Koziol 2018


Scientists in the U.S. and Japan Get Serious About Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions

It’s absolutely, definitely, seriously not cold fusion

By Michael Koziol

It’s been a big year for low-energy nuclear reactions. LENRs, as they’re known, are a fringe research topic that some physicists think could explain the results of an infamous experiment nearly 30 years ago that formed the basis for the idea of cold fusion. That idea didn’t hold up, and only a handful of researchers around the world have continued trying to understand the mysterious nature of the inconsistent, heat-generating reactions that had spurred those claims.

Like many non-journal articles on cold fusion, this article by Koziol, a science journalist with an undergraduate degree in physics and a master’s degree in science journalism, relies on a series of canards, often-repeated memes that disappear if examined closely.  To understand LENR or “cold fusion” will probably not take merely a few hours or days browsing tertiary sources, nor believing what is claimed by some “scientists” who aren’t actually engaged in the research. There are somewhere over 5000 papers on LENR, and few guides through the maze. Yet, many scientists (especially physicists) not familiar with the evidence will voice strong — even “vituperative” — opinions about “cold fusion.”

Physics applies to theories of cold fusion; experimentally, it is not physics, but more appropriately classified as chemistry.

Almost all of these strong opinions are from those ignorant of the actual history, as shown in scientific papers and personal accounts (such as those collected by Gary Taubes).

But what is “cold fusion”? This was a confusion from the beginning, in 1989. Pons and Fleischmann, the authors of the original paper that started the ruckus, mentioned “fusion,” and even described the standard deuterium-deuterium fusion process, but it was very obvious that, whatever was happening in their experiments, it was not “d-d fusion.” They knew that, but perhaps thought that some (low) level of d-d fusion was taking place. In fact, the evidence they had for that (a gamma spectrum) was apparently an error, though the more I have learned about that history, the less convinced I have become that we know what actually happened.

It is very obvious why d-d fusion was considered impossible, but any careful skeptic will not overstate the case.

d-d fusion at low temperatures (“cold fusion”) is not impossible, a clear counterexample is well-known, muon-catalyzed fusion, which demonstrates that one form of fusion catalysis is possible, so perhaps there are others. Careful physicists at the time were aware that the “impossible” argument was bankrupt (that was mentioned in the first U.S. Department of Energy review, 1989).

However, d-d fusion remained, even then, very unlikely as an explanation for Pons and Fleischmann’s primary claim, anomalous heat, not because of the impossibility argument, but because the behavior of 4He*, the immediate product of d-d fusion, is very well known and understood, and it would have shown very obvious signals, such as the “dead graduate student effect,” based on radiation expected if the heat were from d-d fusion. So something else was happening.

the inconsistent, heat-generating reactions:  It is easy to misunderstand this. All physical phenomena depend on necessary conditions. Until the conditions are understood and controllable, and unless the phenomenon is actually chaotic — which is unusual and probably not the case with LENR — results may be erratic, based on uncontrolled conditions. However, once the phenomena occur, they are not necessarily “erratic,” and many correlated conditions and effects are known. Some may be misleading. For example, the “loading ratio,” the percentage of atoms in a metal deuteride that are deuterium, is highly correlated with excess heat, even though high loading is not a sufficient condition itself. Other necessary conditions are poorly understood. It is possible that high loading is also not necessary, but sets up other conditions that are the true catalytic conditions, such as creating stress in the material that causes a phase change on the surface.

Their determination may finally pay off, as researchers in Japan have recently managed to generate heat more consistently from these reactions, and the U.S. Navy is now paying close attention to the field.

The Japanese research was presented at the International Conference on Cold Fusion in Fort Collins, Colorado, in June of this year (2018). “More consistently” is poorly defined, but results from their particular approach may have been more consistent than previous results.

Various U.S. Navy laboratories have long worked with LENR, since 1989. It is not clear that the Navy is paying closer attention than before. The Japanese work was using larger amounts of material than many prior experiments, so may result in “more heat.” I don’t want to denigrate that work, but it was simply not particularly surprising to those familiar with the field. The basic science was demonstrated  conclusively long ago, with Miles’ 1991 report of a correlation between heat and helium production (and particularly when that was confirmed by other groups). See my 2015 Current Science paper.

One might think that a journalist would read relatively recent peer-reviewed reviews of the field, but it is routine that they do not. It may be because they do not imagine that there are such reviews, but there are. I counted over twenty since 2005, in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, but we still see claims that journals will not publish papers relating to cold fusion. Some journals have blacklisted cold fusion, and that gets conflated into a pattern that is not, at all, universal.

In June, scientists at several Japanese research institutes published a paper in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy in which they recorded excess heat after exposing metal nanoparticles to hydrogen gas. The results are the strongest in a long line of LENR studies from Japanese institutions like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

The article (preprint): ResearchGate. There were a number of presentations from ICCF-21 from these authors. I intend to transcribe them, as I have done with some other presentations at that conference. The ordinary links are to YouTube videos, the green links are to pre-conference abstracts.

Akito Takahashi – Research Status of Nano-Metal Hydrogen Energy (29:13) T-1

Yasuhiro Iwamura – Anomalous Heat Effects Induced by Metal Nanocomposites and Hydrogen Gas (30:07) I-1

Tastsumi Hioki – XRD & XAFS Analyses for Metal Nanocomposites in Anomalous Heat Effect Experiments (28:00) H-1

Jirohta Kasagi – Search for γ-ray radiation in NiCuZr nano-metals and H2 gas system generating large excess heat (26:49) K-1

Michel Armand, a physical chemist at CIC Energigune, an energy research center in Spain, says those results are difficult to dispute. In the past, Armand participated in a panel of scientists that could not explain measurements of slight excess heat in a palladium and heavy-water electrolysis experiment—measurements that could potentially be explained by LENRs.

There have been scientists of high reputation stating that LENR reports are “difficult to dispute” for almost thirty years now. To whom did Armand “say” this? If the reporter, why did the reporter pick Armand to consult?

What panel? The word “slight” can be misleading. It is not uncommon for cold fusion experiments to generate heat that is beyond what chemists can understand as chemistry.  However, the difficulty has been control of material conditions at the necessary scale (not far above the atomic level, so “nanoscale”).  The power levels are often low, hence open to suspicion that some error is being made in measurement. However, correlations bypass that problem. As well, sufficiently calibrated measurements of power can integrate to “excess heat,” i.e., excess energy release, that can be beyond chemistry and thus there can be a suspicion of LENR. Because high-energy nuclear reactions can possibly occur in a low-temperature general environment, low levels of such reactions are not ruled out by the temperature. High-energy reactions are usually ruled out by the absence of expected normal products.

In September, Proceedings magazine of the U.S. Naval Institute published an article about LENRs titled, “This Is Not ‘Cold Fusion,’ ” which had won second place in Proceedings’ emerging technology essay contest. Earlier, in August, the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory awarded MacAulay-Brown, a security consultant that serves federal agencies, US $12 million to explore, among other things, “low-energy nuclear reactions and advanced energetics.”

Koziol has obviously been influenced by Steve Krivit. An example is the use of the plural “LENRs”, which is a particular Krivit trope, also taken up by Michael Ravnitsky, author of that article (who works extensively with Krivit).  (Most in the field — and many others as well, such as the two authors cited below — would simply write “LENR”, which acronym can cover the singular or plural, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction(s). Is there more than one LENR? Yes. That’s actually obvious.  But the field is “LENR,” or a bit more specifically, CMNS (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science). Sometimes what is being studied is simply called the Anomalous Heat Effect. “Cold fusion” was a popular name, used originally for muon-catalyzed fusion, and then for the Pons and Fleischmann reports and claims. It was known from the beginning, however, that if the explanation for the heat effect was nuclear, the main reaction was nevertheless not d-d fusion, but an “unknown nuclear reaction.”

Ravnitsky kindly sent me a copy of his article (much appreciated!). It treats the Widom-Larsen speculations as if established fact, and, in common with how Krivit treats the subject, has:

“Setbacks occurred in 1989 when two scientists, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, incorrectly claimed that the phenomenon was ‘room temperature fusion.'”

There is a footnote on that quotation, citing Krivit, “Fusion Fiasco.” The Kindle Reader edition does not have correlated page numbers. (There is an index which apparently gives page numbers for the print edition, it is almost useless for the Kindle edition, but I can search for words.) The reference is apparently to a comment by Pam Fogle, press officer for the University of Utah, from a draft article from 1991. It does not use quotation marks. Quoting a tertiary source, highly derivative, is sloppy.

The Ravnitsky article has 19 references. 8 are to Krivit or Krivit and Ravnitsky documents and another three are to Widom and Larsen papers. There are over 1600 papers, as I recall, in mainstream journals relating to LENR, and Widom-Larsen theory is not widely accepted by researchers in the field. There are mainstream-published critiques (and others published in the less formal literature of the field).

We do not know enough to know if the claim of “fusion reactions” was correct or not, but almost everyone agrees that “some kind of fusion” is involved, especially if we include as “fusion” what is more commonly called “neutron activation.” There are certainly many problems with “d-d fusion,” I will come to that, but there are also problems with the neutron idea. They are simply a little less obvious.

The actual news here was that an essay won a contest. This shows what? How is this relevant to “getting serious about low energy nuclear reactions”? Was the essay peer-reviewed by experts, able to identify the possible problems with it? Ravnitsky works for the U. S. Navy. Does this essay indicate a higher level of Navy interest in LENR? Remember, it has long been high! The essay is not a scientific article and would probably be rejected by a scientific journal.

There is no experimental confirmation of Widom-Larsen theory. The theory was designed with various features to “explain” LENR, but it has not successfully predicted what was not already known. That’s called an “ad hoc” theory. D-d fusion normally produces high levels of neutron radiation and tritium, and rarely highly energetic gamma rays. The high-energy gammas are not observed, nor are anything more than very low levels of neutron radiation, but tritium is observed well above background. There is a lack of study correlating tritium with excess heat, but it is clear that tritium levels are on the order of a million times lower than expected from d-d fusion with the reported heat. And this is a clear reason for rejecting d-d fusion as an explanation for the anomalous heat effect.

Yet, neutron activation is also well-known and understood, it would generate activation gammas, easily detectable. So, suspend disbelief that enough energy could be collected in a single electron-proton pair to convert it to a neutron, there is still the problem of the missing gammas. So another miracle is proposed, absorption of the gamma by the “heavy electrons” which must then have a long lifetime, and must hang around until the gammas have all been emitted (which can take days or longer). Larsen has patented this as a “gamma shield,” though it has never been experimentally demonstrated. When it was pointed out that this could easily be tested by imaging an active cathode with gamma rays, it was then claimed that the shields only operated for a very short time. Never mind, let’s ignore the fact that transient shield patches could still be detected by imaging along the surface.

How could the shield patches capture gammas when they n0 longer exist? Neutrons are not confined by electromagnetic forces, what would prevent the neutrons from drifting below the patches? There would be edge effects where some gammas escape. There is an extensive series of problems with Widom-Larsen theory, I will come to more below.

So what exactly is going on? It starts with physicists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons’s infamous 1989 cold fusion announcement. They claimed they had witnessed excess heat in a room-temperature tabletop setup. Physicists around the world scrambled to reproduce their results.

Sloppy. They were not “physicists,” but electrochemists. That’s quite an important part of the history, and missing that fact is diagnostic of shallow journalism.

As Krivit points out quite clearly, this was not a “cold fusion announcement.” The term “cold fusion” was not used until later, by a journalist. Yes, physicists — and others — scrambled to “reproduce their results,” and did not bother to wait for detailed reports. The first paper was quite sketchy.

The experiment looked simple. It was not. It required high skill at electrochemistry (or a precise protocol, carefully followed, and to make things worse, there was no such protocol that reliably worked, and that may still be the case. Pons and Fleischmann had been quite lucky, because the material used was critical, and when they ran out of the original material, shortly after the announcement, and obtained more, they discovered that they could not replicate their own work, for a time. They had not known how sensitive the material was to exact manufacturing and treatment conditions.

(Few in the field have known it until very recently, but it is possible that the shift in material that makes the reaction possible is now known. It’s a phase change that was not known to be possible until 1993, when it was discovered by a metallurgist, Fukai, who was also, by the way, very skeptical about LENR.)

Most couldn’t, accused the pair of fraud, and dismissed the concept of cold fusion. Of the small number who could reproduce the results, a few, including Lewis Larsen, looked for alternate explanations.

Did “most” accuse Pons and Fleischmann of “fraud”? No. Such accusations were uncommon. Some accused Pons and Fleischmann of “delusion.”

It is an established fact that, as matters stand, most cold fusion experiments, commonly the first ones by a researcher, fail to show the effect. The conditions created by those early “negative repllicators” are now known to reliably fail!

It’s important to distinguish the effect from proposed explanations, i.e., the “concept” of cold fusion is a kind of “explanation.”  What is that? What is widely rejected — including by “cold fusion researchers” — is “d-d fusion.” However, until we know what is happening — and we don’t — no explanation is completely off the table, because there may be something that explains the apparent defects in a theory.

However, Koziol, here, has swallowed an implied myth: that Larsen was a LENR researcher who had confirmed the anomalous heat effect, who could “reproduce the results.” Larsen was (is) an entrepreneur, who apparently hired Widom as a partner in developing the W-L theory.

