-nuclear effects. Nevertheless the Center's director Fritz Will speaks of solid progress, pointing to excess heat consistently found (10-30\%) as well as x-rays from bombardment of PdD with charged particles. The Salamon et al paper is also mentioned in the report.} } @article{J.Hami1992, author = {D.~P. Hamilton}, title = {A lethal 'cold fusion' blast}, journal = {Science}, volume = {255}, number = {Jan. 10}, year = {1992}, pages = {153}, annote = {The first report in this journal of the explosion at the SRI labs. Not much is known at this point, and there are conflicting accounts: either it occurred while three people were placing a steel cyclinder, containing the experiment, on a shelf; or someone attempted to open a jammed valve on a deuterium gas cylinder.} } @article{J.Hans1993, author = {J.~G. Hansen}, title = {A shattered halo}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {361}, year = {1993}, pages = {501}, annote = {This gives a summary of what is known about the (11)Li isotope, anomalously stable. (10)Li decays instantly but (11)Li does not. Two of the 8 neutrons in this isotope lie outside the nucleus, and tunnel effects render this arrangement relatively stable. This has been known for 5 years, and Hansen gives a description of both old and recent work.} } @article{J.Hans1996, author = {L.~D. Hansen and S.~E. Jones}, title = {Response to 'Facts being distorted in cold fusion controversy.'}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {30}, year = {1996}, pages = {131}, annote = {The authors of the two papers in J. Phys. Chem. respond to a protest from Storms (same FT issue, p.130) about distortion of facts. They say Storms is not correct, and bad calorimetry was done by some workers, and that he fails to document his claims. They do not agree that cold fusion skeptics should "keep quiet".} } @article{J.Herb1992, author = {R. Herbert}, title = {Book Reviews: Paperbacks.}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {136}, number = {Oct. 31}, year = {1992}, pages = {45}, annote = {RH briefly reviews the Penguin paperpack edition of Frank Close's book Too Hot to Handle. He writes "The story caused jaws and work to be dropped", but reports that it gradually became clear that it [cold fusion] cannot be done. RH likes the book, and recommends it as a thriller for a plane flight for some appalled delight.} } @article{J.Hine1993, author = {T.~M. Hines}, title = {Cold fusion and pathological science}, journal = {Skeptical Inquirer}, volume = {17}, year = {1993}, pages = {201}, annote = {Psychologist Hines, on sabbatical in a biological institute, reviews the book "Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century" by Huizenga, and finds it by far the best book on the subject. He likes the very detailed cold fusion history of the first two months, and accepts all Huizenga writes. This is seen from quote marks around "discovery", and phrases like 'spurious reports' or 'near religious zeal'. He agrees that this book is a useful addition to the literature on pathological science.} } @article{J.Hodg1993, author = {N. Hodgkinson}, title = {Nuclear confusion}, journal = {The Sunday Times (London)}, year = {1993}, number = {June 27}, pages = {9.2 ff.}, annote = {The latest on Fleischmann and Pons in their labs near Nice, where they are forging ahead with cold fusion. They say that a 10 kW generator could be ready "within a year". Hodgkinson provides a succinct history of the field up to the present, and cites several experts, such as Dr. Bewick, a colleague of Fleischmann, and Frank Close, author of one of several books on this subject, as well as Prof. Bockris, prominent electrochemist and cold fusion researcher, and Dr. McKubre, prominent for his cold fusion results, as yet unpublished. Unavoidably, there is some focus on the controversial nature of cold fusion. There is full-page photo of F\&P, looking through one of their calorimeter baths.} } @article{J.Hoff1994, author = {N. J. Hoffman}, title = {"Bad Science. The short life and weird times of cold fusion", by Gary Taubes (Book review)}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {25}, year = {1994}, pages = {225--227}, annote = {Hoffman, who has himself written a (neutral) book on the subject, reviews the demolition-job of Taubes. Words like "delusion" and "derangement" appear in Taubes' book. Hoffman is disturbed by the embellishments of facts that he sees in the book (as do others).} } @article{J.Hoff1996a, author = {N. Hoffman}, title = {Author's response to book review}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {30}, year = {1996}, pages = {129}, annote = {Hoffman adds some remarks to the book review by Lewenstein (same FT issue, p.128). There were a few minor errors, such as misspelling, a misinterpretation of Hoffman's view of Taubes, Joe Champion and Frank Close.} } @article{J.Hoff1996b, author = {N. Hoffman}, title = {Response to 'Facts being distorted in cold fusion controversy.'}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {30}, year = {1996}, pages = {131}, annote = {Hoffman responds to charges by Storms (same FT issue, p.130) of inaccuracies in the book " A Dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects", particularly concerning the surface accumulation of elements such as mass 106. Hoffman has received support for his book from, e.g., Bockris, and now hopes for a blast from skeptics for his book, to be sure that he fits Storms' description as "intellectually dishonest".} } @article{J.Hold1989, author = {C. Holden}, title = {The selling of cold fusion}, journal = {Science}, volume = {245}, number = {Sep. 15}, year = {1989}, pages = {1192}, annote = {Two new ventures, capitalising on CNF, have sprung up. One is a weekly newsletter published by the Fusion Information Center at Utah U; the other is the Princeton Fusion Report, selling for \$647.} } @article{J.Horg1992, author = {J. Horgan}, title = {Japan, cold fusion and Lyndon LaRouche}, journal = {Sci. American}, number = {May}, year = {1992}, pages = {17}, annote = {Horgan writes that cold fusion is dismissed by the vast majority of scientists as pathological, but it is receiving support in Japan. Now this fact is being used to promote US funding; Fleischmann made some veiled hints to that effect. On paper, it does seem as if there are 100 Japanese researchers working on cnf but the subject is nevertheless not respectable in that country. Ikegami's employer, the Nat. Inst. of Fusion Sci., does not provide funds for it. The surprising claims of Takahashi are unconfirmed by others. Pons and Fleischmann are sponsored not by Toyota, as some believe, but by Technova, Inc., a Tokyo-based think tank. Finally, Fleischmann quotes 21st Century as a good source of information. Lyndon LaRouche, who own this magazine, believes that the British Queen heads an international drug cartel.} } @article{J.Huiz1992a, author = {J. Huizenga}, title = {Cold fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {July 20}, year = {1992}, pages = {3}, annote = {John Huizenga's reply to the letter by Cheves Walling in C\&EN, 29-Jun. He writes that far from being exonerated of naive behaviour, Walling and Simons' paper is even worse, now that Walling has corrected the history. Furthermore, what they write violates known nuclear physics.} } @article{J.Huiz1992b, author = {J.~R. Huizenga}, title = {Cold fusion labeled 'Fiasco of Century'}, journal = {Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy}, volume = {7}, number = {4}, year = {1992}, pages = {78}, annote = {JRH here condenses what he wrote in his book. CNF is an example of bad science, which cost \$50-100 million to be found wanting. But science remains healthy.} } @article{J.Huiz1994, author = {J.~R. Huizenga}, journal = {Physics Today}, number = {March}, year = {1994}, pages = {94}, annote = { Reply of John Huizenga to the Letter by Mallove, disagreeing with Williams' review of Taubes' book "Bad Science". Huizenga agrees with the book, too, and writes cnf off as bad science.} } @article{J.Hull1989, author = {L.~A. Hull}, title = {Views on nuclear fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {May 15}, year = {1989}, pages = {3,46}, annote = {Suggests that what is going on is electron capture by protons, catalysing fusion. This would circumvent the electrostatic repulsion problem. Cold fusion might be the answer to the world problems of greenhouse effect, energy shortages and environmental pollution.} } @article{J.Jone1989, author = {D. {Jones (alias Daedalus)}}, title = {Blow the fuse!}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {338}, year = {1989}, pages = {710}, annote = {Tongue-in-cheek suggestion that, once D is packed into Pd, and surrounded by explosive charges, this could make a splendid and elegant hydrogen bomb, with no lasting fallout. Another idea is a fusion-powered watch.} } @article{J.Jone1992, author = {S.~E. Jones}, title = {Cold fusion: Need to keep door wide open}, journal = {Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy}, volume = {7}, number = {4}, year = {1992}, pages = {94}, annote = {Drawing on his experience of muon catalysed cold fusion, Jones has no problem accepting the reality of cold fusion. He describes some of his own involvement, going back to 1985. He appeals for more tolerance by the majority for this nascent area of physics. Researchers should be encouraged to publish, so that results can be scrutinised.} } @article{J.Joyc1989, author = {J. Joyce}, title = {Unlucky break for the friends of cold fusion}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {123}, number = {1671}, year = {1989}, pages = {34}, annote = {Among other things, a report of the DOE's advisory board meeting, where skepticism evidently reigned. Pons was absent but others reported negative findings. Menlove reported accoustic emissions from Pd and Ti under pressure of D2, but no neutrons.} } @article{J.Joyc1990a, author = {C. Joyce}, title = {Gunfight at the cold fusion corral}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {126}, number = {1721}, year = {1990}, pages = {22}, annote = {A summary of the recent troubles at the U of U; i.e. the "anonymous" donation by the University to the cold fusion institute, and the legal threats to the Salamon team.} } @article{J.Joyc1990b, author = {C. Joyce}, title = {Cold fusion pioneer shuns the limelight}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {128}, number = {1741}, year = {1990}, pages = {17}, annote = {A report of the current situation, being that both Pons and Fleischmann are in Europe (in Pons' case, it was not known exactly where), at the time of a couple of meetings between the Cold Fusion Institute and the cold fusion advisory committee, which is to assess the case for future funding of the Institute. The absence of the two men from at least the first meeting (Pons did eventually attend a second one) caused rumours to fly.