*Everyone* is looking for “alternate explanations” to what is loosely called “cold fusion,” which is explicitly, by Krivit, considered to refer to d-d fusion. That is, we will see references to “believers in cold fusion,” when that is *mostly* an empty set, at least among scientists. Whatever is happening is almost certainly not d-d fusion.

However, there are other kinds of fusion. LENR refers to all reactions without high initiation energy, other than ordinary radioactivity. It could refer to induced radioactivity, such as electron capture, since that takes no initiation energy, it’s chemical in nature. (i.e., some reactions require the presence of the electron shell, for an electron to be captured by the nucleus which then transmutes as a result).

The formation of neutrons could be thought of as the fusion of two elementary particles, a proton and an electron. It’s endothermic, by about three-quarters of a million electron volts per reaction, but fusion is fusion whether it is exothermic or not. And neutron activation can be thought of as the fusion of a neutron with a nucleus, i.e., fusion of neutronium (element number zero, mass 1) with the target element.

Larsen is one of the authors of the Widom-Larsen theory, which is one attempt to explain those results through LENRs and was first published in 2006.

A dozen years ago. No clear experimental verification of that theory has appeared in that time. Yes, it is one attempt, of easily dozens.

That theory suggests that the heat in these experiments is not generated by hydrogen atoms fusing together, as cold fusion advocates believe, but instead by protons and electrons merging to create neutrons.

One of the techniques of pseudoscientific polemic is to claim that those with different ideas are “believers” in those ideas, and to imply that anyone with opinions other than those of the author are “believers” in a “wrong” idea.

Who “believes” that the heat in LENR experiments is generated by “hydrogen atoms fusing together.” — taking this simply, i.e., d-d fusion? (Did he mean “deuterium atoms”?)

Protons and electrons merging together will not generate heat. It’s quite endothermic. Rather, the neutrons, if created with very low kinetic energy (that’s a major part of the theory, it purports to create “ultra-low momentum neutrons,” though that concept is another “miracle” in itself), will indeed fuse with almost any nearby nucleus.

That’s a problem for the theory, in fact. Neutrons are not very selective, though neutron capture cross-sections do vary.  If they fuse, and if the nucleus then emits a beta particle (an electron), the result is as if a proton had fused with the target nucleus. So this is fusion in result, and whether or not it is a fusion mechanism is merely a semantic distinction.

The electron, added to the proton, neutralizes the charge so that the proton can fuse. One could call this, then, “electron catalyzed fusion,” if the electron is then ejected (as it often would be), the problem being that the fusion of a proton and an electron is quite endothermic. One still has to come up with 750 keV, at an appreciable rate.

Here’s what’s going on, according to the theory. You start with a metal (palladium, for example) immersed in water. Electrolysis splits the water molecules, and the metal absorbs the hydrogen like a sponge. When the metal is saturated, the hydrogen’s protons collect in little “islands” on top of the “film” of electrons on the metal’s surface.

Electrolysis is one form of loading. Protons repel each other, so to allow these “islands” to form, there must be a high electron density. High electron density = high voltage. This is adjacent to a good conductor (the metal) and immersed in a good conductor (the electrolyte). The voltage in the electrolysis experiments is relatively low, and then there are gas-loading experiments, where there is no voltage applied at all. What would allow this proton collection in them?

Next comes the tricky bit.


The protons will quantum mechanically entangle—you can think of them as forming one “heavy” proton.

We can think of many impossible things. It is foolish, however, to confuse “conceivable,” especially with such vague conceptions, with reality, i.e., with what “will” happen. If quantum entanglement actually happens, then it could also create ordinary fusion, and the initiation energy necessary for an appreciable ordinary fusion rate would be lower than 750 keV. The ignored issue is rate.

Some theories that still consider d-d fusion do look at nuclear interactions like entanglement, in order to explain the missing gammas from d+d -> 4He.

The surface electrons will similarly behave as a “heavy” electron. Injecting energy—a laser or an ion beam will do—gives the heavy proton and heavy electron enough of a boost to force a tiny number of the entangled electrons and protons to merge into neutrons.

Tiny little problem: no laser or ion beam in most LENR experiments. And then what happens to the neutrons is a more serious problem. The behavior described has never been demonstrated. So this explains one mystery, one anomaly, with another mystery.

I have called W-L theory a “hoax” because it purports to be standard physics, but is far from standard. It merely avoids offending the thirty-year knee-jerk reaction against “cold fusion,” i.e., “d-d fusion.” There is at least one other theory that does a better job of this, Takahashi theory, and Takahashi happens to be an author for that paper cited at first. He developed his “TSC” theory — which is clearly a fusion theory, just not d-d fusion — from his experimental work (he’s a physicist), and the theory uses very specific quantum field theory calculations to show a fusion rate, 100%,  from what appear to be possible experimental conditions. (The total fusion rate would then be the rate at which those conditions arise, which would be relatively low.) His theory is one of those guiding the Japanese research, but, so far, I don’t see that the research clearly tests his theory as distinct from other similar theories, and the theory is incomplete.

Those neutrons are then captured by nearby atoms in the metal, giving off gamma rays in the process. The heavy electron captures those gamma rays and reradiates them as infrared—that is, heat. This reaction obliterates the site where it took place, forming a tiny crater in the metal.

A good hoax will incorporate facts that lead the reader to consider it plausible. Yes, neutrons, if formed and if they are slow neutrons, will be captured, probability of capture increasing with decreasing relative momentum.

Notice the sleight-of-hand here. What heavy electron? The one that was just generated is gone, merged with a proton (or deuteron). A different heavy electron will have a different location, not close enough to the gamma emission to capture it. This is an example of the WL ad hoc explanations that only work if one does not consider them carefully.

“Craters in the metal” are a possible description of some phenomena observed with LENR, but they are not at all universal in active LENR materials. Rare phenomena are asserted in a hoax theory as if routine, and if they create an “explanation” for not seeing what would be expected. It is not known if the active sites for LENR are destroyed by the reaction, or not. In order to destroy the material, the heat from more than one reaction is most likely necessary, and this then runs squarely into rate issues.

The heat from gamma emission due to neutron activation is not immediate (i.e., until the gamma is emitted, there is no heat). W-L theory requires the perfect operation of a mechanism that has never been clearly observed.

The Widom-Larsen theory is not the only explanation for LENRs,

True, but because it is a “not-fusion” theory, and, of course, because “everyone knows that fusion is impossible,” it has received more casual attention, from shallow reviews, than other theories that are more grounded in fact, but no theory can yet be called “successful.” It is likely that all extant theories are incomplete at best.

There is one partial “theory” that is essentially demonstrated by a strong preponderance of the evidence, and that is the idea that so-called “cold fusion” is an effect showing anomalous heat with little or no radiation, resulting primarily from the conversion of deuterium to helium. This idea does not explain hydrogen  LENR results, only the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. It is testable. The ratio of heat to helium, measured to roughly 20%, so far, confirms that conversion, but does not completely rule out other alternatives, which merely become less likely. There may be, as well, more than one mechanism operating. Many, many unwarranted assumptions were made in the history of “cold fusion,” going back even before Pons and Fleischmann.

but it was reviewed favorably by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency in 2010.

That was eight years ago, when W-L theory was relatively new. It seems likely to me that Koziol had blinkers on. I just googled the authors of that document, “ullrich toton,” and the top hit was the paper, and the second hit was my review of that, Toton-Ullrich DARPA report.

Was this a “favorable review”? It relied almost entirely on information provided by Larsen.

I don’t see any clue that Koziol is aware that W-L theory is largely rejected by those familiar with LENR.

Two independent scientists concluded that it is built upon “well-established theory”

It appears that this was simply repeating the claims of Larsen, which have been, after all, commercial, i.e., not neutral, self-interested, not established by confirmation through ordinary scientific process.

and “explains the observations from a large body of LENR experiments without invoking new physics or ad hoc mechanisms.”

Which is obviously false or, at best, highly misleading. The “physics” asserted is not known, established physics, but an extension of some existing physics far outside what is known, as if rate and scale don’t matter.

However, the scientists also cautioned that the theory had done little to unify bickering LENR researchers and cold fusion advocates.

What about cooperative and collaborative LENR researchers?

As I point out again and again, what is meant by “cold fusion” by Krivit and Larsen and the like is not “advocated” by anyone. In a real science and with genuine and new theory, there will be vigorous debate, unless the theory truly is obvious (once pointed out).

Who are “LENR researchers”? Is Larsen a “LENR researcher”? Is Krivit? Am I?

(I call myself a journalist and an advocate for genuine science, and honest and clear reporting, as well as sane decision-making methods. “Researchers,” I would reserve for those who actually design, perform and report experiments, and this, then, does not include Krivit, for sure, but also Larsen. The only experimental paper I have seen with his name on it was not one where he appears to have participated in the actual research. He may have contributed some theoretical considerations. He’s also contributed funding on occasion.

There is no research successfully confirming W-L theory. What Krivit, Larsen, and some others do is to present it as if successful, as if creating an “explanation,” adequate to convince the ignorant that it is possible, is the standard of success. (And then Krivit, in particular, following Larsen, has gone over ancient LENR history and has developed “explanations” of those results, presenting them as if conclusive, when they are far from that.)

There is extensive opposition to W-L theory among researchers, and also among theoreticians (some people are both). The Ullrich-Toton report must be aware that there was opposition, but does not provide the arguments used. From the report:

• DTRA needs to be careful not to get embroiled in the politics of LENR and serve as an honest broker
 Exploit some common ground, e.g., materials and diagnostics
 Force a show-down between Widom-Larsen and Cold Fusion advocates
 Form an expert review panel to guide DTRA-funded LENR research

The conclusions were sound, except in some minor implications. This was not a “favorable report,” as implied, but one, unaware of the issues, can read it that way, and certainly Krivit has flogged this report as such.

A “showdown” would be what? A war of words? That has already happened, with a torrent of vituperation from Krivit about “cold fusion advocates,” far less from those critiquing W-L theory. But the entire field has traditionally been very tolerant of diverse theories, and that any critiques from LENR researchers and theorists appeared at all is unusual. Who are the “advocates” mentioned?

Identifying tests of theories, and in particular, of W-L theory, would be useful. If it is not testable, it is not “scientific.” “Cold fusion” is not a theory, it’s simply another name for LENR, often avoided because it implies a specific mechanism, and the one that normally is imagined — d-d fusion — is already considered highly unlikely for many reasons. Nobody who is anybody in the field is “advocating” it. All theories still on the table, under some level of consideration, involve many-body effects, not merely a two-body collision as with d-d fusion. The term “thermonuclear” is sometimes used, and I have seen a definition of “cold fusion” as “thermonuclear fusion at room temperature,” which shows just how incautious some writers are. That’s an oxymoron.

The formation of an expert review panel is something that I also recommend, or, probably more practical, a “LENR desk,” some office (it could be one person, hence “desk”) charged with maintaining awareness of the field and obtaining expert opinion, preparing periodic reports. This is what should properly have been done in 1989 and 2004, by the U.S. DoE. It would be cheap, and it was realized that the possible value of LENR was enormous, so even a small probability of a real and practically useful effect could justify the small cost of maintaining awareness and creating better research recommendations.

Both those panels actually recommended more research, but nothing was done to facilitate it. No sane review process for vetting research proposals was set up, it was assumed that “existing” structures would be adequate. But with what is widely considered “fringe,” they may not be.

Those panels were widely read as having rejected LENR. That is inaccurate, though some panelists at both reviews may have felt that way. The conclusions, even though flawed in demonstrable ways, were far more neutral or even encouraging (particularly in 2004).

The theory also hints at why results have been so inconsistent—creating enough active sites to produce meaningful amounts of heat requires nanoscale control over a metal’s shape. Nano material research has progressed to that point only in recent years.

WL theory does far less to explain the reliability problem than certain other ideas. What is clear is that the fundamental problem of LENR reliability is one of material conditions, the structure of the metal in metal hydrides.

We now know (first published in 1993 and widely accepted among metallurgists) that metal hydrides have phases that become the more stable phases at high levels of loading, but that do not readily convert from the metastable ordinary phases, because of kinetics. However, some conditions may facilitate the conversion, and if the “nuclear active environment,” which W-L theory is largely silent on, is only possible in the gamma or delta phases, and not the previously-known alpha and beta phases, then the difficulty of replication has a clear cause: the advanced phases were made, adventitiously or accidentally, generally through the material being stressed, often by loading and deloading (which also causes cracks) — or through codeposition, which could build delta phase ab initio, on the surface. It has long been known that LENR only appeared at loading above about 85% (H or D/Pd ratio), and 85% is the loading where the gamma phase becomes possible.

In spite of an initially favorable reception by some would-be LENR researchers, W-L theory has not led to any advances in the development of LENR as a practical effect. The Japanese researchers first mentioned include Akito Takahashi, who is a hot fusion scientist with a cold fusion theory, much closer to accepted physics, and that is around the work showing a level of success. It has nothing to do with W-L theory. The paper that led this story references only Takahashi theory. The references:

[20] Akito Takahashi, “Physics of cold fusion by TSC theory”, J. Physical Science and
Application, 3 (2013) 191-198.
[21] Akito Takahashi, “Fundamental of Rate Theory for CMNS”, J. Condensed Matt.
Nucl. Sci., 19 (2016) 298-315.
[22] Akito Takahashi, “Chaotic End-State Oscillation of 4H/TSC and WS Fusion”,
Proc. JCF-16 (2016) 41-65.

So, 12 years after WL theory was published, it is roundly ignored by the broadest current collaboration in the field, in favor of an explicitly “fusion” theory. But “TSC” is multibody fusion, two deuterium (D2) molecules in confinement, thus four deuterons, collapsing to a condensate that includes the electrons and that will form 8Be which would normally then fission to two alpha particles, i.e., two helium nuclei. The theory still has problems, but on a different level. My general position is that it is still incomplete.

As Ullrich and Toton pointed out, W-L theory has done “little” to unify the field. Actually, it’s done nothing to that end, and, because Larsen convinced Krivit, it has actually done harm, because Krivit has then attacked researchers, claiming, effectively, fraudulent reporting of data that was inconvenient for W-L theory.


I intended to look at one claim in the article, but neglected it. To repeat that paragraph

In September, Proceedings magazine of the U.S. Naval Institute published an article about LENRs titled, “This Is Not ‘Cold Fusion,’ ” which had won second place in Proceedings’ emerging technology essay contest. Earlier, in August, the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory awarded MacAulay-Brown, a security consultant that serves federal agencies, US $12 million to explore, among other things, “low-energy nuclear reactions and advanced energetics.”

The first sentence I covered. That article had nothing to do with the lead story (the Japanese paper), and is, in fact, in contradiction with it, though Koziol did not actually explore the content of the new paper. It seems that Koziol considers it shocking news that someone takes LENR or “cold fusion” seriously. It is not shocking, and a level of attention to cold fusion, intense in 1989 and for a few years after that, has always been maintained and it has never been definitively rejected, just considered, in a few old reviews, “not proven.” Wherever the preponderance of the evidence was considered, cold fusion or LENR very much remained open to further research. The 2004 U.S. DoE review was evenly split on the question of anomalous heat, half of the reviewers considering the evidence for a heat anomaly “conclusive.” If half considered it “conclusive,” what did the other half think? What would a majority decide? That was after a one-day review meeting, with a defective process and many misunderstandings obvious in the reports.

It is true that many scientists looked for evidence of cold fusion, and did not find any. But if I look at the sky for evidence of comets, and don’t find any, what would that mean? (Obviously, I didn’t look at when and where comets can be found!) The first DoE report pointed out that even a single brief period of “cold fusion” — the term was never well-defined — would be of high importance. That was when it could still be argued that nobody had replicated. Within a few months, replications started popping up. And so the goalposts were moved. It happened over and over. Was there a conspiracy? No, just institutions with a few screws missing.

The next part of this paragraph is hilarious. This is the press release from MacB, the apparent source for the few google hits for this report:

MacB Wins $12M Plasma Physics Contract with the Naval Research Lab

DAYTON, Ohio August 27, 2018 – MacAulay-Brown, Inc.(MacB), an Alion company, has been awarded a $12 million Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract with the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Plasma Physics Division. The division is involved in the research, design, development, integration, and testing of pulsed power sources. Most of the work on the five-year SeaPort-e task order will be performed at MacB’s Commonwealth Technology Division (known as CTI) in Alexandria, Virginia.

Under this effort, MacB scientists, engineers, and technicians will perform on-site experimental and theoretical research in pulsed power physics and engineering, plasma physics, intense laser and charged particle-beam physics, advanced radiation production, and transport. Additional work will include electromagnetic-launcher technology, the physics of low-energy nuclear reactions and advanced energetics, production of high-power microwave sources, and the development of new techniques to diagnose and advance those experiments.

“CTI has provided scientific expertise, custom engineering, and fabrication services for the Plasma Physics Division since the 1980s,” said Greg Yadzinski, Vice President of the CTI organization under MacB’s National Security Group (NSG). “This new work will build on CTI’s long history of service to expand our capabilities into the division’s broad theoretical and experimental pulsed power physics, the interaction of electromagnetic waves with plasma, and other pulsed power architectures for future applications.”

At Alion, we combine large company resources with small business responsiveness to design and deliver engineering solutions across six core capability areas. With an 80-year technical heritage and an employee-base comprised of more than 30% veterans, we bridge invention and action to support military readiness from the lab to the battle space. Our engineers, technologists, and program managers bring together an agile engineering methodology and the best tools on the market to deliver mission success faster and at lower costs. We are committed to maintaining the highest standards; as such, Alion is ISO 9001:2008 certified and maintains CMMI Level 3-appraised development facilities. Based just outside of Washington, D.C., we help our clients achieve practical innovations by turning big ideas into real solutions. To learn more, visit www.alionscience.com.

For 39 years, MacAulay-Brown, Inc. (MacB), an Alion company, has been solving many of the Nation’s most complex National Security challenges. MacB is committed to delivering critical capabilities in the areas of Intelligence and Analysis, Cybersecurity, Secure Cloud Engineering, Research and Development, Integrated Laboratories and Information Technology to Defense, Intelligence Community, Special Operations Forces, Homeland Security, and Federal agencies to meet the challenges of an ever-changing world. Learn more about MacB at www.macb.com.

I have a suggestion for Mr. Koziol. If you are going to write a story about a “fringe” topic, discuss it with a few people with knowledge. And check sources, carefully, and consider how the story fits together. Do the parts confirm the overall theme, or are they merely a collection of pieces containing a common word or phrase? There is nothing about LENR or cold fusion in this press release, other than the name and a vague agreement to perform unspecified “additional work” relating to “the physics of low energy nuclear reactions” and something called “advanced energetics” (which probably has nothing to do with LENR). But the main focus of the contract is plasma physics, and expertise in plasma physics will tell a scientist nothing about LENR, which, as a collection of known effects, takes place in condensed matter, the opposite of a plasma. Hot fusion takes place in plasma conditions, such as the interior of stars, hydrogen bombs, or plasma fusion devices, at temperatures of millions of degrees. Condensed matter cannot exist at the temperatures required for hot fusion.  I predict that nothing useful will come out of that part of the MacB contract. (But we have no details, nor did this reporter attempt to obtain them, it appears. Like the rest of the story, this is shallow, a collection of marginally related facts or ideas. If the intention of that part of the contract were to ask for a physics review of, say, Widom-Larsen theory, it could be useful. We already have some reviews by physicists, totally ignored by Koziol.)
I’d be happy to respond to questions from Mr. Koziol or anyone, about LENR/cold fusion. I’ve read a few papers and I know a few researchers, and I sat with Feynman at Cal Tech, 1961-63 (yes, during those lectures) so I do have some understanding of what I’ve been reading, plus I collect all this stuff and am organizing it, to support students, making me familiar with the material, and I’ve been writing about cold fusion, now, for about ten years, in environments where people will jump on mistakes. Which I appreciate.
I decided to look for more about the contract.
http://www.macb.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Naval-Research-Lab_-New-TO-No.-N00173-18-F-3002.pdf#page=5 is the actual “Statement of Work.” There is no mention of LENR there. However, the customer is NRL Low-Temperature Plasma Group.  I think someone, preparing the press release, mislabeled that part of the research. This was not newsworthy on the topic of the Spectrum article. It probably has nothing to do with LENR. The context was weird, as I point out above. Plasma physics for LENR is more or less an oxymoron.

Right and wrong at the same time

may be subject to copyright

The cold fusion horizon

Is cold fusion truly impossible, or is it just that no respectable scientist can risk their reputation working on it? — Huw Price

I’ve been reading about Synthestech, blogged about it, and now Deneum, more of the SOS, but a step up in professional hype.

Steve Krivit was right about Rossi, he was — and remains — , ah, how shall I express it? The technical phrase is “liar, liar, pants on fire.” But Krivit’s evidence was weak on the subject, mostly raising obvious suspicions, and Tom Darden and  his friends knew that they needed much better evidence, which they proceeded to obtain.

They found quite enough to conclude that if Rossi had anything, it was so certainly useless and so buried in piles of deceptions and misleading information that they simply walked away, it wasn’t worth the cost of completing the trial in Rossi v. Darden in order to keep the rights, which they could rather easily have done.

Krivit was “right,” certainly in a way, but his claims were obvious, in fact. He was right to report what he found, but it was misleading, and useless, to label everything with approbation and contempt, the habits of yellow journalism.

It is not clear that Industrial Heat could have avoided the cost of their expedition. What I find remarkable is how few have learned anything from the affair, and some of those who clearly have learned, have learned how to better extract money from a shallow, knee-jerk public.

The post today is inspired by a photo I found on the Deneum twitter feed. I will be writing about Deneum, there is a real scientist behind Deneum, but is there real science as well? That’s unclear, but what is very clear is the level of hype, that Deneum is representing itself in ways that will lead a casual reader to imagine they already have a product and merely need to start manufacturing it. So $100 million, please. Here is where to send it.

It’s a rich topic for commentary, but today, I’m following some breadcrumbs found, a blogger who was right and wrong, in a different way, more or less from the other side. The photo above, and the headline is from a post by Huw Price, 21 December, 2015

That date is important. At that point, Thomas Darden had been interviewed at ICCF-19, and had made some positive noises. By that time, Darden knew that something was very off about Rossi, and some — or all — of his positivity may have been about technology other than Rossi’s. At the time, I noticed how vague it was. In early 2016, Rossi claimed to have completed the “Guaranteed Performance Test” and was billing Industrial Heat for $89 million. And it was all a scam, a tissue of lies and deceptions. So, now, because of the lawsuit Rossi filed,  we know, to a reasonable degree of certainty, how the Rossi affair worked and did not work. How does Dr. Price’s essay look in hindsight, and has he ever commented?

I’m using hypothesis.is to comment on that essay, because I don’t want to pay $500 to syndicate it, though it is an excellent essay, in the general principles brought out. I may also, later, copy some excerpts here.

The annotations

. (To see them, one must install a tool from hypothes.is, which I highly recommend. Hypothes.is is not intrusive. To start.)

Having written that, I now find that Huw Price also blogged this himself, as

My Dinner with Andrea. Cute title.

A few months later, Huw Price wrote another essay for Aeon:

Is the cold fusion egg about to hatch?

His speculations were off. Has he followed up?

I’ve been unable to find anything, so far. Will the real Huw Price please stand up?





Impressive, eh? How could that be a scam?

But it was. So how was

McKubre and Staker (2018)

Subpage of SAV

This page shows a draft Power Point presentation delivered at IWAHLM, Greccio, Italy, on or about October 6, 2018, by Michael McKubre, co-authored with Michael Staker, who presented a paper on SAVs and excess heat at ICCF-21 (abstract, mp3 of talk, proceedings forthcoming in JCMNS) (Loyola professor page, links to resume) .

A preprint of Staker’s ICCF-21 presentation: Coupled Calorimetry and Resistivity Measurements, in Conjunction with an Emended and More Complete Phase Diagram of the Palladium – Isotopic Hydrogen System

The last McKubre-Staker version before presentation. If one wants a searchable and copiable version. that would be it. I have posted images of the slides here.

Slide 1

This probably means “Nuclear Active Environment (NAE) is formed in Super Abundant Vacancies (SAV), which may be created with Severe Plastic Deformation (SPD), and then Deuterium (D) added.”

Semantically, I suggest, assuming the evidence presented here is not misleading, the NAE may be SAV even when there is no D.  That is, for an analogy, the gas burner is a burner even if there is no gas burning. But that teaser title has the advantage of being succinct.

The photos show, at ICCF-15 (2009), David Nagel, Martin Fleischmann, and Michael McKubre, with Ed Storms in the background, and at ICCF-2 (1991) , Martin and a much younger Michael Staker, remarkable for that far back. Staker has no prior publications re LENR that have attained much notice. He gave a lecture on cold fusion in 2014, but the paper for that lecture, does not really address the question posed, it merely repeats some experimental results and his conclusions re SAVs, which are now catching on.

As I link above, he presented at ICCF-21 this year. I was impressed. I think I was not the only one.

Slide 2
Slide 3

I want to hang from each of each of those directions a little sign reading “OPPORTUNITY.” Sometimes we think the path to success is to avoid errors. Yet the “BREAKTHROUGH” sign is somehow missing from most signposts, except signs put up by people selling us something. How could it be there, actually? If we knew what would lead us to the breakthrough, we wouldn’t need signs and it would not be a “breakthrough.”

Rather, signs are indications and by following indications, more of reality is revealed. If we pay attention, there is no failure, failure only exists when we stop travelling, declaring we have tried “everything.” I’m amazed when people say that. Over how many lifetimes?

These questions are the questions McKubre has been raising, supporting the development of research focus.

Slide 4

The whole book (506 pages) is Britz Fukai2005. (Anyone seriously interested in researching LENR and the history of the field, contact me for research library access. Anonymous comments may be left on this page, or any CFC page with comments enabled (sometimes I forget to do that), but a real email should be used, and I can then contact you. Email addresses will not be published.

Slide 5

It is a bit misleading to call the positions of the deuterium atoms “vacancies.” They are not vacant and will only be vacant if the deuterium is removed. The language has caused some confusion.