} } @article{J.Kenw1991, author = {M. Kenward}, title = {A close look at fusion}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {129}, number = {1759}, year = {1991}, pages = {54}, annote = {Review of Frank Close's book "Too Hot to Handle". Kenward, an energy expert and former editor of New Scientist, reviews some of the past history of cold fusion (going back only to Frank, 1947), muon catalysed fusion and the recent furore over electrolytic cold fusion, which Close's book documents.} } @article{J.Kest1997, author = {D. Kestenbaum}, title = {Cold fusion - science or religion?}, journal = {R\&D Mag.}, number = {Apr.}, year = {1997}, pages = {51}, annote = {Short history of the subject, focussing mainly on the CETI claims (an advertisement for their commercial \$3750 kit accompanies the piece). The article also quotes Douglas Morrison, George Miley, Dick Blue, Reding (of CETI), Barry Merriman, Gary Taubes and McKubre.} } @article{J.Kier1997, author = {V. Kiernan}, title = {Sharp blow may burst glowing bubble theory}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {154}, number = {2078}, year = {1997}, pages = {20}, annote = {Report on the latest theory of sonoluminescence from bubbles. Andrea Prosperetti of Johns Hopkins U has a theory involving a fast-moving jet going through the bubble, caused by the sound. The bubble is split, and it is this that produces the light, in a similar way to fracture emission. Temperatures go to less than 6000 K, too low for fusion. Lawrence Crum is cited skeptical of the theory. One might add that the theory does not explain the spectrum of the emission from the bubbles. The paper is in Acc. Soc. Amer. 101(1997) 2003.} } @article{J.Kier1997, author = {V. Kiernan}, title = {Sharp blow may burst glowing bubble theory}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {154}, number = {2078}, year = {1997}, pages = {20}, annote = {Report on the latest theory of sonoluminescence from bubbles. Andrea Prosperetti of Johns Hopkins U has a theory involving a fast-moving jet going through the bubble, caused by the sound. The bubble is split, and it is this that produces the light, in a similar way to fracture emission. Temperatures go to less than 6000 K, too low for fusion. Lawrence Crum is cited skeptical of the theory. One might add that the theory does not explain the spectrum of the emission from the bubbles. The paper is in Acc. Soc. Amer. 101(1997) 2003.} } @article{J.Kosh1989, author = {D.~E. {Koshland Jr}}, title = {The confusion profusion}, journal = {Science}, volume = {244}, number = {May 19}, year = {1989}, pages = {753}, annote = {Notes that peer review is shown again to be the best way to publishing. Also, the CNF affair shows that fraud is not easy - results will be checked by others, as has been the case in CNF.} } @article{J.Kriv2008, author = {S.~B. Krivit}, title = {Cold fusion is neither dead nor merely a wishful fantasy}, journal = {Great Falls Tribune}, number = {April 19}, year = {2008}, pages = {A4}, annote = {Krivit responds to another recent article in this newspaper, that may have left the reader with the impression that cold fusion has been disproved, as he writes. He argues that clear evidence of some kind of a new nuclear process now exists, pointing to a group of tenacious researchers in the field, and that there is evidence for energy output and transmutation from systems initially at room temperature. It seems that there is a book about to be published, this summer, by Oxford UP, but Krivit does not provide any further details, other than that the book has been peer-reviewed.} } @article{J.Land2003, author = {G. Landvogt}, title = {The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics}, journal = {Int. J. Hydrogen Energy}, volume = {28}, year = {2003}, pages = {1155}, note = {Book review), annote = {Landvogt reviews, somewhat enthusiastically and uncritically, Mills' 2001 edition.} } @article{J.LaVi, author = {P. {LaViolette}}, journal = {Science}, volume = {284}, year = {1999}, pages = {1929--1930}, annote = {A response from a patent holder of "new physics" to an article in this journal by Voss, criticising the granting of the patent, as it was about cold fusion. The author describes his successful career in several areas, in his defense.} } @article{J.Lewe1991, author = {B. Lewenstein}, title = {Energy in a Jar (Book review)}, journal = {The Sciences}, number = {Jul/Aug}, year = {1991}, pages = {44}, annote = {An early book review by Bruce Lewenstein, science sociologist, comparing the two books by Frank Close (Too Hot to Handle) and Eugene Mallove (Fire From Ice). Lewenstein likes them both and points out that they take opposing points of view. He finally asks what was unique about the cold fusion story, and concludes that it is NOT the presence of the press, nor competition between research teams, nor the intrusion of politics into science, nor patents, nor the doubtful nature of the phenomenon. What L considers unique is that cold fusion brought together all of what is known about the social context of science and is a good example for this.} } @article{J.Lewe1992a, author = {B. Lewenstein}, title = {Too Hot to Handle: The Story of the Race for Cold Fusion}, journal = {Publ. Underst. Sci.}, volume = {1}, year = {1992}, pages = {132}, annote = {Science sociologist BL reviews Frank Close's book on cold fusion. It comes in for some criticism. BL classes it as the popularisation of science, which Close will be pleased to read. BL considers the book timely and clearly written by a professional but complains of wordiness, repetition and muddiness, in part the fault of poor editing. The rejection of cold fusion is perhaps too facile, based largely on FPH; the over 600 articles now public present much more than this early slim evidence for the phenomenon. A scholarly analysis of the place of public communication of science in this affair remains to be done, writes BL.} } @ARTICLE{J.Lewe1992b, author = {B. V. Lewenstein}, title = {Cold fusion saga: lesson in science}, journal = {Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy}, volume = {7}, number = {4}, year = {1992}, pages = {67--77}, annote = {Science sociologist Bruce Lewenstein examines the cold fusion story, in the light of what it teaches us about how science works. In fact, we already know a lot about this, and cold fusion is not unique, as some have suggested. It is unique in one way, perhaps, in that it represents a confluence of media, patents, controversy and politics.} } @article{J.Lewe1996, author = {B. Lewenstein}, title = {A dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects: A Guide for the perplexed About Cold Fusion (Book review)}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {30}, year = {1996}, pages = {128}, annote = {Science sociologist Bruce Lewenstein, who has followed the "cold fusion affair", writes a review of the title book by Nate Hoffman. He describes the contents and the unusual form (the same as the Hume-Rothery classic), and points out a few small flaws (commented on in the same FT issue, p.129, by Hoffman). BL concludes that the book is useful to those trying to understand the technical issues of "cold fusion".} } @article{J.Lewi1989, author = {J.~D. Lewins}, title = {The fusion trail goes cold}, journal = {Nucl. Eng. (Inst. Nucl. Eng.)}, volume = {30}, year = {1989}, pages = {181}, annote = {Discussion with no refs on the scientific and political controversy concerning recent (Fleischmann et al, 1989, Jones et al 1989) and historical reports of cold fusion by Paneth \& Peters.} } @article{J.Lind1989a, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {More than scepticism}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {339}, year = {1989}, pages = {4}, annote = {Report of the late-night meeting of the American Physical Society. Much scepticism was expressed by Koonin, Lewis and Meyerhof and others. Jones was present and was politely listened to. Lindley concludes that participants felt that fusion was dead.} } @article{J.Lind1989b, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {Still no certainty}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {339}, year = {1989}, pages = {84}, annote = {Report of the Los Angeles meeting of the Electrochemical Society, with Fleischmann and Pons present and defending their heat output results, but retracting other aspects. Lewis criticised their heat results. Huggins reported consistently greater heat output from heavy water cells compared with light water cells. Fleischmann denied that some of their light water cells also produced heat. Steven Jones says that it is vital to detect radiation as well as heat in order to claim CNF.} } @article{J.Lind1989c, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {Cold fusion gathering is incentive to collaboration}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {339}, year = {1989}, pages = {325}, annote = {Report of the Santa Fe meeting, and some research politics.} } @article{J.Lind1989d, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {Double blow for cold nuclear fusion}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {339}, year = {1989}, pages = {567}, annote = {Harwell investigation is stopped, after achieving no CNF, and collaboration of Pons and the U. of Utah with Los Alamos breaks down.} } @article{J.Lind1989e, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {No new money from US government?}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {340}, year = {1989}, pages = {174}, annote = {A panel asked by the US Dept. of Energy to assess CNF (chairmen: Huizenga and Ramsey) was not convinced by experiments so far. It did grant academic interest to the phenomenon but will probably not recommend money for it.} } @article{J.Lind1989f, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {Noncommittal outcome}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {341}, year = {1989}, pages = {679}, annote = {Report of the meeting "Anomalous effects in deuterated metals" in Washington, 16-18 October, organised by the National Science Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. The aim was to help the NSF deal with the flood of grant applications for CNF, not to pass judgement on CNF.} } @article{J.Lind1989g, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {No evidence for neutrons at Yale/BYU}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {342}, year = {1989}, pages = {106}, annote = {Steven Jones and Moshe Gai give evidence to the DoE of their joint experiments, exposing Ti chips to D2 gas. No neutron bursts. Jones, however, says that the experiment went for 77 hours, and that another lot, jointly with Menlove at Los Alamos, running for (collectively) 13000 hours, emitted neutron in bursts at such a rate as to give a 50\% chance of detecting a burst in the 77 hours.