Slide 6

Nazarov et al (2014).
Isaeva et al (2011). and  Copy.
Related paper: Houari et al (arXiv, 2014)

Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9

Tripodi et al (2000). Britz P.Trip2000. There is a related paper, Tripodi et al (2009) author copy on lenr-canr.org.

Slide 10

Document not in proceedings of IWAHLM-8. Not mentioned in lenr-canr.org bibliography.
Abstract. Copy of slides on ResearchGate. 

Slide 11
Slide 12
Slide 13

Arakai et al (2004)

Slide 14
Slide 15

Strain uses time to create effects. The prevention is rate, not time. The metastability of the Beta phase could be better explored.

If the Fukai phases are preferred, I would think that under favorable codeposition conditions, they would be the structures formed. I’d think this would take a balance of Pd concentration in the electrolyte, and electrolytic current. Some codep is not actually codep, it deposits the palladium first, then loads it by raising the voltage above the voltage necessary to evolve deuterium. Is this correct? This plating/loading might still work to a degree if the palladium remains relatively mobile.

Slide 16

Of all these, true co-dep seems the most promising to me. But whatever works, works. I think co-dep at higher initial currents may have an adhesion problem.

Slide 17
Slide 18
Slide 19
Slide 20

Information on the Toulouse meeting used to be on the iscmns site. As with many such pages, it has disappeared, http://www.iscmns.org/work11/ displays an access forbidden message. From the internet archive, the paper was on the program. There would have been an abstract here, but that page was never captured. This paper never made it into the Proceedings. I found related papers by the authors about severe plastic deformation with metal hydrides by searching Google Scholar for “fruchart skryabina”.

Slide 21
Slide 22
Slide 23

Yes, Slide 23 duplicates Slide 1

Slide 24
Slide 25

Color me skeptical that the nuclear active configuration is linear. However, it is reasonable that a linear configuration might be more possible and more stable in SAV sites, as pointed out. Among other implications, SAV theory suggests reviewing codeposition. In particular, “codeposition” that started by plating palladium at a voltage too low to generate deuterium was not really codep. The original codep was a fast protocol, the claim was immediate heat. That makes sense if Fukai phases are being formed. Longer experiments may gunk it up.

This is going to be fun.

Slide 26

So many in the field have passed and are passing. As well, some substantial part of the work is disappearing, not being curated, as if it doesn’t matter.

Perhaps our ordinary state is inadequate to create the transformation we need, and we must be subjected to severe plastic deformation in order to open up enough to allow the magic to happen.

What occurs to me out of this is to explore codeposition more carefully. It’s a cheap technique, within fairly easy reach. It is possible that systematic control of codep conditions may reveal windows of opportunity that have been overlooked. There is much work to do and the problem is not shortage of funding, it is shortage of will, which may boil down to lack of community, i.e, collaboration, coordination, cooperation. Research that is done collaboratively or at least following the same protocols can lead to significant correlations.


Subpage of Fleischmann

Britz Flei1990. Copy of paper on lenr-canr.org.


It is shown that accurate values of the rates of enthalpy generation in the electrolysis of light
and heavy water can be obtained from measurements in simple, single compartment Dewar type
calorimeter cells. This precise evaluation of the rate of enthalpy generation relies on the nonlinear
regression fitting of the “black-box” model of the calorimeter to an extensive set of
temperature time measurements. The method of data analysis gives a systematic underestimate
of the enthalpy output and, in consequence, a slightly negative excess rate of enthalpy generation
for an extensive set of blank experiments using both light and heavy water. By contrast, the
electrolysis of heavy water at palladium electrodes shows a positive excess rate of enthalpy
generation; this rate increases markedly with current density, reaching values of approximately
100 W cm-3 at approximately 1 A cm-2. It is also shown that prolonged polarization of palladium
cathodes in heavy water leads to bursts in the rate of enthalpy generation; the thermal output of
the cells exceeds the enthalpy input (or the total energy input) to the cells by factors in excess of
40 during these bursts. The total specific energy output during the bursts as well as the total
specific energy output of fully charged electrodes subjected to prolonged polarization (5-50 MJ
cm-3) is 10– 10times larger than the enthalpy of reaction of chemical processes.

This paper was intended to be the full monte, the earlier paper Britz Flei1989a being a preliminary note. By this time they knew what a firestorm of critique had been raised. It would be crucial that this paper be bulletproof, as to what it confidently claims, and that any speculations or weaker inferences be stated as such, if at all.

Fleischmann and Pons were suffering from a disability: they had seen the aftermath of a meltdown, probably in late 1984. They had no possible chemical explanation for the extremity of that meltdown. So they were convinced that nuclear-level heat was possible, and they treat that as a fact. But almost nobody else witnessed that meltdown, they appear to have actively concealed it. They published little about it, beyond stating the size of the cathode (1 cm3), nor has there been any report that they kept the materials, what was left of the cathode being the most crucial, as well as fragments from the incident. They did not report if the power supply, when they discovered the meltdown, was on or off, and, in particular, what current it was set to deliver, assuming constant current. It has only been stated (Beaudette, Excess Heat, 2nd edition, 2002, p. 35) that they had raised the current to 1.5 A, and that Pons’ son had been sent to turn it off for the night.

1.5 A , for a 1 cm cube, would be about 250 mA cm-2. In fact, because palladium expands when loaded, by a variable amount depending on exact material conditions, it would be a somewhat lower density than that. Later, their experiments, with substantially smaller cathodes (Morrison calls them “specks,” which was misleading polemic), used a current density as high as “1024 mA cm-2.”

(The implied precision of that figure was overstated, it was purely nominal, obviously based on a series of experiments that set current so that calculated density would be in powers of two. What was actually controlled was current — or voltage under some conditions –, not current density.)

The precision and accuracy of the Fleischmann-Pons calorimetry is still debated. Toward studying this, I have extracted the experimental results found in the subject paper. There is a plot of results on page 26 of the preprint (page 319 as published):

Fig. 12. Log-log plot (excess enthalpy vs. current density) of the data in Tables 3 and A6.1.

And then I used https://www.pdftoexcel.com/ to convert, in a flash, the Tables 3 and A6.1 (preprint pagesˋ19 and 52) to Excel spreadsheets, which can be opened by many spreadsheet programs. On my iPhone, they immediately opened as spreadsheets. There are some errors to be cleaned up, but the data looks good.

Table 3 and the text of the page: 19_Fleischmancalorimetr.xlsx
Table A6.1 and the text of the page: 52_Fleischmancalorimetr.xlsx

Enjoy! (To be continued . . . I will clean up the spreadsheets and create some plots.)


Consensus is what we say it is

But who are “we”?

HM CollinsA BartlettLI Reyes-Galindo,  The Ecology of Fringe Science and its Bearing on Policy, arXiv:1606.05786v1 [physics.soc-ph],  Sat, 18 Jun 2016.

 In this paper we illustrate the tension between mainstream ‘normal’, ‘unorthodox’ and ‘fringe’ science that is the focus of two ongoing projects that are analysing the full ecology of physics knowledge. The first project concentrates on empirically understanding the notion of consensus in physics by investigating the policing of boundaries that is carried out at the arXiv preprint server, a fundamental element of the contemporary physics publishing landscape. The second project looks at physics outside the mainstream and focuses on the set of organisations and publishing outlets that have mushroomed outside of mainstream physics to cover the needs of ‘alternative’, ‘independent’ and ‘unorthodox’ scientists. Consolidating both projects into the different images of science that characterise the mainstream (based on consensus) and the fringe (based on dissent), we draw out an explanation of why today’s social scientists ought to make the case that, for policy-making purposes, the mainstream’s consensus should be our main source of technical knowledge.

I immediately notice a series of assumptions: that the authors  know what “consensus in physics” is, or “the mainstream (based on consensus)”, and that this, whatever it is, should be our main source of “technical knowledge.” Who is it that is asking the question, to whom does “our” refer in the last sentence?

Legally, the proposed argument is bullshit. Courts, very interested in knowledge, fact and clear interpretation, do not determine what the “mainstream consensus” is on a topic, nor do review bodies, such as, with our special interest, the U.S. Department of Energy in its 1989 and 2004 reviews. Rather, they seek expert opinion, and, at best, in a process where testimony and evidence are gathered.

Expert opinion would mean the opinions of those with the training, experience, and knowledge adequate to understand a subject, and who have actually investigated the subject themselves, or who are familiar with the primary reports of those who have investigated. Those who rely on secondary and tertiary reports, even from academic sources, would not be “expert” in this meaning. Those who rely on news media  would simply be bystanders, with varying levels of understanding, and quite vulnerable to information cascades, the same as everyone with anything where personal familiarity is absent. The general opinions of people are not admissible as evidence in court, nor are they of much relevance in science.

But sociologists study human society. Where these students of the sociology of science wander astray is in creating a policy recommendation — vague though it is — without thoroughly exploring the foundations of the topic.

Are those terms defined in the paper?

Consensus is often used very loosely and sloppily. Most useful, I think, is the meaning of “the widespread agreement of experts,” and the general opinion of a general body is better described by “common opinion.” The paper is talking about “knowledge,” and especially “scientific knowledge,” which is a body of interpretation created through the “scientific method,” and which is distinct from the opinions of scientists, and in particular the opinions of those who have not studied the subject.

1ageneral agreement UNANIMITY

the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border—John Hersey

bthe judgment arrived at by most of those concerned

the consensus was to go ahead

2group solidarity in sentiment and belief

Certainly, the paper is not talking about unanimity, indeed, the whole thrust of it is to define fringe as “minority,” So the second definition applies, but is it of “those concerned”? By the conditions of the usage, “most scientists” are not “concerned” with the fringe, they generally ignore it. But “consensus” is improperly used, when the meaning is mere majority.

And when we are talking about a “scientific consensus,” to make any sense, we must be talking about the consensus of experts, not the relatively ignorant. Yet the majority of humans like to be right and to think that their opinions are the gold standard of truth. And scientists are human.

The paper is attempting to create a policy definition of science, without considering the process of science, how “knowledge” is obtained. It is, more or less, assuming the infallibility of the majority, at some level of agreement, outside the processes of science. 

We know from many examples the danger of this. The example of Semmelweiss is often adduced. Semmelweiss’s research and his conclusions contradicted the common opinion of physicians who delivered babies. He studied the problem of “childbed fever” with epidemological techniques, and came to the conclusion that the primary cause of the greatly increased mortality among those attended by physicians over those attended by midwives, was the practice of doctors who performed autopsies (a common “scientific” practice of those days) and who left the autopsy and examined women invasively, without thorough antisepsis. Semmelweiss studied hospital records, and then introduced antiseptic practices, and saw a great decrease in mortality.

But Semmelweiss was, one of his biographers thinks, becoming demented, showing signs of “Alzheimer’s presenile dementia,” and Semmelweiss became erratic and oppositional (one of the characteristics of some fringe advocates, as the authors of our paper point out). He was ineffective in communicating his findings, but it is also true that he met with very strong opposition that was not based in science, but in the assumption of physicians that what Semmelweiss was proposing was impossible.

This was before germ theory was developed and tested by Pasteur. The error of the “mainstream” was in not paying attention to the evidence Semmelweiss found. If they had done so, it’s likely that many thousands of unnecessary deaths would have been avoided.

I ran into something a little bit analogous in my personal history. I delivered my own children, after our experience with the first, relying on an old obstetrics textbook (DeLee, 1933) and the encouragement of an obstetrician. Later, because my wife and I had experience, we created a midwifery organization, trained midwives, and got them licensed by the state, a long story. The point here is that some obstetricians were horrified, believing that what we were doing was unsafe, and that home birth was necessarily riskier than hospital birth. That belief was based on wishful thinking.

“We do everything to make this as safe as possible” is not evidence of success.

An actual study was done, back then. It was found that home birth in the hands of skilled midwives, and with proper screening, i.e., not attempting to deliver difficult cases at home, was slightly safer than hospital birth, though the difference was not statistically significant. Why? Does it matter why?

However, there is a theory, and I think the statistics supported it. A woman delivering at home is accustomed to and largely immune to microbes present in the home. Not so with the hospital. There are other risks where being at home could increase negative outcomes, but they are relatively rare, and it appears that the risks at least roughly balance. But a great deal would depend on the midwives and how they practice.

(There is a trend toward birthing centers, located adjacent to hospitals, to avoid the mixing of the patient population. This could ameliorate the problem, but not eliminate it. Public policy, though, if we are going to talk about “shoulds,” should not depend on wishful thinking, and too often it does.)

(The best obstetricians, though, professors of obstetrics, wanted to learn from the midwives: How do you avoid doing an episiotomy? And we could answer that from experience. Good scientists are curious, not reactive and protective of “being right,” where anything different from what they think must be “wrong.” And that is, in fact, how the expertise of a real scientist grows.)

Does the paper actually address the definitional and procedural issues? From my first reading, I didn’t see it.

From the Introduction:

 Fringe science has been an important topic since the start of the revolution in the social studies of science that occurred in the early 1970s.2 As a softer-edged model of the sciences developed, fringe science was a ‘hard case’ on which to hammer out the idea that scientific truth was whatever came to count as scientific truth: scientific truth emerged from social closure. The job of those studying fringe science was to recapture the rationality of its proponents, showing how, in terms of the procedures of science, they could be right and the mainstream could be wrong and therefore the consensus position is formed by social agreement.

First of all, consensus in every context is formed by social agreement, outside of very specific contexts (which generally control the “agreement group” and the process). The conclusion stated does not follow from the premise that the fringe “could be right.” The entire discussion assumes that there is a clear meaning to “right” and “wrong,” it is ontologically unsophisticated. Both “right” and “wrong” are opinions, not fact, though there are cases where we would probably all agree that something was right or wrong, but when we look at this closely, they are situations where evidence is very strong, or the rightness and wrongness are based on fundamental human qualities. They are still a social agreement, even if written in our genes.

I do get a clue what they are about, though, in the next paragraph:

One outcome of this way of thinking is that sociologists of science informed by the perspective outlined above find themselves short of argumentative resources for demarcating science from non-science.

These are sociologists, yet they appear to classify an obvious sociological observation as “a way of thinking,” based on the effect, this being argument from consequences, having no bearing on the reality. So, for what purpose would we want to distinguish between science and non-science? The goal, apparently, is to be able to argue the distinction, but this is an issue which has been long studied. In a definitional question like this, my first inquiry is, “Who wants to know, and why?” because a sane answer will consider context.

There are classical ways of identifying the boundaries. Unfortunately, those ways require judgment. Whose judgment? Rather than judgment, the authors appear to be proposing the use of a vague concept of “scientific consensus,” that ignores the roots of that. “Scientific consensus” is not, properly, the general agreement of those called “scientists,” but of those with expertise, as I outline above. It is a consensus obtained through collective study of evidence. It can still be flawed, but my long-term position on genuine consensus is that it is the most reliable guide we have, and as long as we keep in mind the possibility that any idea can be defective, any interpretation may become obsolete, in the language of Islam, if we do not “close the gates of ijtihaad,” as some imagine happened over a thousand years ago, relying on social agreement, and especially the agreement of the informed, is our safest course.

They went on:

The distinction with traditional philosophy of science, which readily
demarcates fringe subjects such as parapsychology by referring to their ‘irrationality’ or some such, is marked.3
For the sociologist of scientific knowledge, that kind of demarcation comprises a retrospective drawing on what is found within the scientific community. In contrast, the sociological perspective explains why a multiplicity of conflicting views on the same topic, each with its own scientific justification, can coexist. A position that can emerge from this perspective is to argue for less authoritarian control of new scientific initiatives – for a loosening of the controls on the restrictive side of what Kuhn (1959, 1977) called ‘the essential tension’. The essential tension is between those who believe that science can only progress within consensual
‘ways of going on’ which restrict the range of questions that can be asked, the ways of asking and answering them and the kinds of criticism that it is legitimate to offer – this is sometime known as working within ‘paradigms’ – and those who believe that this kind of control is unacceptably  authoritarian and that good science is always maximally creative and has no bounds in these respects. This tension is central to what we argue here. We note only that a complete loosening of control would lead to the dissolution of science.

They note that, but adduce no evidence. Control over what? There are thousands upon thousands of institutions, making decisions which can affect the viability of scientific investigation. The alleged argument, stated as contrary “beliefs,” misses that there could be a consensus, rooted in reality. What is reality? And there we need more than the kind of shallow sociology that I see here. Socially, we get the closest to the investigation of reality in the legal system, where there are processes and procedures for finding “consensus,” as represented by the consensus of a jury, or the assessment of a judge, with procedures in place to assure neutrality, even though we know that those procedures sometimes fail, hence there are appeal procedures, etc.

In science, in theory, “closure” is obtained through the acceptance of authoritative reviews, published in refereed journals. Yet such process is not uncommonly bypassed in the formation of what is loosely called “scientific consensus.” In those areas, such reviews may be published, but are ignored, dismissed. It is the right of each individual to decide what information to follow, and what not, except when the individual, or the supervising organization, has a responsibility to consider it. Here, it appears, there is an attempt to advise organizations, as to what they should consider “science.”

Why do they need to decide that? What I see is that if one can dismiss claims coming under consideration, based on an alleged “consensus,” which means, in practice, I call up my friend, who is a physicist, say, and he says, “Oh, that’s bullshit, proven wrong long ago. Everybody knows.”

If someone has a responsibility, it is not discharged by receiving and acting on rumors.

The first question, about authoritarian control, is, “Does it exist?” Yes, it does. And the paper rather thoroughly documents it, as regards the arXiv community and library. However, if a “pseudoskeptic” is arguing with a “fringe believer,” — those are both stereotypical terms —  and the believer mentions the suppression, the skeptic will assert, “Aha! Conspiracy theory!” And, in fact, when suppression takes place, conspiracy theories do abound. This is particularly true if the suppression is systemic, rather than anecdotal. And with fringe science, once a field is so tagged, it is systemic.

Anyone who researches the history of cold fusion will find examples, where authoritarian control is exerted with means that not openly acknowledged, and with cooperation and collaboration in this. Is that a “conspiracy”? Those engaged in it won’t think so. This is just, to them, “sensible people cooperating with each other.”

I would distinguish between this activity as a “natural conspiracy,” from “corrupt conspiracy,” as if, for example, the oil industry were conspiring to suppress cold fusion because of possible damage to their interests. In fact, I find corrupt conspiracy extremely unlikely in the case of cold fusion, and in many other cases where it is sometimes asserted.

The straw man argument, they set up, is between extreme and entrenched positions, depending on knee-jerk reactions. That is “authoritarian control” is Bad. Is it? Doesn’t that depend on context and purpose?

But primitive thinkers are looking for easy classifications, particularly into Good and Bad. The argument described is rooted in such primitive thinking, and certainly not actual sociology (which must include linguistics and philosophy).

So I imagine a policy-maker, charged with setting research budgets, presented with a proposal for research that may be considered fringe. Should he or she approve the proposal? Now there are procedures, but this stands out: if the decider decides according to majority opinion among “scientists,” it’s safer. But it also shuts down the possibility of extending the boundaries of science, and that can sometimes cause enormous damage.

Those women giving birth in hospitals in Europe in the 19th century. They died because of a defective medical practice, and because reality was too horrible to consider, for the experts. It meant that they were, by their hands, killing women. (One of Semmelweiss’s colleagues, who accepted his work, realized that he had caused the death of his niece, and committed suicide.)

What would be a more responsible approach? I’m not entirely sure I would ask sociologists, particularly those ontologically unsophisticated. But they would, by their profession, be able to document what actually exists, and these sociologists do that, in part. But as to policy recommendations, they put their pants on one leg at a time. They may have no clue.

What drives this paper is a different question that arises out of the sociological perspective: What is the outside world to do with the new view?

Sociologists may have their own political opinions, and these clearly do. Science does not provide advice, rather it can, under the best circumstances, inform decisions, but decision-making is a matter of choices, and science does not determine choices. It may, sometimes, predict the consequences of choices. But these sociologists take it as their task to advise, it seems.

So who wants to know and for what purpose? They have this note:

1 This paper is joint work by researchers supported by two grants: ESRC to Harry Collins, (RES/K006401/1) £277,184, What is scientific consensus for policy? Heartlands and hinterlands of physics (2014-2016); British Academy Post-Doctoral Fellowship to Luis Reyes-Galindo, (PF130024) £223,732, The social boundaries of scientific knowledge: a case study of ‘green’ Open Access (2013-2016).

Searching for that, I first find a paper by these authors:

Collins, Harry & Bartlett, Andrew & Reyes-Galindo, Luis. (2017). “Demarcating Fringe Science for Policy.” Perspectives on Science. 25. 411-438. 10.1162/POSC_a_00248. Copy on ResearchGate.

This appears to be a published version of the arXiv preprint. The abstract:

Here we try to characterize the fringe of science as opposed to the mainstream. We want to do this in order to provide some theory of the difference that can be used by policy-makers and other decision-makers but without violating the principles of what has been called ‘Wave Two of Science Studies’. Therefore our demarcation criteria rest on differences in the forms of life of the two activities rather than questions of rationality or rightness; we try to show the ways in which the fringe differs from the mainstream in terms of the way they think about and practice the institution of science. Along the way we provide descriptions of fringe institutions and sciences and their outlets. We concentrate mostly on physics.

How would decision-makers use this “theory”? It seems fairly clear to me: find a collection of “scientists” and ask them to vote. If a majority of these people think that the topic is fringe, it’s fringe, and the decision-maker can reject a project to investigate it, and be safe. Yet people who are decision-makers are hopefully more sophisticated than CYA bureaucrats.

Collins has long written about similar issues. I might obtain and read his books.

As an advisor on science policy, though, what he’s advising isn’t science, it’s politics. The science involved would be management science, not the sociology of science. He’s outside his field. If there is a business proposal, it may entail risk. In fact, almost any potentially valuable course of action would entail risk. “Risky” and “fringe” are related.

However, with cold fusion, we know this: both U.S. Department of Energy reviews, which were an attempt to discover informed consensus, came up with a recommendation for more research. Yet if decision-makers reject research proposals, if journals reject papers without review — Collins talks about that process, is if reasonable, as it is under some conditions and not others — if a student’s dissertation is rejected because it was about “cold fusion,” — though not really, it was about finding tritium in electrolytic cells, which is only a piece of evidence, not a conclusion — then the research will be suppressed, which is not what the reviews purported to want. Actual consensus of experts was ignored in favor of a shallow interpretation of it. (Point this out to a pseudoskeptic, the counter-argument is that “Oh, they always recommend more research, it was boilerplate, polite. They really knew that cold fusion was bullshit.” This is how entrenched belief looks. It rationalizes away all contrary evidence. it attempts to shut down interest in anything fringe. I wonder, if they could legally use the tools, would they torture “fringe believers,” like a modern Inquisition? Sometimes I think so.

“Fringe,” it appears, is to be decided based on opinion believed to be widespread, without any regard for specific expertise and knowledge.

“Cold fusion” is commonly thought of as a physics topic, because if the cause of the observed effects is what it was first thought to be, deuterium-deuterium fusion, it would be of interest to nuclear physicists. But few nuclear physicists are expert in the fields involved in those reports. Yet physicists were not shy about giving opinions, too often. Replication failure — which was common with this work — is not proof that the original reports were false, it is properly called a “failure,” because that is what it usually is.

Too few pay attention to what actually happened with N-rays and polywater, which are commonly cited as precedent. Controlled experiment replicated the results! And then showed prosaic causes as being likely. With cold fusion, failure to replicate (i.e., absence of confirming evidence from some investigators, not others) was taken as evidence of absence, which it never is, unless the situation is so obvious and clear that results could not overlook notice. Fleischmann-Pons was a very difficult experiment. It seemed simple to physicists, with no experience with electrochemistry.

I’ve been preparing a complete bibliography on cold fusion, listing and providing access information for over 1500 papers published in mainstream journals, with an additional 3000 papers published in other ways. I’d say that anyone who actually studies the history of cold fusion will recognize how much Bad Science there was, and it was on all sides, not just the so-called “believer” side, nor just on the other.

So much information was generated by this research, which went all over the map, that approaching the field is forbidding, there is too much. There have been reviews, which is how the mainstream seeks closure, normally, not by some vague social phenomenon, an information cascade.

The reviews conclude that there is a real effect. Most consider the mechanism as unknown, still. But it’s nuclear, that is heavily shown by the preponderance of evidence. The contrary view, that this is all artifact, has become untenable, actually unreasonable for those who know the literature. Most don’t know it. The latest major review was “Status of cold fusion, 2010,: Edmund Storms, Naturwissenschaften, preprint.

Decision-makers need to know if a topic is fringe, because they may need to be able to justify their decisions, and with a fringe topic, flak can be predicted.  The criteria that Collins et al seem to be proposing — my study isn’t thorough yet — use behavioral criteria, that may not, at all, apply to individuals making, say, a grant request, but rather to a community. Yet if the topic is such as to trigger the knee-jerk responses of pseudoskeptics, opposition can be expected.

A decision-maker should look for peer-reviewed reviews in the literature, in mainstream journals. Those can provide the cover a manager may need.

The general opinion of “scientists” may vary greatly from the responsible decisions of editors and reviewers who actually take a paper seriously, and who therefore study it and verify and check it.

A manager who depends on widespread but uninformed opinion is likely to make poor decisions, faced with an opportunity for something that could create a breakthrough. Such decisions, though, should not be naive, should not fail to recognize the risks.



Subpage of JCMNS
Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion

Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals, Asti, Italy, June 5–9, 2017

source page: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol26.pdf  pp.,    MB. All pages hosted here have been compressed, see the source for full resolution if needed.  stripped_JCMNS-Vol26, pp.,  1.8 MB, has front matter removed so that pdf page number and as-published page match. All files may have undiscovered errors. Please note any problems or desired creation of a discussion page in comments.

Front matter includes title pages, copyright, table of contents, and the preface.

Videos of presentations are available. See IWAHLM-12. * after a name indicates a video.