} } @article{J.Lind1989h, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {Official thumbs down}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {342}, year = {1989}, pages = {215}, annote = {The DoE report. Huizenga, one of the committee's co-chairmen is quoted as being impatient with people still claiming excess heat; none of the calorimetric measurements were of good enough quality and, in any case, heat alone proves nothing. This leaves only Kevin Wolf of Texas, who repeatedly found tritium, whose origin, however, is a mystery since, if it comes from CNF, it should be accompanied by secondary neutrons and other radiation; Wolf finds none of these and this argues for a low-energy origin of the tritium.} } @article{J.Lind1989i, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {Sitting on the fence}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {342}, year = {1989}, pages = {870}, annote = {Review of the book by F. David Peat "Cold fusion: The Making of a Scientific Controversy". Mr Lindley is not happy, Peat has done a rush job and made some mistakes.} } @article{J.Lind1990a, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {The embarrassment of cold fusion}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {344}, year = {1990}, pages = {375}, annote = {An incisive and acid summary of the year's cold fusion. Lindley sums up the cold fusion affair, taking it apart bit by bit, citing the diminishing claims of Fleischmann and Pons, the Salamon measurements, Petrasso's criticism, the anomalies necessitating a new physical process, the contradictions (did the controls with H2O produce heat, or didn't they?) and the He apparently found but which should have stayed inside the palladium. He also throws cold water on virtually all theories that have been advanced to explain cold fusion; they all appear to make a lot out of tiny effects or invoke effects that cannot operate under the relevant conditions. As far as David Lindley (and Nature) is concerned, cold fusion is not only dead, it never lived.} } @article{J.Lind1990b, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {Utah faculty protest cold fusion dealings}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {345}, year = {1990}, pages = {561}, annote = {Report of the controversy at Utah about the legal threats to the Salamon team and the not-so-anonymous donation of \$500000 to the cold fusion institute. Interestingly, this report now also makes it clear that Nature rejected FPH's original manuscript, unless it were revised (their lawyer Gary Triggs attempted to change their minds); an earlier Nature editorial had stated that the non-appearance of this article in Nature should not be seen to imply anything about the article's quality.} } @article{J.Lind1990c, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {Cold fusion. Second round}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {346}, year = {1990}, pages = {303}, annote = {A sneak preview of the second, long-awaited FPH paper - only now there are more authors (and Hawkins has not been left out) - in J. Electroanal. Chem., 25 July issue, 1990. Only electrochemistry and calorimetry is mentioned, no word about emission of nuclear particles or radiation. Evidently the team still believes they have something.} } @article{J.Lind1992a, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {Out, out brief candle}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {357}, year = {1992}, pages = {635}, annote = {Focusses on tritium generation, especially by the Bockris group, stating that this has now been disproved as due to contamination.} } @article{J.Lind1992b, author = {D. Lindley}, title = {Role of the press in cold fusion saga}, journal = {Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy}, volume = {7}, number = {4}, year = {1992}, pages = {104}, annote = {David Lindley, an editor of the journal Nature, which has distanced itself from cold fusion, gives an account of the story of the (non-) publication, and comments on press coverage vs peer review. High temperature superconductivity is compared with CNF; the former also received press attention, but proved itself by means of demonstrable results, unlike CNF. Attention by the press does not put peer review out of action.} } @article{J.Lyon1989, author = {R.~K. Lyon}, title = {Views on nuclear fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {May 15}, year = {1989}, pages = {46}, annote = {Lyon suggests that fusion might occur at Pd crystal defect sites, and the product is 4He, and no neutrons etc. Like ALberts, Lyon warns of the dangers of radiation with this process.} } @article{J.Madd1989a, author = {J. Maddox}, title = {What to say about cold fusion}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {338}, year = {1989}, pages = {701}, annote = {Raises broader issues such as the public image of science, publication, secrecy, control experiments.} } @article{J.Madd1989b, author = {J. Maddox}, title = {End of cold fusion in sight}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {340}, year = {1989}, pages = {15}, annote = {A summary of the CNF affair, concluding that it was all a mistake.} } @article{J.Mala1999, author = {D. Malakoff}, title = {DOE to review nuclear grant}, journal = {Science}, volume = {285}, year = {1999}, pages = {505}, annote = {It seems that Prof. George Miley received a grant of \$100000 from the DOE, approved in May this year. Now the DOE is reconsidering the grant, having been alerted that the project is cold fusion related. The Office of Science within the DOE reckons it should have handled the proposal, rather than the Office of Nuclear Energy. It is felt that the project can damage DOE's image. The work proposed is the low-energy disposal of radionuclides, using a setup very similar to that claimed to produce excess heat, in the Ni/ light water systems. Miley, contacted by Science, says that this work is radically different from cold fusion.} } @article{J.Mall1992, author = {E. Mallove}, title = {Cold fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {Feb. 10}, year = {1992}, pages = {2}, annote = {Eugene Mallove objects to the review of his book, Fire From Ice, by Trevor Pinch, in a previous issue of Chem. \& Eng. News. EM says that Pinch, like Close, do not understand that the evidence favours cold fusion and points to the journal Fusion Technology as a source. Only his book tells the true story of how cold fusion was dismissed arrogantly by the scientific establishment, writes EM.} } @article{J.Mall1994, author = {E. Mallove}, journal = {Physics Today}, number = {March}, year = {1994}, pages = {93}, annote = { Mallove criticises the review by D. Williams of the Taubes book "Bad Science", in which he agreed with Taubes. Mallove does not, and states that cnf is alive and growing with many attending the Nagoya conference, 24 laboratories working in Russia, etc.} } @article{J.Mall1999, author = {E.~F. Mallove}, title = {'New physics' patents}, journal = {Science}, volume = {284}, number = {June 18}, year = {1999}, pages = {1929}, annote = {Mallove (coeditor of the magazine Infinite Energy) joins Valone in a response to the item by David Voss in an earlier Science issue (May 21, p. 1252). Voss referred to Infinite Energy as "a publication for cold-fusion buffs", and Mallove objects to this pejorative language. IE, writes Mallove, has included articles by Nobelist Schwinger (known for his support of cold fusion) and physicist Parmenter, who wrote on cold fusion theory with Nobelist, Lamb, as coauthor, among other distinguished authors.} } @article{J.Mars1990, author = {E. Marshall}, title = {Science beyond the pale}, journal = {Science}, volume = {249}, number = {July 6}, year = {1990}, pages = {14}, annote = {This is a somewhat general article about scientists who - rightly or wrongly - find themselves at odds with the scientific establishment. The astronomer Halton Arp is the main example. Wegener gets a mention. Cold fusion is mentioned in the context of "most screwy ideas just turn out to be screwy ideas" and Robert Park executive director of the APS complains that between \$50-100 million have been spent disproving this preposterous idea.} } @article{J.Mart1989, author = {J. Martin}, title = {Views on nuclear fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {May 15}, year = {1989}, pages = {46}, annote = {Martin suggests that electrolysis might not be needed to get deuterium into Pd, but simply the gas under more than atmospheric pressure, and finely dispersed Pd. This is thus an early suggestion of gas phase CNF.} } @article{J.Mart1992a, author = {F.~F. Martin}, title = {Pons confirms cold fusion}, journal = {Corriere della Sera}, number = {Mar. 17}, year = {1992}, pages = {28}, note = {In Italian}, annote = {A seminar titled "Cold fusion, three years later" was organised in Torino this year, and Pons was interviewed there. He confirmed that he and Fleischmann are working in Nice, financed by the Japanese firm Technova. He claims that they are using a Pd alloy and with it, obtain 1 kW/cm$^3$, with 100\% reproducibility. He cites the d+d--> (4)He reaction as a possible explanation and points to Prof. Preparata's theory of superradiance for support. The object of the work is a prototype of an energy source to be presented to the public. Prof. Bressani confirms that his group, too, has positive results and that cold fusion is, without doubt, a real phenomenon.} } @article{J.Mart1992b, author = {F.~F. Martin}, title = {E in attesa piovono diffamazioni e denunce (Defamation and denunciation)}, journal = {Corriere della Sera}, number = {Mar. 17}, year = {1992}, pages = {28}, note = {In Italian}, annote = {FFM reports the legal defamation charge of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica which, in Oct and Nov 1991, called cold fusion "scientific fraud" and then went on to compare a fraudulent scientist with a fornicating priest, or a pedophile schoolmaster. The scientists named by the paper: Fleischmann, Pons, Preparata, Bressani and Giudice, are claiming damages of, respectively, 2, 2, 1, 1 and 1 billion lire for defamation.} } @ARTICLE{J.Marw2009, author = {J. Marwan}, title = {{New Energy Technology Symposium on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions}}, journal = {J. Sci. Explor.}, volume = {23}, year = {2009}, pages = {437--439}, submitted = {07/2009}, annote = {* Introduction to a number of extended abstracts in this journal on LENR, from a symposium (see the title). These are so long and contain so much detail, that they were deemed to be papers; but not this introduction, which is only a Comment. Marwan was instrumental in getting them published and pontificates a bit on the subject here. He concludes that the papers presented at the symposium provide evidence of the reality of LENR.} } @article{J.Mass1990, author = {M. Massaron and F. Lamperti}, title = {Cold fusion}, note = {In Italian}, journal = {Tecnol. Chim.