J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 26 (2018) 1–98
©2018 ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN 2227-3123

VOLUME 26, October 2018
William Collis*
LENR – What We must Do to Complete Martin Fleischmann’s Undertaking
Michael C.H. McKubre*
Expectations of LENR Theories
David J. Nagel*
Isotopic and Elemental Composition of Substance in Nickel–Hydrogen Heat Generators
K.A. Alabin*, S.N. Andreev, A.G. Sobolev, S.N. Zabavin, A.G. Parkhomov and T.R. Timerbulatov
Cold Nuclear Transmutations. Distribution of Binding Energy within Nuclei
Philippe Hatt
Deepening Questions about Electron Deep Orbits of the Hydrogen Atom
Jean-Luc Paillet* and Andrew Meulenberg
On the Heat Transfer in LENR Experiments
T. Toimela*
Reanalysis of an Explosion in a LENR Experiment
Jacques Ruer* and Jean-Paul Biberian
Key Principles for Patenting in the Land of LENR*
David J. French

Usage notes

coding of this file was nonstandard. The following is a translation I used to extract the table of contents:

 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ [first character is a space]




I am working to identify this coding or font, because copy and paste from these documents generates what looks like garbage, but which is merely character-translated, apparently. If I can identify it I may be able to find or create a translator and make it possible to copy material for study into ordinary documents.


Subpage of Proceedings

Source: http://www.iscmns.org/FIC/CFSB.pdf 313 pp. 2.7 MB

These files use a non-standard coding or font. See usage notes for information.

Hal Fox
V.A. Filimonov and V.A. Lishnevskii
Robert W. Bass
Robert W. Bass
Billings Brown
Robert T. Bush
Yi-Fang Chang, Chuan-wan Yu
Talbot A. Chubb and Scott R. Chubb
Peter Glück
Lev G. Sapogin
Lev G. Sapogin
Jean-Pierre Vigier
Chuan-wan Yu and Yi-Fang Chang
J. OˆM. Bockris and R. Sundaresan
Robert D. Eagleton
Xing Zhong Li
R.A. Oriani
Edmund Storms
Mitchell R. Swartz
V.P. Afanaseyev et al.
G.H. Miley and E.G. Batyrbekov
B.F. Bush and M.H. Miles
R.T. Bush
Francesco Celani et al.
J. Dash, G. Noble and D. Diman
J. Dufour, J. Foos and J.P. Millot
A.M. Durachenko and E.Ya. Malinochka
P.I. Golubnichiy et al.
Jintang He et al.
Bor Yann Liaw
Ren-bao Lu
Takaaki Matsumoto
Tadayoshi Ohmori and Michio Enyo
V.A. Romodanov et al.
M. Srinivasan et al.
Bruno Stella et al.
L.P. Bulat
A.V. Bulyga and A.G. Shashkov
Kenji Fukushima and Tadahiro Yamamoto
James L. Griggs
Shiuji Inomata
Thomas V. Prevenslik


Subpage of JCMNS

source page: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol2.pdf  64 pp.,  3.0  MB. All pages hosted here have been compressed, see the source for full resolution if needed.  stripped_JCMNS-Vol2, 59  pp., 1.5 MB, has front matter removed so that pdf page number and as-published page match. All files may have undiscovered errors. Please note any problems or desired creation of a discussion page in comments.

Front matter includes title pages, copyright, table of contents, and the preface.

Volume 2 2009
Unexplained Explosion During an Electrolysis Experiment in an Open Cell Mass Flow Calorimeter
Jean-Paul Biberian
4-Space Dirac Theory and LENR
A. B. Evans
Tracks of Ball Lightning in Apparatus?
E. H. Lewis
Dynamic Mechanism of TSC Condensation Motion
Akito Takahashi
Enhanced Low Energy Fusion Rate in Metal Deuterides Due to Vibrational Deuteron Dipole–Dipole Interactions and Associated Resonant Tunneling Between Neighbouring Sites
J.S. Brown
Overcoming the Coulomb Barrier in Cold Fusion
Talbot A. Chubb and Scott R. Chubb


Subpage of JCMNS

source page: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol1.pdf   160 pp.,  2.7 MB. All pages hosted here have been compressed, see the source for full resolution if needed.  stripped_JCMNS-Vol1,   154 pp., 2.3 MB, has front matter removed so that pdf page number and as-published page match. All files may have undiscovered errors. Please note any problems or desired creation of a discussion page in comments.

Front matter includes title pages, copyright, table of contents, and the preface.

J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 1 (2007) 1–154
©2007 ISCMNS. All rights reserved.


Volume 1 2007
Palladium Fusion Triggered by Polyneutrons
John C. Fisher
A Particle Physicist’s View on the Nuclear Cold Fusion Reaction
Tetsuo Sawada
The Conjecture of the Neutrino Emission from the Metal Hydrides
Xing Z. Li., Qing M. Wei, Bin Liu, Shao L. Ren
Tunneling Effect Enhanced by Lattice Screening as Main Cold Fusion Mechanism: An Brief Theoretical Overview
Fulvio Frisone
Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter: A Theoretical Study of D–D Reaction within Palladium Lattice by Means of the Coherence Theory of Matter
Fulvio Frisone
Calculation of Deuteron Interactions within Microcracks of a D2 Loaded Crystalline Lattice at Room Temperature
Fulvio Frisone [shown as Frisone Fulvio]
Very Sizeable Increase of Gravitation at Picometer Distance: A Novel Working Hypothesis to Explain Anomalous Heat Effects and Apparent Transmutations in Certain Metal/Hydrogen Systems
J. Dufour
Deuteron Cluster Fusion and ASH
Akito Takahashi
TSC-Induced Nuclear Reactions and Cold Transmutations
Akito Takahashi
On Condensation Force of TSC
Akito Takahashi and Norio Yabuuchi


Subpage of JCMNS

source page: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol3.pdf   98 pp.,   3.4 MB. All pages hosted here have been compressed, see the source for full resolution if needed.  stripped_JCMNS-Vol3,  92 pp.,  2.2 MB, has front matter removed so that pdf page number and as-published page match. All files may have undiscovered errors. Please note any problems or desired creation of a discussion page in comments.

Front matter includes title pages, copyright, table of contents, and the preface.

J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 3 (2010) 1–92
©2010 ISCMNS. All rights reserved.


Volume 3 2010
Comments on Codeposition Electrolysis Results
Ludwik Kowalski
Comments on Codeposition Electrolysis Results: A Response to Kowalski
P.A. Mosier-Boss, L.P.G. Forsley, F.E. Gordon
Judging the Validity of the Fleischmann and Pons Effect
E. K. Storms, T.W. Grimshaw
Simple Parameterizations of the Deuteron—Deuteron Fusion Cross Sections
Peter L. Hagelstein
Neutron Yield for Energetic Deuterons in PdD and in D2O
Peter L. Hagelstein
Secondary Neutron Yield in the Presence of Energetic Alpha Particles in PdD
Peter L. Hagelstein
On the connection between Kα X-rays and energetic alpha particles in Fleischmann–Pons experiments
Peter L. Hagelstein
Terahertz Difference Frequency Response of PdD in Two-laser Experiments
Peter L. Hagelstein, D. Letts, D. Cravens
Analysis of some experimental data from the two-laser experiment
Peter L. Hagelstein, Dennis G. Letts


Subpage of JCMNS

source page: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol4.pdf  324 pp.,  15.4  MB. All pages hosted here have been compressed, see the source for full resolution if needed.  stripped_JCMNS-Vol4,  316 pp.,  8.5 MB, has front matter removed so that pdf page number and as-published page match. All files may have undiscovered errors. Please note any problems or desired creation of a discussion page in comments.

Front matter includes title pages, copyright, table of contents, and the preface.

J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 4 (2011) 1–316
©2011 ISCMNS. All rights reserved.


Volume 4 2011
Hot and Cold Fusion for Energy Generation
David J. Nagel
What is Real about Cold Fusion and What Explanations are Plausible?
Edmund Storms and Brian Scanlan
Cold Fusion, LENR, CMNS, FPE: One Perspective on the State of the Science Based on Measurements Made at SRI
Michael C.H. McKubre and Francis L. Tanzella
Measurements of Excess Power Effects In Pd/D2O Systems Using a New Isoperibolic Calorimeter
M.H. Miles and M. Fleischmann
Heat Evolution from Pd Nano-powders Exposed to High-pressure Hydrogen Isotopes and Associated Radiation Measurements
Akira Kitamura, Akito Takahashi, Reiko Seto andYushi Fujita
Absorption Capacity and Heat Evolution with Loading of Hydrogen Isotope Gases for Pd Nanopowder and Pd/Ceramics Nanocomposite
T. Hioki, H. Azuma, T. Nishi, A. Itoh, S. Hibi, J. Gao, T. Motohiro and J. Kasagi
Codeposition Methods: A Search for Enabling Factors
Dennis Letts
Impact of an Applied Magnetic Field on a High Impedance Dual Anode LANR Device
Mitchell R. Swartz
Detection ofAbnormal Quantity of Hydrogen upon Electrical Explosion of Titanium Foil in a Liquid
Leonid I. Urutskoev, Dmitry V. Filippov, Anri A. Rukhadze and Larion A. Lebedev
Studies on Anomalous Phenomena of D/Pd Systems using a Gas-loading Process – A Stride Towards Neutrino Detection
Zhan M. Dong, Chang L. Liang, Bin Liu, Qing M.Wei, Jian Tian, Shu X. Zheng, Jin Z. Yu and Xing Z. Li
Observation of Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation Reactions Induced by Deuterium Permeation through Multilayer Pd and CaO thin Film
Y. Iwamura, T. Itoh, N.Yamazaki, J. Kasagi,Y.Terada, T. Ishikawa, D. Sekiba, H.Yonemura and K. Fukutani
Low-energy Nuclear Reactions and Transmutation of Stable and Radioactive Isotopes in Growing Biological Systems
Vladimir I. Vysotskii and Alla A. Kornilova
Neutron Emission in Bursts and Hot Spots: Signature of Micro-Nuclear Explosions?
Mahadeva Srinivasan
Review of TwentyYears of LENR Research Using Pd/D Co-deposition?
Pamela A. Mosier-Boss, JackY. Dea, Frank E. Gordon, Lawrence P.G. Forsley and Melvin H. Miles
Bose–Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal
Yeong E. Kim
Energy Exchange Using Spin-Boson Models with Infinite Loss
P.L. Hagelstein and I.U. Chaudhary
Concerning the Role of Electromagnetism in Low-energy Nuclear Reactions
Scott R. Chubb
Weight of Evidence for the Fleischmann–Pons Effect
Rodney Johnson and Michael Melich
Tunneling Beneath the 4He∗ Fragmentation Energy
Andrew Meulenberg and Krityunjai P. Sinha
Ultra-High Density Deuteron-cluster Electrode for Low-energy Nuclear Reactions
George H. Miley, Xiaoling Yang and Heinrich Hora
Progress in Condensed Cluster Fusion Theory
Akito Takahashi
Inhibition of LENR by Hydrogen within Gas-loaded Systems
Dennis Cravens
Dynamics in Pd–H(D) Systems
Antonella De Ninno
Model for Sonofusion
Roger S. Stringham


Subpage of JCMNS

source page: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol5.pdf 160 pp.,   4.0 MB. All pages hosted here have been compressed, see the source for full resolution if needed.  stripped_JCMNS-Vol5,  154 pp., 2.1 MB, has front matter removed so that pdf page number and as-published page match. All files may have undiscovered errors. Please note any problems or desired creation of a discussion page in comments.

Front matter includes title pages, copyright, table of contents, and the preface.

J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 5 (2011) 1–154
©2011 ISCMNS. All rights reserved.


Volume 5 2011
Modification of Pd–H2 and Pd–D2 Thin Films Processed by He–Ne Laser
V. Nassisi, G. Carettom, A. Lorusso, D. Manno, L. Famà, G. Buccolieri, A. Buccolieri and U. Mastromatteo
Study on the Phenomenon Reported “Neutron Generation at Room Temperature in a Cylinder Packed with Titanium Shavings and Pressurized Deuterium Gas”
Takayoshi Asami
Role of PdO Surface-coating in CMNE D(H)-Gas Loading Experiments
A.Takahashi, R. Seto,Y. Fujita, A. Kitamura, Y. Sasaki,Y. Miyoshi and A. Taniike
Issues Related to Reproducibility in a CMNS Experiment
Jeff Driscoll, Mike Horton, Ludwik Kowalski and Pete Lohstreter
Time-resolved Measurements of Loading Ratios and Heat Evolution in D2 (and H2)-Pd·Zr Mixed-oxide Systems
Akira Kitamura,Yuki Miyoshi, Hideyuki Sakoh, Akira Taniike, Akito Takahashi, Reiko Seto and Yushi Fujita
Energy Exchange In The Lossy Spin-Boson Model
Peter L. Hagelstein and Irfan U. Chaudhary
Dynamics in the Case of Coupled Degenerate States
Peter L. Hagelstein and Irfan U. Chaudhary
Second-order Formulation and Scaling in the Lossy Spin–Boson Model
Peter L. Hagelstein and Irfan U. Chaudhary
Local Approximation for the Lossy Spin–boson Model
Peter L. Hagelstein and Irfan U. Chaudhary
Coherent Energy Exchange in the Strong Coupling Limit of the Lossy Spin–Boson Model
Peter L. Hagelstein and Irfan U. Chaudhary
Generalization of the Lossy Spin–Boson Model to Donor and Receiver Systems
Peter L. Hagelstein and Irfan U. Chaudhary


Subpage of JCMNS

source page: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf  264 pp.,   14.5 MB. All pages hosted here have been compressed, see the source for full resolution if needed.  strippped_JCMNS-Vol6,  50pp., 0.3 MB, has front matter removed so that pdf page number and as-published page match. All files may have undiscovered errors. Please note any problems or desired creation of a discussion page in comments.

Front matter includes title pages, copyright, table of contents, and the preface.

J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 6 (2012) 1–255
©2012 ISCMNS. All rights reserved.


Volume 6 2012
When Bubble Cavitation becomes Sonofusion
Roger S. Stringham
Characterization of Neutrons Emitted during Pd/D Co-deposition
Pamela A. Mosier-Boss, Frank E. Gordon and Lawrence P.G. Forsley
Development of a High Temperature Hybrid CMNS Reactor
Francesco Celani, O.M. Calamai, A. Spallone, A. Nuvoli, V. Andreassi, B. Ortenzi, F. Piastra, E. Righi, G. Trenta and E. Marano
TOF-SIMS Investigation on Nuclear Transmutation from Sr to Mo with Deuterium Permeation through Multi-layered Pd/CaO
A. Murase, N. Takahashi, S. Hibi, T. Hioki, T. Motohiro and J. Kasagi
Modified Szpak Protocol for Excess Heat
Dennis Letts and Peter L. Hagelstein
Lochon-mediated Low-energy Nuclear Reactions
K.P. Sinha and A. Meulenberg
Effects of Self-poisoning of Pd on the Deuterium Permeation Rate and Surface Elemental Analysis for Nuclear Transmutation
T. Hioki, N. Takahashi, J. Gao, A. Murase, S. Hibi and T. Motohiro
The Open Gate Phenomenon: A New Energy Technology
S.L. Taft and J. Marwan
Cryogenic Calorimetry of “Exploding” PdDx Wires
F.L. Tanzella, J. Bao and M.C.H. McKubre
Bose–Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion: Role of Monopole Transition
Y.E. Kim and T.E. Ward
Nuclear Particles Generated by Electrolysis – a Review
R.A. Oriani
Underlying Mechanism of the Nuclear of Implied by the Energy–momentum Conservation [ I ] Tetsuo Sawada 118
A Review on Nuclear Products Generated During Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)
P.A. Mosier-Boss
LANR Nanostructures and Metamaterials Driven at their Optimal Operating Point
M.R. Swartz
Bird’s EyeView of Phonon Models for Excess Heat in the Fleischmann–Pons Experiment
P.L. Hagelstein
Transmutation of Elements in Low-energy Glow Discharge and the Associated Processes
I.B. Savvatimova
Experimental results on Excess Heat Power, Impurity Nuclides and X-ray Production in Experiments with a High-Voltage Electric Discharge System
A.B. Karabut and E.A. Karabut
Spectral and Temporal Characteristics of X-ray Emission from Metal Electrodes in a High-current Glow Discharge
A.B. Karabut and E.A. Karabut and P.L. Hagelstein
First-principles Studies of Electronic and Ionic Transport in Palladium Hydrides/Deuterides
N. Luo and George H. Miley


Subpage of JCMNS

source page: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol7.pdf   55 pp. ,   0.4 MB. All pages hosted here have been compressed, see the source for full resolution if needed.   stripped_JCMNS-Vol7,  50pp., 0.3 MB, has front matter removed so that pdf page number and as-published page match. All files may have undiscovered errors. Please note any problems or desired creation of a discussion page in comments.

Front matter includes title pages, copyright, table of contents, and the preface.

J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 7 (2012) 1–50 ©2012 ISCMNS. All rights reserved.

Volume 7 2012
Errata and Comments on a Recent Set of Papers in Journal of Condensed Matter in Nuclear Science
P.L. Hagelstein and I.U. Chaudhary
Errata and More Evidence of Microscopic Ball Lightning (Plasmoids) in CF Devices
Edward Lewis
Biological Transmutations: Historical Perspective
Jean-Paul Biberian
Evidence Concerning the Mechanism of the Nuclear Reaction between Deuterium and Tritium
John O’M. Bockris
Priority in Nuclear Reactions in the Cold
John O’M. Bockris
Including Nuclear Degrees of Freedom in a Lattice Hamiltonian
P.L. Hagelstein and I.U. Chaudhary


Subpage of JCMNS

source page: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol8.pdf    236 pp. ,   12.5 MB. All pages hosted here have been compressed, see the source for full resolution if needed.   stripped_JCMNS-Vol8,  230 pp., 5.6 MB, has front matter removed so that pdf page number and as-published page match. All files may have undiscovered errors. Please note any problems or desired creation of a discussion page in comments.

Front matter includes title pages, copyright, table of contents, and the preface.

J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 8 (2012) 1–230
©2012 ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN 2227-3123

Volume 8 2012
Nuclear Exothermic Reactions in Lattices Pd: A Theoretical Study of d–d Reaction
F. Frisone
Investigations of Possible Shuttle Reactions in Co-deposition Systems
Melvin H. Miles
Initiation of the Cold Fusion Reactions by Air Components
Sergey A. Tsvetkov
Mechanisms for Heat Generation during Deuterium and Hydrogen Loading of Palladium Nanostructures
O. Dmitriyeva, R. Cantwell and M. McConnell
Statistical Analysis of Unexpected Daily Variations in an Electrochemical Transmutation Experiment
Felix Scholkmann, Tadahiko Mizuno and David J. Nagel
Correlation Between Surface Properties and Anomalous Effects in F&P Experiments
E. Castagna, S. Lecci, M. Sansovini, F. Sarto and V. Violante RdA
The Study of the Fleischman and Pons Effect through the Materials Science Development
V. Violante, F. Sarto, E. Castagna, S. Lecci, M. Sansovini, M. McKubre and F. Tanzella
Model for Electromagnetic pulsed BEC Experiments
R.S. Stringham
Low-energy Subbarrier Correlated Nuclear Fusion in Dynamical Systems
V.I. Vysotskii and S.V. Adamenko
Quantum-correlated Fluctuations, Phonon-induced Bond Polarization, Enhanced Tunneling, and Low-energy Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter
K.P. Sinha and A. Meulenberg
Nuclear Signatures to be Expected from Rossi Energy Amplifier
Jacques Dufour
New analysis of MIT Calorimetric Errors
M.H. Miles and P.L. Hagelstein
Experimental Results on Excess Power, Impurity Nuclides, and X-ray Production in Experiments with a High-voltage Electric Discharge System
A.B. Karabut and E.A. Karabut
Research into Excited 0.6–6.0 keV Energy Levels in the Cathode Solid Medium of Glow Discharge by X-ray Spectra Emission
A.B. Karabut and E.A. Karabut
Stimulation of Metal Deuteride Wires at Cryogenic Temperatures
Francis Tanzella, Jianer Bao, Michael McKubre and Peter Hagelstein
What is needed in LENR/FPE studies?
Michael C.H. McKubre, Francis L. Tanzella and Vittorio Violante
Piezonuclear Neutrons from Iron
Fabio Cardone, Andrea Petrucci and Roberto Mignani
Fabrication, Characterization, and Evaluation of Excess Heat in Zirconium–Nickel– Palladium Alloys
D.A. Kidwell, M.A. Imam and D.D. Dominguez
Are Oxide Interfaces Necessary in Fleischmann–Pons-type Experiments?
D.D. Dominguez, D.A. Kidwell, D.L. Knies, K.S. Grabowski, G.K. Hubler, J.H. He and V. Violante


Subpage of JCMNS

source page: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol10.pdf   pp.  MB. All pages hosted here have been compressed, see the source for full resolution if needed.   stripped_JCMNS-Vol10 has front matter removed so that pdf page number and as-published page match. All files may have undiscovered errors. Please note any problems or desired creation of a discussion page in comments.

Front matter includes title pages, copyright, table of contents, and the editorial.

J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 10 (2013) 1–71
©2013 ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN 2227-3123


Volume 10
Characteristics and Energetics of Craters in LENR Experimental Materials
David J. Nagel
From the Naught Orbit to the 4He Excited State
A. Meulenberg
Protocol for a Silicate-based LENR Using Electrodes of Various Metals
Brian P. Roarty and Carol J. Walker
An Introduction to the Pico-chemistry Working Hypothesis
Jacques Dufour
Effect of Forced Oxidation on Hydrogen Isotope Absorption/Adsorption Characteristics of Pd–Ni–Zr Oxide Compounds
Yuki Miyoshi, Hideyuki Sakoh, Akira Taniike, Akira Kitamura, Akito Takahashi, Reiko Seto and Yushi Fujita
Recent Advances in Deuterium Permeation Transmutation Experiments
Y. Iwamura, T. Itoh, N. Yamazaki, H. Yonemura, K. Fukutani and D. Sekiba


Subpage of JCMNS

source page: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol12.pdf  162 pp. 3.6 MB. All pages hosted here have been compressed, see the source for full resolution if needed.   Stripped_JCMNS-Vol12,157 pp., 1.8 MB, has front matter removed so that pdf page number and as-published page match. All files may have undiscovered errors. Please note any problems or desired creation of a discussion page in comments.

Front matter includes title pages, copyright, table of contents, and the editorial.

Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 12 (2013) 1–157
©2013 ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN  2227-3123

Volume 12 2013
How the Flawed Journal Review Process Impedes Paradigm Shifting Discoveries
P.A. Mosier-Boss, L.P. Forsley and F.E. Gordon
Using Bakeout to Eliminate Heat from H/D Exchange During Hydrogen Isotope Loading of Pd-impregnated Alumina Powder
Olga Dmitriyeva, Garret Moddel, Richard Cantwell and Matt McConnell
Electron Mass Enhancement and the Widom–Larsen Model
Peter L. Hagelstein
Neutrino Equation of Motion and Neutrino–electron Bound Pairs in LENR
Burke Ritchie
Simulation of Crater Formation on LENR Cathodes Surfaces
Jacques Ruer
Born–Oppenheimer and Fixed-point Models for Second-order Phonon Exchange in a Metal
P.L. Hagelstein and I.U. Chaudhary
Phonon–nuclear Coupling for Anomalies in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
P.L. Hagelstein and I.U. Chaudhary
The Fleischmann–Pons Effect: Reactions and Processes
S. Szpak and F. Gordon


subpage of Proceedings/ICCF-6

Cold Fusion and Electrophyslcal Processes In Ferroelectric Deuterated Crystal Is. Influence of Therml Neutron

BackgroundLeve1, D—H Substitution and Crystal Mass

A.G. Lipson, V. A. Kuz,netsov, T). M. Sakov, E.T. Saunin

Insti Lute of Physical Chemistry,

The Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 1 17915 Russia

Abs trac t

C’,hange i n neutron flux i ntensity upon the passing through K(D H ) PO crystals in the vicinity of Curie point depending

on thermal neutron background level , its mass and D—H substi tution index (x) has been studied. The semi —empi ri cal equi tinn that descri bes neutron emission processes in DKDP crystals near Tc quite c.orrec.tly, has been proposed.

I . Tntr•oduc tion

As i t was shown earl ier [ 1—3], upon the transi t ion through Curie point in  crystals (DKDP) with x-0.98; 0.96 and 0.80 at the condi ti ons of external. thermal neutron bac.kground irradiation, the excess emission of fast neutron is observed. Tn common case it may be amplification or attenuation of external thermal neutron flux passing through crys tal in the vicini ty of Curie point. As result emission of neutron in these crystals can get posi Live or negative sign (with subtraction of background value) . Simul taneously in DKDP crystals the suppression of spontaneous deformati on, de and cracks forma ti on ara observed. In present work we will demonstrate that absolute value of neutron emission and i ts sign ( posi tive or negative one) is depend upon external thermal neutron flux, crystal mass and i ts substi tution degree-

2. Experimental part

The samples consisted of tri c single crys taLs or with x=O.96 and 1=0.80. Their Curie points are T =219 K and T = 190 K in accordance wi til calocyme tric

measurments. Samples wi th mass from g up to 11.0 g were cut from single—crys tal I ine plate in (001 ) direc temperature posi tion and polarization reversal or ferroelec. phase transi tion were moni tored by the registration of pirocurrent signals in the non—polarized samples near T with the

help thermostimulated depolari sation (TSD) technique. The samples were heated and cooled in a linear regime at a rate of O. 15 K/s.

To determine change in a neutron flux and to create flux of thermal neutron>59ne the experimental set up shown in A     1 has source of neutrons with intensi ty ‘ 200 n/s in solid angle of 4 was used for experiments with neutron of different intensi ty- The source was p] aced at a distance    —6

cm from the surface of •the sarnpie, which in turn was located at a distance r cm from the neutron detector. The change in detector’s neutron background (N ) was reached by change in free

space vol ume insi de the PE box (addi on or remova of “neutrostop t• bl ocks). Measurements show, that irr the range of neutron detector background values of ISNx/N ‘270 (where M is

a detector counts for a cosmic neutron background) the ux of thermal neutron passing through I)KDP cr•ysæal is in a range of O. 1ST sP5 n/s*crn (where T —O. I n/s*cm cosmi c background

Typical results of taneous measurmerlt,s of a neutron ernissiTM1 and ‘TSD in DKDP crystals with x=O. 96 and x=O.80 are shown in fig. 2, 3. Tn the case of DKDP with 1=0.96 rn=2 g (fig. Pa) at background TX/ T = 100 the amp I i ti cati on of neutron emi ssi on

intensity ( AN) has place. The emi ssion intensi ty i s about of 20 ti mes more than for crystal temperature cyc led in the cosmic background condi t ions. Moreover i n the TSD spectrum the changes are observed, that indicate on change in domain structure of DKDP (1=0.96) under the acti on of ul tt•aweak thermal neutron f Inx (fig -P, curve I , P) .