}, volume = {10}, year = {1990}, pages = {98}, annote = {A chronological summary of the developments with particular emphasis on Scaramuzzi at ENEA, Italy. Neutrons were counted in D2 after passing it through a column filled with Ti chips.} } @article{J.Mats1994, author = {T. Matsumoto}, title = {Two proposals concerning cold fusion}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {26}, year = {1994}, pages = {1337}, annote = {Matsumoto, a frequent author in FT, states that up to now, cold fusion papers have enjoyed special status in FT, not being reviewed as strictly as other papers. This status has now been removed by the editor and Matsumoto agrees. However, now he would like to submit papers on ball lightning, in which he claims cold fusion takes place, and proposes that such papers should enjoy that special leniency. His other proposal is to set up an international bench marking project on nuclear emulsions exposed to cold fusion environments, and urges interested parties to contact him.} } @article{J.Miles1991, author = {M.~H. Miles}, title = {Cold fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, volume = {69}, number = {Sep. 30}, year = {1991}, pages = {4}, annote = {Miles rebuts Alberts' letter in the same journal, Aug 12. Miles was one of the authors of the paper criticised by Alberts. Miles denies the possibility of an artifact in all reported isoperibolic calorimetry experiments on cold fusion. Miles writes that there is too much emphasis on possible error, thereby missing what may prove to be the discovery of the century.} } @article{J.Miles1992, author = {M.~H. Miles}, title = {Cold fusion: China Lake results}, journal = {Science}, volume = {255}, number = {Mar. 13}, year = {1992}, pages = {1335}, annote = {A reply to Gary Taubes' earlier piece 'A cold fusion deja vu at Caltech', ibid 254 (1991) 1582, in which GT mainly focusses on Fleischmann and Pons but also sums up the state of cold fusion as he sees it. Among other things, GT claims that the China Lake (4)He results are likely to be due to contamination. Miles here points out the unlikelihood of this: in 8 out of 8 cells producing excess heat, He was found; in 6 out of 6 cells not producing excess heat, no He was found. This coincidence is not likely to be due to chance, having a probablity of 1/16384, writes Miles.} } @article{J.Miley1989, author = {G. H. Miley}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {16}, year = {1989}, pages = {115}, annote = { The Editor of Fusion Technology explains that he has several reasons for opening a cold fusion section in the journal. Among these are the fact that it is a potentially valuable technique if it can be verified, and the fact that Miley himself is involved in cold fusion experiments and is personally convinced that something interesting and real is going on.} } @article{J.Miley1991, author = {G. Miley}, title = {Comments}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {19}, year = {1991}, pages = {541--542}, annote = {The editor of this journal here comments on an article in another magazine, Fusion Facts, discussing the role of Fusion Technology in the granting of a cold fusion patent. He is aware that the inclusion of cold fusion papers in FT is controversial but defends this. He writes that all cold fusion papers in FT are reviewed as all others are.} } @article{J.Miley1994a, author = {G. Miley}, title = {Comments}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {26}, number = {4T}, year = {1994}, pages = {iii}, annote = {GM makes some remarks on two rather different papers published in this issue of FT, i.e. papers about carbon rod arcing. They are thought by some to have relevance to cold fusion, and GM states that because these papers are bizarre, four referees were used and they were mostly neutral, not finding any errors. So GM took them, partly because of their provocative nature.} } @article{J.Miley1994b, author = {G. Miley}, title = {Editorial}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {26}, number = {4T}, year = {1994}, pages = {vii}, annote = {The editor of FT here explains this special issue, containing 65 (by my count) papers delivered at ICCF-4, Maui, 1993. He mentions a review process, taking more time than expected; thus we can take it that these papers were reviewed.} } @article{J.Miley1994c, author = {G. Miley}, title = {Dedication to Julian Schwinger}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {26}, number = {4T}, year = {1994}, pages = {viii}, annote = {One of three dedication pieces on the occasion of the death of Julian Schwinger, Nobel Prize winning physicist, who before his death strongly supported cold fusion on theoretical grounds.} } @article{J.Miley1999, author = {G. Miley}, title = {"Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion Technology by T. Mizuno." (Book review)}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {36}, year = {1999}, pages = {245}, annote = { Fusion Technol. editor and fusion researcher George Miley reviews the Mizuno book, translated by Rothwell. Miley finds it a fascinating read, for example the unusually honest description of the progress of Mizuno's research in the cold fusion field.} } @article{J.Morr1990, author = {D.~R.~O. Morrison}, title = {The rise and decline of cold fusion}, journal = {Physics World}, volume = {3}, number = {2}, year = {1990}, pages = {35}, annote = {A critical status report written in Feb-90. Among other things, it lists the possible known D-D fusion reactions (which the facts refuse to fit), gives the "milestones" in a separate box and a critical assessment of all the important results and claims. The author gives away his leanings by ending the article with a paragraph on pathological science, clearly putting "cold fusion" in the same category as n-rays, and pointing out an interesting correlation between the attitude towards cold fusion and geography - it seems that with this issue, like so many others, it's "us vs. them".} } @article{J.Morr1996, author = {D.~R.~O. Morrison}, title = {Damning verdict on cold fusion}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {382}, year = {1996}, pages = {572}, annote = {DROM responds to the charge laid by Del Guidice and Preparata in a previous Letter (Nature 381 (1996) 729) that a report in Nature 380 (1996) 367 was incorrect. Some verbal subtleties in the Italian court, where DROM was the scientific advisor in the case of Fleischmann et al against the newspaper La Repubblica (check with the relevant Comment items), so that it is not entirely true, nor untrue, that the court found against "scientific fraud", as originally written in the newspaper. The case ended simply with the failure of the injured parties to win their case, but without any court pronouncement on cold fusion or fraud, etc. DROM then points out that Pons had, years ago, been photographed with a thermos-sized cold fusion water heater, but that this has not materialised. DROM hopes to see this water heater at the next CNF conference in October 1996 at Sapporo.} } @article{J.Morr1997, author = {D.~R.~O. Morrison}, title = {Schwinger credited with finding anomaly, exploring cold fusion}, journal = {Physics Today}, number = {June}, year = {1997}, pages = {106}, annote = {DROM reacts to a Letter by Chubb, Sep-97 in the same journal. He points out that Chubb seems to have missed Schwinger's two major points on cold fusion: that it is the dp fusion reaction, not the commonly assumed dd reaction, that is the likely candidate; and that the excess gamma energy is rapidly shared by many lattice atoms and thus scaled down to 0.1 eV or plain heat. DROM writes that the first of the two suggests an experiment in which the ratio of H2O/D2O is systematically varied (which has not been done), and that Schwinger was wrong on the second count.} } @article{J.Murb1992, author = {W. Murbach}, title = {Cold fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {Mar. 9}, year = {1992}, pages = {3}, annote = {WM comments on the SRI explosion, pointing to an old inorganic chemistry text (Therald Moeller, 1952), which notes that hydrogen is released explosively from palladium hydride when the electrolysis current is turned off. Also, he points out that ignition in hot fusion has not been easy to achieve, and reckons that this gives an exceedingly small chance to cold fusion, in principle.} } @article{J.Myer1992, author = {F.~S. Myers}, title = {Where there's heat there's yen}, journal = {Science}, volume = {257}, number = {July 24}, year = {1992}, pages = {474}, annote = {Another report of MITI's decision to fund some cold fusion research in Japan. Unlike the one in Nature (Swinbanks), this one is fairly certain that this will go ahead, "barring last-minute objections by the Japanese Ministry of Finance". MITI does not subscribe to the reality of cold fusion but is just being pragmatic in the face of excess heat reports. This report mentions figures of \$1-\$3 million, and a consortium of Universities and about 10 leading Japanese utility, electronics and metallurgical companies to do the work, over a 5-year period.} } @article{J.Nadi1998, author = {S. Nadis}, title = {Utah university finally drops out of cold-fusion patent chase}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {393}, year = {1998}, pages = {7}, annote = {Nature reports that UU, having spent a total of about \$500,000 on cold fusion, now is dropping all patent rights on it. After ENECO relinquished its license last year, UU has found no other takers; Fleischmann and Pons themselves were not interested either. Mallove is quoted as saying that there is commercial development going on and Hal Fox says that CNF will be displaced by "plasma-injected transmutation".} } @article{J.Nevi1989, author = {B. Nevins}, title = {Comments on cold fusion}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {16}, year = {1989}, pages = {115}, annote = {"Do you really want to rapidly publish a bunch of 'halfbaked' work on cold fusion? I expect that Pons and Fleischmann will find the error in their power balance within the next month or so, and all those authors will be desperately trying to withdraw their papers". This was written April 22, 1989... See GH Miley, the Editor's, response.} } @article{J.Niel1989, author = {J.~B. Nielsen}, title = {Svensker s{\o}gte patent p{\aa} kold fusion i 1927 (Swede applied for a patent on cold fusion in 1927)}, journal = {Ingeni{\o}ren}, number = {16, Apr. 21}, year = {1989}, pages = {2}, note = {In Danish}, annote = {Nielsen points out that Tandberg, Swedish researcher, tried to patent cold fusion in 1927. The patent was denied because the description was inadequate.} } @article{J.Niel1991, author = {J.~S. Nielsen}, title = {Den kolde fusion p{\aa} vej ind fra kulden (Cold fusion on the way in from the cold)}, journal = {Information}, number = {Aug. 24/25}, year = {1991}, pages = {6--7}, note = {In Danish}, annote = {There is new optimism on cold fusion, to the surprise of many, writes the author. An earlier critic of the phenomenon, Ellegaard, has just been to a cold fusion symposium at Como, Italy, and concludes that cold fusion is not dead.} } @article{J.Oder1992, author = {R.~G. Oderwald}, title = {Fusion feudists}, journal = {Amer. Scientist}, volume = {80}, year = {1992}, pages = {107}, annote = {Oderwald here objects to an earlier article by Rousseau, entitled "Case studies in pathological science", mentioning cold fusion as an example. He considers the article itself as a better example.} } @article{J.Oria1993, author = {R.~A. Oriani}, title = {Cold fusion difficulty}, journal = {Science}, volume = {261}, number = {July 16}, year = {1993}, pages = {279}, annote = {Oriani here corrects a statement attributed to him by Amato in a piece on cold fusion in the 14-May issue of Science. Amato had him say that he found the 1993 paper of F\&P in Phys. Lett. A "difficult to assess"; Amato neglected to say that the difficulty was that Oriani had not had time to study the paper yet, so the remark was reported out of context.} } @article{J.Pass1994, author = {T.~O. Passel}, title = {Preface. Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion.}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {26}, number = {4T}, year = {1994}, pages = {xxii}, annote = {T.O. Passel, of EPRI, who was instrumental in shaping this special issue of FT, here prefaces it with a few remarks. Like the editor, G. Miley, he establishes that the papers were reviewed and that many did not make it through this process, or were not submitted to it. He comments that this could be a comment on the reviewing process as much as on the papers. There is a Shakespeare quote.} } @article{J.Pica1989, author = {L.~E. Picasso}, title = {Fusione: Fredda o calda? (Fusion: Cold or hot?)}, journal = {Acc. Inoss.}, volume = {56}, year = {1989}, pages = {5}, note = {In Italian}, annote = {General comment, summarising orthodox fusion approaches such as plasma fusion with magnetic or inertial confinement, muon catalysed fusion, and the surprising unorthodox chemically induced fusion. Prof. Picasso concludes with the hope that after the preliminary rush to reproduce and explain the results of Jones+ and JPH, there will now follow a period of more considered investigation.} } @article{J.Pinc1992, author = {T. Pinch}, title = {Cold fusion fiasco}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {Jan. 13}, year = {1992}, pages = {28}, annote = {Trevor Pinch, an associate professor of the sociology of science and technology, compares the cold fusion books of Frank Close and Eugene Mallove, respectively "Too Hot to Handle" and "Fire from Ice". He finds them both good accounts of the story and the technical details, but wanting in the authors' attitude to how science is done, and considers both authors biassed. Close praises the negative experiments, while Mallove considers lack of evidence as proof of cold fusion.} } @article{J.Pipp1991, author = {B. Pippard}, title = {Footnote to history}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {350}, year = {1991}, pages = {29}, annote = {A purported review of Frank Close's book "Too Hot to Handle". The actual review takes up less than 20\% of the article, and is scanty. Close is upbraided for being repetitious and at times irritating. The contents of the book are not discussed. The other 80\% of the article gives BP's view of the cold fusion affair. An interesting point made here is that, despite P\&F's claim to have been working on cold fusion for 5 years up to 1989, there was very little to show for it. BP does not mention - as does Close - the puzzles remaining to be explained by skeptics.} } @article{J.Plat1998, author = {C. Platt}, title = {What if cold fusion is real?}, journal = {Wired}, number = {November}, year = {1998}, page = {feature pages}, annote = {Discussion of cold fusion in a computer magazine, taking a qualified positive view, in the light of a "huge body of evidence".} } @article{J.Pool1989a, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Fusion breakthrough?}, journal = {Science}, volume = {243}, number = {Mar. 31}, year = {1989}, pages = {1661}, annote = {A sober report of the FPH and Jones+ results.} } @article{J.Pool1989b, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Fusion followup: confusion abounds}, journal = {Science}, volume = {244}, number = {Apr. 7}, year = {1989}, pages = {27}, annote = {The mad scramble to reproduce FPH's results; Bockris invoking unusual branching ratios to explain the lack of neutrons; some politics.} } @article{J.Pool1989c, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Confirmations heat up cold fusion prospects}, journal = {Science}, volume = {244}, number = {Apr. 14}, year = {1989}, pages = {143}, annote = {Heat was generated at Texas A\&M; Hungarians find neutrons, too; Walling of Utah has a possible explanation.} } @article{J.Pool1989d, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Skepticism grows over cold fusion}, journal = {Science}, volume = {244}, number = {Apr. 21}, year = {1989}, pages = {284}, annote = {More results coming in, contradictory.} } @article{J.Pool1989e, author = {R. Pool}, title = {How cold fusion happened - twice!}, journal = {Science}, volume = {244}, number = {Apr. 28}, year = {1989}, pages = {420}, annote = {"Inside story of how two little-known electrochemists achieved the breakthrough, or the disappointment, of the decade - and how it may all have been discovered before". The "before" refers to Tandberg, 1927. Gives some personal details about Fleischmann and Pons, and also some of the background for the FPH/Jones+ interaction.} } @article{J.Pool1989f, author = {R. Pool and T.~A. Heppenheimer}, title = {Electrochemists fail to heat up cold fusion}, journal = {Science}, volume = {244}, number = {May 12}, year = {1989}, pages = {647}, annote = {Report of the meeting of The Electrochemical Society in Los Angeles, 8 May. Strangely, it seems that only people who had positive results to report, were welcome. Nathan Lewis got in, but had to fight for it. Both Pons and Fleischmann were there to reiterate their claims, and Huggins reported 40\% greater heat output when using heavy water D2O than with H2O. Lewis's charge that inadequate mixing in FPH's cells caused hot spots and thus false heat readings were rebutted by Fleischmann who showed videos of fast mixing in their cells. See also Kreysa's report in section 5 (unpub- lished writings) of this bibliography.} } @article{J.Pool1989g, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Cold fusion: Bait and switch?}, journal = {Science}, volume = {244}, number = {May 19}, year = {1989}, pages = {774}, annote = {Apparently there was a rumor about Fleischmann and Pons's secrecy, to do with chemical changes in their Pd electrodes, which could possibly explain their results and in themselves be valuable processes.} } @article{J.Pool1989h, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Cold fusion: End of Act I}, journal = {Science}, number = {June 2}, volume = {244}, year = {1989}, pages = {1039}, annote = {Report of the workshop at Santa Fe in the week before. No concensus was reached, no changes of mind. There was some feeling that there may be two different kinds of CNF, one producing heat, the other radiation. Huggins, having tightened up his controls after Nathan Lewis's criticism, still finds excess heat, and Appleby and Bockris, of Texas A\&M, also have positive results. However, other results show that electrodes that produced heat at Texas produced neither radiation, helium or tritium, so a chemical process seems indicated. Fracture-induced fusion (see Klyuev+ in the main biblio) was discussed as an alternative.} } @article{J.Pool1989i, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Cold fusion still in state of confusion}, journal = {Science}, volume = {245}, number = {July 21}, year = {1989}, pages = {256}, annote = {A Federal (US) Government committee decided not to support CNF, in the face of widespread skepticism. However, there are still people adhering to CNF. The State of Utah, however, has granted \$5 million for research on CNF.} } @article{J.Pool1989j, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Brookhaven chemists find new fusion method}, journal = {Science}, volume = {245}, number = {Sep. 29}, year = {1989}, pages = {1448}, annote = {Not cold fusion, but has some similarities. Deuterated Ti is shot at with deuterium, causing some fusion. This work started 15 years ago.} } @article{J.Pool1989k, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Will new evidence support cold fusion?}, journal = {Science}, volume = {246}, number = {Oct. 13}, year = {1989}, pages = {206}, annote = {A wrap-up of the CNF scene at present, a week before a workshop to take place at Washington. Kevin Wolf of Texas A\&M is quoted as someone trying to explain, without invoking CNF, the tritium he finds, but so far without success.} } @article{J.Pool1989l, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Teller, Chu 'boost' cold fusion}, journal = {Science}, volume = {246}, number = {Oct. 27}, year = {1989}, pages = {449}, annote = {At a 2.5 day workshop in Washington, DC, Teller and Chu advocated more work on CNF. Appleby, of Texas A\&M, suggested that it might be an as yet unknown neutral particle, that causes CNF.} } @article{J.Pool1989m, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Cold fusion: Smoke, little light}, journal = {Science}, volume = {246}, number = {Nov. 17}, year = {1989}, pages = {879}, annote = {Report on a meeting, sponsored jointly by the NSF and the Electric Power Research Institute, where some feathers were ruffled, because funding, rather than the science of CNF, was concentrated on. Other participants were happy, however.} } @article{J.Pool1989n, author = {R. Pool}, title = {In hot water over cold fusion}, journal = {Science}, volume = {246}, number = {Dec. 15}, year = {1989}, pages = {1384}, annote = {Report on Hagelstein's talk at the annual meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in San Francisco, December 1989, which has caused some controversy and may predujice his achievement of tenure at MIT. He had also irritated people with what they considered premature release of his theories on cold fusion, 3 weeks after the FPH paper; however, Pool points out that Hagelstein has always been very reluctant to talk to the press. His superiors are worried about his tenacity in holding to his theory of coherent fusion, perhaps beyond reason. Again, his own statements are more moderate than his detractors seem to think.} } @article{J.Pool1990a, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Wolf: My tritium was an impurity}, journal = {Science}, volume = {248}, number = {June 15}, year = {1990}, pages = {1301}, annote = {Kevin Wolf, whose evidence for tritium had been one of the hardest to dismiss, has now found that it probably resided in the palladium used in his group's experiments. This, despite standard precautions to eliminate it by prolonged heat treatment before the experiments. The item includes a comment by Wolf on the suspicions of fraud with respect to the tritium results of the Bockris group in the same complex.} } @article{J.Pool1990b, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Cold fusion: Only the grin remains}, journal = {Science}, volume = {250}, number = {Nov. 9}, year = {1990}, pages = {754}, annote = {"Like the Cheshire Cat, cold fusion has slowly faded away" says Pool, and the grin is on the faces of the researchers around the world who continue to find neutrons. Pool has been to the Utah meeting on cold fusion at Brigham Young, and reports. SE Jones wishes not be associated with FPH. One new result made public at the meeting was emission of charged particles, perhaps tritium ions. But Douglas Morrison was not impressed and continues to regard cold fusion as pathology, says Pool.} } @article{J.Pool1990c, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Cold fusion at Texas A\&M: problems, but no fraud}, journal = {Science}, volume = {250}, number = {Dec. 14}, year = {1990}, pages = {1507}, annote = {"A 4-month-long internal review of cold fusion research at Texas A\&M University has resulted in a report critical of the way many of the scientists involved in that research behaved, but it found no direct evidence of scientific fraud". Carelessness, lack of objectivity, personal frictions and unusual treatments of a dissertation (Packham's) were charged. Smiles all round, as the message appears to be "science takes care of itself", and no fraud is found.} } @article{J.Pool1991a, author = {R. Pool}, title = {High noon in Utah}, journal = {Science}, volume = {251}, number = {Jan. 25}, year = {1991}, pages = {371}, annote = {Pons has to deliver half of his data to Wilford Hansen of the review committee, by Jan 15, and the rest by Feb 1. If the data is not convincing, the 20\% funding of the CNFI going to Pons, will be cut off.} } @article{J.Pool1991b, author = {R. Pool}, journal = {Science}, volume = {251}, number = {Feb. 1}, year = {1991}, pages = {499}, annote = {Response to Bockris' response on the same page. Pool points out that the report of TAM itself states that no tritium has been found there for some time, and that a review panel found that serious breaches occurred, concerning Packham's examination.} } @article{J.Pool1993, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Alchemy altercation at Texas A\&M}, journal = {Science}, volume = {262}, number = {Nov. 26}, year = {1993}, pages = {1367}, annote = {"Four years ago it was cold fusion, now it's alchemy" is the opening sentence in this report of Bockris' involvement with shady characters purporting to be able to change silver into gold. One Joe Champion apparently convinced Bockris that he could do it; however, the repeated successes could not be repeated after Champion left. The man was later goaled, and this casts bad light on some \$200,000 he procured for Bockris, from a gullible investor. Bockris is then quoted as saying that he is now working on transmutation of carbon into iron.} } @article{J.Pool1994, author = {R. Pool}, title = {Can sound drive fusion in a bubble?}, journal = {Science}, volume = {266}, number = {Dec. 16}, year = {1994}, pages = {1804}, annote = {Report of recent work on sonoluminescence, where indirect evidence indicates temperatures between $10^5$ and $10^6$ K, just 2-3 orders of magnitude below that required for deuterium fusion to achieve interesting rates. The workers hope to fine-tune the setup to reach these levels. They take care to distance themselves from 'cold fusion'; if fusion is achieved here, it will be hot.} } @article{J.Port1992, author = {O. Port and J. Carey and R. Buderi and N. Gross}, title = {Cold fusion isn't dead in the water yet}, journal = {Business Week}, number = {March 2}, year = {1992}, pages = {90}, annote = {A lively summary of the current status of cold fusion. It focusses in particular on the theory and experiments of R.T. Bush, and those of A. Takahashi, both of which are highly controversial. Tom Droege's basement experiments round off this interesting discussion.} } @article{J.Powe1996, author = {C.~S. Powell}, title = {"Chain Reaction" (review)}, journal = {Scientific American}, number = {October}, year = {1996}, pages = {98}, annote = {Short review of the picture Chain Reaction. The review mentions the "notorious 1989 'discovery' of cold fusion" and that sonoluminescence is invoked and connected either with fusion or combustion. P concludes that according to Hollywood mythology (?) "collaboration and peer review are just obstacles to the triumph of the inquisitive spirit".} } @article{J.Rabi1994, author = {M. Rabinowitz}, title = {In memory of Julian Schwinger}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {26}, number = {4T}, year = {1994}, pages = {ix}, annote = {One of three dedication pieces on the occasion of the death of Julian Schwinger, Nobel Prize winning physicist, who before his death strongly supported 'cold fusion' on theoretical grounds. There is a list at the end, of JS's 8 papers on 'cold fusion', the last of them being also published in the same issue of FT.} } @article{J.Reic1999, author = {T. Reichhardt}, title = {US State Department gets cold feet about cold fusion}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {398}, year = {1999}, pages = {98}, annote = {Reports that a meeting that was to be held at the USSD in April 1999, on unconventional energy sources, might be cancelled because of doubts by a newly appointed coordinator of these meetings, Cora Foley, about the scientific validity of some of the subjects planned for the talks, among them cold fusion (going under the name "assisted nuclear reactions").} } @article{J.Reic2000, author = {T. Reichhardt}, title = {New form of hydrogen power provokes scepticism}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {404}, year = {2000}, pages = {218}, annote = {Report on the firm Blacklight Power, Inc., recently established, backed by more than \$20 million. The company is based on its founder's, Dr. Randall Mills, theory and experiments suggesting a new state for hydrogen, that he calls the hydrino, in which electrons are in orbitals lower that the ground state. This has been dismissed by orthodox scientists, and now the company is taking legal action against these sceptics, or at least four of them. Mills says they are destroying his business.} } @article{J.Rich1989, author = {V. Rich}, title = {Mixed success in East}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {338}, year = {1989}, pages = {529}, annote = {Report of socialist bloc attempts to verify CNF. Hungarians are first off the mark, with positive findings; Poles are still undecided, Russians are positive at rather low temperatures.} } @article{J.Ritt2016, author = {S. K. Ritter}, title = {{Cold fusion died 25 years ago, but the research lives on}}, journal = {C \& EN}, year = {2016}, volume = {94}, number = {44}, pages = {34--39}, annote = {Somewhat skeptical update of LENR/cold fusion, focussing on Randell L. Mills and his hydrino proposal, now the activity of the company Brilliant Light Power.} } @article{J.Rome1992, author = {R.~H. Romer}, title = {Cold fusion}, journal = {Am. J. Phys.}, volume = {60}, number = {12}, year = {1992}, pages = {1067}, annote = {The editor of Am. J. Phys muses on how the process of science is presented to students. The case of cold fusion reminds him that this process is often distorted by myth. Physicists were astonished at the way CNF turned into a circus, while their students couldn't understand the astonishment. Scientists should learn, as part of their studies, about such peripheral things as grant getting, peer review and publishing of papers etc; in short, the less spectacular aspects of doing science.} } @article{J.Rous1992, author = {D. Rousseau}, journal = {American Scientist}, volume = {80}, number = {Mar-Apr}, year = {1992}, pages = {108}, annote = { Response to the polemic response of Czirr et al in this issue of the journal, p.107, to the earlier article (Jan-Feb 1992, p.54) by Rousseau. R here thanks Czirr et al for the correction of his chronology of the early events in the cold fusion affair, and produces a quote which appears to indicate that the Jones group, at least initially, had energy production in mind. He points out that both the Jones and FPH groups claimed that they had detected cold fusion, while many other groups have failed to reproduce it. He does not wish to stifle nascent field research.} } @article{J.Roy1989, author = {R. Roy}, title = {Views on nuclear fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, year = {1989}, number = {May 15}, pages = {2}, annote = {Early comment, exonerating F\&P of scientific misconduct. They behaved much better than, say, the room temp. superconductivity people did. Roy lays down some rules for journals and newspaper in this context.} } @article{J.Scar1993, author = {F. Scaramuzzi}, title = {Cold fusion four years later}, journal = {Chim. Ind. (Milan)}, volume = {75}, number = {5}, year = {1993}, pages = {425}, note = {In Italian}, annote = {Written in 1993, this is a round-up of the 'cold fusion' scene after four years in the field. The author comments on the two main types of evidence: excess heat from electrolysis cells and radiation (neutrons) from metal/gas systems. The problems are mentioned, and the theory of Preparata to account for the evidence. S concludes that it is difficult today to reject 'cold fusion' as a real phenomenon, whatever its cause.} } @article{J.Serv1993, author = {R.~F. Service and M. Brant and H. Takayama}, title = {Cold, but not dead}, journal = {Newsweek}, number = {Aug. 9}, year = {1993}, pages = {40}, annote = {A quite up-to-date report of the cold fusion affair. Apart from the usual F\&P electrolysis jar, a picture of a boiling cryocell is shown, said to be a HydroCatalysis experiment (i.e. a Mills \& Farrel cell). Petrasso says it is all systematic error, McKubre reports as much as 50\% excess heat, Takahashi and Storms are quoted. Other names mentioned are Notoya, Bush, Koonin, Brightsen of Clustron Sciences Corp. Kelvin Lynn of BNL ends with the words that just a few million dollars might decide whether it is good science or mistakes. This is in fact being spent by MITI, Japan.} } @article{J.Shel2008, author = {E. Sheldon}, title = {An overview of almost 20 years' research on cold fusion}, journal = {Contemporary Physics}, volume = {49}, year = {2008}, pages = {375--378}, annote = {A review of Ed Storms' book "The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction...", see the entry for that book. Sheldon, an erstwhile electrochemist, rambles through the book, and comes to no conclusion.} } @article{J.Shor1992, author = {S.~N. Shore}, title = {Seeking 'resurrection' for cold fusion - a review of "Fire from Ice" by E. Mallove.}, journal = {Skeptical Enquirer}, volume = {16}, year = {1992}, pages = {301}, annote = {SNS, a NASA physicist, here reviews Eugene Mallove's book. He makes his own position clear by saying that the coffin has been nailed on cold fusion, and Frank Close has written the definitive book on it, serving as obituary - almost; Mallove seeks to resurrect it. SNS believes Mallove wrote a work of wishful thinking, rather than one of science or sociology. Mallove's main point is the large number of positive findings; he quotes 92 groups that have done so. SN looks at these, and finds that one fifth are comprised of just four groups (two in Indian, one at Oak Ridge, one at Case Western Reserve) and that only 19 are from refereed journals, six out of newspaper reports. These papers vary widely in what they report, and Mallove does not mention the much larger number of negative findings. The author concludes that Mallove's book should be read, if only to have a record of the believers' case.} } @article{J.Sieg1999, author = {L. Siegel}, title = {A cold fiction}, journal = {The Salt Lake Tribune}, number = {March 21}, year = {1999}, pages = {1, A7}, annote = {Reporter Lee Siegel writes about Hal Fox (with photo, in lab), still working in his lab on cold fusion, while, as Siegel writes, for most it's a cold fiction. Siegel writes that Fox's lab is one of the last vestiges of cold fusion in Utah, 10 years after the announcement by Fleischmann and Pons. Fleischmann is said to be retired in the UK, and Pons to be living on a farm in France, the French labs being shut down. Mallove is quoted calling mainstream scientists "crackpots", for not looking at the evidence for CNF.} } @article{J.Srin1996, author = {M. Srinivasan}, title = {Cold fusion: Promising new source of energy from water}, journal = {Physics News (Mumbai, India)}, volume = {27}, number = {1}, year = {1996}, pages = {48}, annote = {Srinivasan, himself a researcher in cold fusion, here gives an overview of the field in the Indian physics news sheet, aiming at a nonspecialist readership.} } @article{J.Srin2008, author = {M. Srinivasan}, title = {Meeting Report. Energy concepts for the 21st century}, journal = {Curr. Sci.}, volume = {94}, year = {2008}, pages = {842--843}, annote = {Report of a one-day discussion meeting held at the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) at Bangalore, India. There were about 40 participants including two Indian venture capital firms. The report briefly recapitulates the history of cold fusion, and then goes on to the contributions to the meeting. Three researchers led the discussion. M. McKubre concluded that the primary product of cnf is 4He and explained the conditions needed for cnf to take place. S. Krivit gave a global overview; and a prerecorded talk by E. Storms was shown. M. Srinivasan reviewed the experimental evidence and concluded that more work is needed.} } @ARTICLE{J.Stil2009, author = {A. Stiller}, title = {Fusion not out in the cold}, journal = {New Scientist}, volume = {203}, number = {2720}, year = {2009}, pages = {25}, annote = {Letter to the Editor, stating that the interview with Fleischmann published in an earlier issue of NS is damaging to the journal, because cold fusion not only violates established principles of physics, it is also unparsimonious, offering a complicated explanation where a simple one suffices.} } @article{J.Stor1996, author = {E. Storms}, title = {Facts being distorted in cold fusion controversy.}, journal = {Fusion Technol.}, volume = {30}, year = {1996}, pages = {130}, annote = {Storms believes that in the cold fusion field, the normal rules of balance in science are not being followed, and cites some instances, such as the Jones et al papers in J. Phys. Chem., the book by Hoffman ("Dialogue...") and Douglas Morrison. Storms concludes that if skeptics wish to contribute they should explore possibilities, otherwise they should "keep quiet" while others work out the details.} } @article{J.Stro1993, author = {Stromoski}, journal = {Omni}, number = {Oct.}, year = {1993}, pages = {126}, annote = {Cartoon: Two scientists at the bench are startled by a fairy-like figure with tutu and sparkles floating in the air behind them, assuring them: "Do not be afraid . . . I am the cold fusion fairy."} } @article{J.Swin1989, author = {D. Swinbanks}, title = {An old-fashioned love-song}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {342}, year = {1989}, pages = {606}, annote = {Report of the Japanese claim of CNF by K. Nishizawa and N. Wada. Other Japanese are skeptical, although Y. Arata found very high-intensity neutron emission, up to $10^6$ times the background, using very large electrodes.} } @article{J.Swin1991, author = {D. Swinbanks}, title = {Cold fusion leaves a legacy}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {354}, year = {1991}, pages = {98}, annote = {It seems that the cold fusion affair has had something to do with the decision by the Japanese government to agree to finance the building, at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Britain, of a muon source. Nagamine, who heads the Japanese end of this joint proposal, was asked to explain cold fusion when that affair became public in 1989 and there is a possibility that this news helped the decision for the muon source experiment. Nagamine says that this is the only good thing to have come out of cold fusion. Among other things, the negative muons produced (together with the positive ones) will be used to investigate muon-catalysed cold fusion.} } @article{J.Swin1992a, author = {D. Swinbanks}, title = {MITI prepares to fund cold fusion by another name}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {358}, year = {1992}, pages = {268}, annote = {The Japanese organisation MITI has reported to the press its plan to apply for money for research into cold fusion. The amounts to be asked for are not known yet, but perhaps hundreds rather than tens of millions of yen (i.e. about hundreds of thousands of dollars) might be on. However, because most Japanese scientists do not believe in cold fusion, that term will not be used; "hydrogen energy" will be substituted. In Japan, as elsewhere, most scientists consider cold fusion an error.} } @article{J.Swin1992b, author = {D. Swinbanks}, title = {Big increase for MITI budget emphasizes energy technology}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {359}, year = {1992}, pages = {4}, annote = {DS reports the MITI application for funds for 1993. Among other things, 300 million yen was requested for hydrogen energy (cold fusion), for 1993. This is the smallest of the listed requests, totalling just over 300,000 million.} } @article{J.Swin1994, author = {D. Swinbanks}, title = {Is Japan throwing good money after bad science?}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {367}, year = {1994}, pages = {670}, annote = {A comment on a decision in Japan to continue to finance (a) earthquake prediction and (b) 'cold fusion'. MITI will spend \$5.1m in (fiscal) 1994 on 'hydrogen energy', and DS wonders why, given the fact that there has yet to appear any evidence of 'cold fusion' from that lab, and wonders about the obvious lack of review of research projects in Japan.} } @article{J.Szpa2001, author = {S. Szpak and P.~A. Mosier and A.~R. Chubb}, title = {Cold fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {Dec. 24}, year = {2001}, pages = {5}, annote = {The authors argue that cold fusion is a fact and is being suppressed by journals, and ask for this to change.} } @article{J.Taub1990a, author = {G. Taubes}, title = {Cold fusion conundrum at Texas A\&M}, journal = {Science}, volume = {248}, number = {June 15}, year = {1990}, pages = {1299}, annote = {Lengthy report of the strange tritium results in Bockris's and others' labs at Texas A\&M. It appears that the suspicion of fraud has been entertained for some time, judging from the security measures (thought to be) taken in these labs. Despite these suspicions, and the rather too-good results, it seems that Bockris was not willing to share the doubts, or do much to quell them.} } @article{J.Taub1990b, author = {G. Taubes}, journal = {Science}, volume = {249}, number = {Aug. 3}, year = {1990}, pages = {464}, annote = { Referring to the letters of Anderson, Bockris and Worledge in the same issue, Taubes writes that Bockris was informed prior to publication and asked for comments, which were incorporated into the article. Among other things, the article notes that the only other lab reporting tritium is the Bhabha Centre in India. All other labs mentioned by Bockris have either very small increments or have not formally reported any results. The spiking experiments of Storms and Talcott, intended to prove that Bockris's spikes are due to tritium emitted by a cold fusion reaction, do not in fact prove this.} } @article{J.Taub1991, author = {G. Taubes}, title = {A cold fusion deja vu at Caltech}, journal = {Science}, volume = {254}, year = {1991}, pages = {1582}, annote = {It seems that Fleischmann was passing through and was roped in for a talk on cold fusion. Some interesting comments were made. Few of the previously active cnf critics (like Nathan Lewis, Steven Koonin or Charles Barnes) were present, and MF got a mild reception. Fleischmann listed only one group (SRI) as having positive excess heat results, and the Babha Institute in India for reliable tritium findings. For neutrons, he cited Steven Jones' work in the Kamiokande neutrino facility, and the China Lake helium results. Fleischmann still believes in cold fusion.} } @article{J.Tins1993, author = {C. Tinsley}, title = {Hot stuff}, journal = {Fortean Times}, number = {69}, year = {1993}, pages = {23}, annote = {An up to date report of the cold fusion affair, more or less from a positive point of view, with some doubtful bits. Tinsley concludes that solid evidence is now in, and we should work on tuning the phenomenon, and that shares in oil or electricity [sic] are a poor investment now. There is an inset with hot-off-the-press news of one Roger Stringham, who is reported to have induced cnf by ultrasound, soon to be formally reported.} } @article{J.Ulri1989, author = {G.~D. Ulrich}, title = {Views on nuclear fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, year = {1989}, number = {May 15}, pages = {2--3}, annote = {Ulrich has a theory to explain CNF in terms of thermodynamics of heat generation and transport.} } @article{J.Valo1999, author = {T. Valone}, title = {'New physics' patents}, journal = {Science}, volume = {284}, number = {June 18}, year = {1999}, pages = {1929}, annote = {Valone responds to the item by David Voss in Science, 21-May (p.1252), in which Valone comments on the apparent recent laxness of the Patents Office in granting what amounts to cold fusion patents. Among other points made by Valone was one on a conference on Future Energy, variously disavowed by different bodies, but eventually held. Valone objects to its being called a conference on cold fusion, claiming that it was in fact one on alternative energy forms, and only one speaker (Ed Storms) spoke on cold fusion.} } @article{J.VanN2007, author = {R. {van Noorden}}, title = {Cold fusion back on the menu}, journal = {Chemistry World}, number = {April}, year = {2007}, pages = {12}, annote = {Report of a (then) forthcoming ACS conference, at which there was to be a symposium focussing on cold fusion, in March 2007. Fleischmann will not attend. The author of this report is on the skeptic side.} } @article{J.Vere1999, author = {R. Vere-Compton}, journal = {Eureka}, number = {July/August}, year = {1999}, pages = {8}, annote = {A letter. Responding to an earlier piece in the same journal in December 1998 on the hydrosonic pump, and the possibility that cold fusion might take place in that device, VC suggests an experiment that could prove it. A UK professor is cited as giving support to the idea that ultrasonic bubble caviation would create high temperatures and pressures. In the US, others have found what might be up to 10000 K in such bubbles.} } @article{J.Voss1999, author = {D. Voss}, title = {'New physics' finds a haven at the patent office}, journal = {Science}, volume = {284}, number = {May 21}, year = {1999}, pages = {1252}, annote = {Following the granting of two patents recently, to Clean Energy, Voss remarks on this recent lack of rigour in patent examination. Although it seems that no patents will be given to cold fusion, the company claims this is not cold fusion, but some other new nuclear physics. Other similarly questionable patents have been granted, for example to chemical transmutation, and others, not related to cold fusion. Voss explains this by poorly educated patent examiners. As well, patent examiner Valone has formed a company, Integrity Research Institute, and has offered help to get patents on cold fusion through the process. See reactions to this item by Valone, Mallove and Garwin, in the same journal.} } @article{J.Waan1990, author = {F.~B. Waanders and J.~J.~A. Smit}, title = {Cold nuclear fusion}, journal = {Spectrum (Pretoria)}, volume = {28}, number = {3}, year = {1990}, pages = {46}, note = {In Afrikaans}, annote = {A review with 4 refs. on the controversy surrounding cold fusion claims of M. Fleischmann et al (1989).} } @article{J.Wade1993, author = {N. Wade}, title = {The good, bad and ugly}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {364}, year = {1993}, pages = {497}, annote = {Review of Taubes' book "Bad Science". Wade likes the book, and likes the wealth of detail it offers of this case study in the sociology of science and human folly, as well as Taubes' agreeably sardonic style. The book is a compelling witness to the human mind's irrepressible propensity for self-delusion, he writes.} } @article{J.Wald1989, author = {M.~M. Waldrop}, title = {Cold water from Caltech}, journal = {Science}, volume = {244}, number = {May 5}, year = {1989}, pages = {523}, annote = {Steve E. Koonin calls Pons and Fleischmann deluded and incompetent.} } @article{J.Wall1992, author = {C. Walling}, title = {Cold fusion}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {June 29}, year = {1992}, pages = {2}, annote = {Cheves Walling objects to the way his and Simon's contribution is described both by Huizenga's book, and its review by Dagani in C\&EN. CW writes that it is not true that they sent their paper, knowing about the helium retraction of Fleischmann and Pons; rather it was written and sent upon receiving what looked like experimental (mass spectroscopic) evidence of helium from Pons. CW has never seen the alleged retraction.} } @article{J.Wats1992, author = {T. Watson}, title = {Scientists deny alleged support of company's 'new nuclear science'}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {358}, year = {1992}, pages = {616}, annote = {Of the sixteen scientists quoted by the new cold fusion company Clustron Sciences Corporation, the ten that could be reached denied supporting the theory of Dr. Brightsen, i.e. the theoretical base of that company. Another person cited as supporter, Prof. W. Buck, has publicly stated that he does in fact not support the theory. Of the remaining five, two could not be contacted and two are not scientists, writes Traci Watson.} } @article{J.Webe1989, author = {R. Weber}, title = {Kernfusion im Wasserglas?}, journal = {Schweiz. Tech. Z}, volume = {86}, number = {12}, year = {1989}, pages = {25}, note = {In German}, annote = {Again, an early summary of the FPH affair. Weber notes that, if F or P had not been well known scientists beforehand, their results would have been ignored.} } @article{J.Weis1993, author = {J. Weiss}, title = {Texas A\&M embroiled in questionable alchemy project}, journal = {Dallas Morning News}, number = {Nov. 17}, year = {1993}, pages = {1A-}, annote = {The whole story of how Bockris was offered \$200,000 by financier William Telander, working with or goaded by Joe Champion, who is now in prison. Bockris was not unskeptical, but eventually did take the money and allowed Champion into his lab initially. The piece ends with: "You know, he was the goose laying the golden eggs", Dr. Bockris said of Mr. Champion. "It wasn't until December 1992 that I saw, I think this is the right phrase, that the eggs were cracked".} } @article{J.Will1993a, author = {D. Williams}, title = {Proof, process and lessons from cold fusion; a review of John Huizenga's 'Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century'}, journal = {Physics Today}, number = {January}, year = {1993}, pages = {73}, annote = {JW likes Huizenga's straight-forward account of the deliberations of the investigative committee he was on, to examine the cold fusion claims. He likes Huizenga's refusal to accept weak evidence. He also muses on his own observation of theorists who supported the claims soon afterwards, willing - as Huizenga says - to chain miracles together. Since the book, nothing much has happened to change the picture.} } @article{J.Will1993b, author = {D. Williams}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {Sep. 6}, year = {1993}, pages = {4}, annote = {Letter. Williams, of Princeton, complains that an earlier article in C\&EN (June 14) emphasises the limitless-energy vision of cold fusion, and says that this misconception explains the bizarre episode. Even if power were generated from cold fusion, as a free lunch, it would cost much the same for consumers, due to costs of the plant and distribution. Had the affair initially been presented as a possible small drop in the cost of power, scientists could have been saved from the current embarrassment.} } @article{J.Will1994, author = {D. Williams}, journal = {Physics Today}, number = {March}, year = {1994}, pages = {94}, annote = {Letter. Williams replies to the Letter by Mallove, in which Mallove criticises Williams for his earlier review of Taubes' book "Bad Science". Williams disagrees with Mallove's disagreement.} } @article{J.Wiln1989, author = {B. Wilner}, title = {No new fusion under the sun}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {339}, year = {1989}, pages = {180}, annote = {B. Wilner has the old notes of his father, Torsten Wilner, who worked with Tandberg from 1925 in the Electrolux Laboratories in Stockholm. They noted Paneth's work (see Paneth, 1926 and 1927) and ran some of their own experiments, which were very much like those of FPH and Jones+, involving electrolysis. Their aim, unlike Paneth's (the production of He) was to produce energy, and they filed for a patent, which was not granted. They continued this work for many years, and even set up to measure radiation. Wilner quotes two scientific papers by his father, written in 1948 and '49 (dealing with bombardment fusion), and a book (Soederberg, section 1) has a full account of the story (in Swedish).} } @article{J.Worl1990, author = {D. H. Worledge}, journal = {Science}, volume = {249}, number = {Aug. 3}, year = {1990}, pages = {463}, annote = {Letter. Referring to Taubes' "Cold fusion conundrum at Texas A\&M" in Science 248 (1990) 1299, Worledge comments on that part of the article mentioning EPRI's funding of cold fusion research. Like Bockris, he points out the large number of tritium (and other) claims all over the world.} } @article{J.Wort1989, author = {W. Worthy and R. Dagani}, title = {Utah chemists back off from some fusion claims}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, volume = {67}, number = {May}, year = {1989}, pages = {5}, annote = {An early retraction by F\&P, at the Electrochemical Society meeting in LA, of some of their earlier claims, i.e. the detection of neutrons and 4He, explained as instrumental shortcomings. The neutron results as published were simply wrong, says Fleischmann, and the 4He measurements were based on the false assumption that the 4He, if formed, would come out of the Pd; the immobility of He in Pd would prevent this. But F\&P stand by their excess heat.} } @article{J.Yagu1990, author = {R. Yag{\"u}e}, title = {La fusi{\'o}n nuclear fr{\'\i}a y su historia (Nuclear cold fusion and its history)}, journal = {Metalurgica y Electricidad}, number = {618}, year = {1990}, pages = {134--137}, note = {In Spanish}, annote = {This mentions the early 1926/7 work of Paneth and Peters, and that of Jones and Rafelski on muon-catalysed fusion, which also predate 1989. These might be regarded as the prehistory of cold fusion.} } @article{J.Zecc1989, author = {A. Zecchina}, title = {La fusione fredda: un episodio solo di dimenticare? (Cold fusion: an episode to be just forgotten?)}, journal = {Chim. Ind. (Milano)}, volume = {80}, year = {1989}, pages = {1074}, note = {In Italian}, annote = {Some musings on research in CNF, variously described as pathological etc. The author mentions phase changes and in general the complex nature of metal hydrides.} } @article{J.Zorp1990, author = {G. Zorpette}, title = {The media event}, journal = {IEEE Spectrum}, number = {February}, year = {1990}, pages = {23}, annote = {A good resume of the cold fusion situation.} } @article{J.Zure1996, author = {J. Zurer}, title = {'Cold fusion' device hits the market}, journal = {Chem. \& Eng. News}, number = {Nov. 18}, year = {1996}, pages = {9}, annote = {A photo of Pattersen is shown with his power cell, and the article reports the news that CETI is now selling a test version of his cell for \$3750. With tongue in cheek, Ms. Zurer refers to transmutational production of iron, silver etc, and to Patterson's collaboration with George Miley, resulting in an article in the magazine Infinite Energy. Reding, of CETI, is quoted as saying that CETI had 60 orders within three days of Nov. 10, when the test cell was released. There are skeptics, however, such as Richard Blue, here quoted as saying that the elements claimed to come from transmutation, arise as contamination instead.} }