In the case of T)KDP (  g) in the cosmic background condi tions a weak posi tive neutron emission is observed (

But at TX/ T = 100 the sign of AN is changed, that ts indicate

appearance of attenua tion of external ther•mal neutron i effect. The change in TSD spectrum at TX/ T > 100 in contr•ast to cosmic background condi t inns is corresponding to suppress toti o t?

spontaneous de formations in partial y deutera ted DKDP

3. Di scussi on

The balance of ampl i ficati on—attenuation processes crystal near Tc upon the passing through it of external

neutron flux is deutermi nine by:

a) the process of i nelastic, scattering of thermal on lattice deuterons , that is lead to ” posj ti vat’ emissi on > (in reference to background flux) ;

e. rys ta I s

in DKDP thermal

neutrons neu tron

h) the process of capture of background thermal neutrons by tha (DTI] complex located in crystal , by the “nega ti

neutron emission <N >

Taki to ae.ecun-t a •or•evi ous work data 3] i t can be that


where P                          bac kground   thermal      neutron


ICCF-6 October 13-18, 1996 Japan

scattering on lattice DKDP deu teron; P         is probabili ty of

n deuteron—donor splitting by coherent multi phonon excitation (GMP,) with taking to account neutron diffusion depending on i x/ T or

probability of dd—reaction initiation by the neutron Mossbauer• effect [4, 5].

neutron yield (n/cm *s) in thermonuc lear old—reaction, to be occur on the spheres surrounding C.ME (on the isoenergetic surface e-22.5 kev

The captured in DKDP crys tal part of neutron flux <N can be obtained by the next way:


c where P ( DH) — is a probability of thermal neutron capture by

r DHI compl exes with •taking to account thermal neutron diffusion, which depends upon the I / TF is a thermal neu tron -r i ux x passing through the crystal ; V is a volume of crystal.


Therefore the total expression for balance of neutron effects in DKDP crystal. near depending on relative value or thermal neutron background ( i / i ) ; substi tution index (x) and crys tai mass (m=V p) wili assume the form:

This semiempiric•.al equation is valid only for crys ta I

th mass more than some cryt•i caj vaiue :


(4) crit


where ( Nx/ N )        i s a minimum number ot therma i neutrons

( passing through the crystal for ferroelectric phase trans i ti or’ time) that can ini tiate t’ effect,” N (3) more than standard djvi at. ion (J higher then background ; a current

indi cation of detector which corresponds to flux T rnax maximum indication of detec tor in used geometry of experi merit.. Semi empirical equation ( 3), with “taking to account condition (4) makes it possible to compute theoreti cal dependences of’ N (T / T )

(x) and N (m), which are in a good agreement wi th experimental

nata obtained, make possible to conclude that. to observe neutron effects -in deute-r•ated non—equi I i crystals

it is nacessecy, in each case, t.o optimize crystal pat-amet.ec•s and externai thermal neutron background At m>mcri t as well as corresponding values TX/i and x wi th taki ng ae.e.oun e. rys i

structure tion, i t, possi to tain reproduci resul ts, that, in fact, are a value of balance be ampl i r i.cation and a t tenua tion or external ( background )


  1. Lipson , .gakov D.M. . Sauni.n P,.l. // Lett- 62 (10) 828

( 199b) _ fiakov 1). M. , Saunitm F,.l. // J.Tech.P11Yß.t,eLt;,

Gaunt n F,- , Kuznet.sc,v V. A – // Phys. 1996 ( to be pub t i shed).

  1. Kozima H // Nuovo (i imatlt;o A?’i’ , ( 1994).
  2. stein P. // Trans Fusion tl’ee.h. P6T , 461 (

Capti ons to ti gores

Pig. 1 . manta t arrangement I — Polyethlene (Co) , de Lee. top; ‘3 counters; 4 si e.orte oi l ; 259 Cd foi ; 6 cryostat, wi I)KDP (‘PSI) cell ) , – neutron source

Fig. BFee.t.ra and tteut.t•on emi ,qsi on i ntensi ty for DKDP crystals cooling ( heating) the vie,.init.y of T : curves t — TGI) spectra for N ‘N —100 e.ortdi ti on; curves 2 (dashed line) spee.tr•a for cosmic neut.r•on background conditions (NK/No=I ) ;

neu tron emi i on i nt,ensi with subtraction of tai ned out, and ) .

‘PSI) spec. tara and                      t.r•orj emi s-3Bion intensi ty

( x—c). 80) crystals upon e,ooline iti vicini ty of : curve I  spec, trum rot’ e.oe,mie. bae.kgt•ound condi tinn (Nx/N —I) curve 2

emission i titernqity wt th subtrae,tion of background.

Fig. 3b. Just; the same as a, but tor Nx/N —100 ( IPST)

peak is             t; ted on 4K -i n t,he Pie i d     I ower temperatures (curve I); AN was negative sign (curve P).

Fig – 4. Neutron yield v€-wsUs crystal mass at; cosmic thermal neutron background ( N x/N — 1) (‘or c.v•ys s 96; O -80;

  1. 60) upon the tr•atiS t, i ti e.a[ e.ut•ves deri ved

f com equat.i ons , (4) ( Poi wi th standard devi ati ons are obtai ned from ment)

Pi E. b- Neu y i e i d versus e.r•ystal mass; for DKDP 96 and K—O.80) upon the i ti through at thermal neutron

Nx/ N               Theot•eti cal e.utwv•es derived from ( 3) ,          (4)

(Points wi tti                      dev-iat’i           are obtained from

Fig. 6. Neutron y i el d ver•sup, back-ground condi ti ons (Nx/N ) for  g) et•yst.al upon the transi t, ion througlt Tc-


ICCF.6 October 13-1b 19% Japan

Pig. 7. Neutron yi eld versus D—H substitition index (x) in e„osrnic background conditions (N / N —100, g)


Subpage of Proceedings

We have scans of this conference’s proceedings, courtesy of Jed Rothwell:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NEDOthesixthin.pdf Vol. 1 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NEDOthesixthina.pdf  Vol. 2

From the Leibnitz Information Centre  for Science and Technology University Library. The Table of Contents for Volume 1. (the TOC was repeated in Volume 2. They appear to have the Proceedings for sale, cheap (almost certainly digital delivery).

front matter includes title, preface, and table of contents.

As better scans and text copies become available, they will replace the often-poor scans here. I am working on procedures to facilitate creating better text, but nearly all these papers are readable now.

WARNING: Many of these files display errors when loaded into Acrobat Reader. They all have been tested and load into Chrome without problems.

To discuss, comment, or correct a paper here, ask for a study page to be created in comments below. As these are created, they will be linked. As well, other studies may exist, which will also be linked from study pages.

An X in the page field after the author name links to a hypothes.is annotation and notes page. Anyone may register a free hypothes.is account and may, with this, annotate and notate any web page, and may share this with the public or a group. If you create such notes, please leave a comment below with the “share” URL, so that we may  link to it in the index.

For detailed paper study, under the page number may be a link to a study page, which will have all text from the page, which with some of these papers may  be garbage or nothing. A hypothes.is page may be used to supply text.

Table of Contents

The Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion
Edited by Makoto OKAMOTO
October 13-18, 1996
Published by:
New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization
The Institute of Applied Energy
Supported by:
The Agency of Natural Resources and Energy of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry
Volume 1
Fundamental Session
Helium and Heat Correlation
X-Ray, Heat Excess and 4He in the Electrochemical Confinement of Deuterium in Palladium
Gozzi, D. (Italy) Lead Author was F. Cellucci
Mass Spectroscopic Search for Helium in Effluent Gas and Palladium Cathodes of D20 Electrolysis Cells involving Excess Power
Isagawa, S. (Japan)
Heat and Helium Measurements using Palladium and Palladium Alloys in Heavy Water
Miles, M. H. (U.S.A.)
Measurements of 4He Production from D2 Gas-Loaded Pd Sample
Botta, E. (Italy)
Study of Excess Heat and Nuclear Products with closed D20 Electrolysis System
Yasuda, K. (Japan)
NHE Session
Excess Heat in Fuel Cell Type Cells from Pure Pd Cathodes Annealed at High Temperatures
Kamimura, H. (Japan)
Development and Experiments on a Flow Calorimetry System
Kubota, A. (Japan)
Study of Material Processing and Treatment for High Deuterium-Loading
Senjuh, T. (Japan)
Material Behavior of Highly Deuterium Loaded Palladium by Electrolysis
Asami, N. (Japan)
New Hydrogen Energy Research at SRI
McKubre, M. C. H. (U.S.A.)
Excess Heat
Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Run at IMRA Europe
Pons, S. (France)
New Kinds of Electrolytic Regimes and Geometrical Configurations to Obtain Anomalous Results in Pd(M)-D Systems
Celani, F. (Italy)
Some Thoughts on the Nature of the Nuclear-Active Regions in Palladium
Storms, E. (U.S.A.)
Reproduction of Fleischmann and Pons Experiments
Lonchampt, G. (France)
Excess Heat Measurement at High Cathode Loading by Deuterium during Electrolysis of Heavy Water using Pd Cathode
Nakata, T. (Japan)
Achievement of Solid-State Plasma Fusion (“Cold Fusion”)
Arata, Y. (Japan)
Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Cold Fusion Calorimetry
Preparata, G. (Italy) •
Material Science Studies
Progress Report on the Research Activities on Cold Fusion at ENEA Frascati
De Marco, F. (Italy)
Search for Neutron Emissions Induced by Electric Currents and Phase Transitions in Titanium Deuteride Films
Cuevas, F. (Spain)
Calorimetric Enthalpies in the ß—Phase Regions of Pd Black-H(D) Systems
Sakamoto, Y. (Japan)
Parameters Affecting the Loading of Hydrogen Isotopes into Palladium Cathodes
Tanzella, F. L. (U.S.A.)
Sustentation of Higher Deuterium Loading Ratio in Palladium
Terazawa, T. (Japan)
Loading Ratio Study in a Gas-Loading System
Bu, F. S. (China)
Selection of Palladium Metallurgical Parameters to Achieve Very High Loading Ratios
De Ninno, A. (Italy)
A Possible Phase Transition in a Gas-Loading D Pd System
Huang, G. S. (China)
Effect of Cold Work of Palladium on Electrolytic Hydrogen Absorption
Kamiya, N. (Japan)
Electrochemical Loading of Hydrogen and Deuterium into Palladium and Palladium-Boron Alloys
Miles, M. H. (U.S.A.)
In Situ Potentio, Resisto and Dilatometric Measurement of Repeated Hydrogen Absorption in Pd Electrode by Electrochemical Cathodic Loading Method
Numata H. (‘Japan)
Quantum Mechanical Description of a Lattice Ion Trap : Deuteron Approaching Mechanism in Condensed Matter
Violante v (Italy)221
Observations of Strong Resistivity Reduction in a Palladium Thin Long Wire using UltraHigh Frequency Pulsed Electrolysis at D/Pd> 1
Celani, F. (Italy)
In Situ Interferometric Microscopy of Pd Electrode Surface and Calorimetry during Electrolysis of D20 Solution Containing Sulfur Ion
Oyama, N. (Japan)•
The Effect of Microstructure on Deuterium Loading in Palladium Cathodes
Dominguez, D. D. (U.S.A.)
Surface Composition of Pd Cathodes
Hagans, P. L. (U.S.A.).
Nuclear Physics Approach
Reaction Rates of the D + D Reaction in Metal at Very Low Energies
Kasagi, J. (Japan)
Optical Theorem Formulation and Nuclear Physics Mechanisms for Gamow Factor Cancellation in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions
Kim, Y. E. (U.S.A.)
Correlation between Behavior of Deuterium in Palladium and Occurrence of Nuclear Reactions Observed by Simultaneous Measurement of Excess Heat and Nuclear Products
Iwamura, Y. (Japan) •
Search for Nuclear Reaction Products in Heat-Producing Palladium
Passell, T. O. (U.S.A.)
Search for Neutrons Emitted from Sodium Tungsten Bronzes
Aoki, T. (Japan)
About Nuclear Coulomb Barrier and the Electron Over-Concentration
Chicea, D. (Romania) 305
On the Cold Fusion Miracles
Chen, S. K. (Taiwan)
Hidden Results of the Ion Band State Theory
Chubb, S. R. (U.S.A.)
A Model for Neutron Emission from Condensed Matter
Tani, T. (Japan)
Comment on Exact Upper Bound on Barrier Penetration Probabilities in Many-Body Systems
Kim, Y. E. (U.S.A.)
Analysis of the Electrolytic Cold Fusion Experiments on TNCF Model
Kozima, H. (Japan)
On the Existence of the Trapped Thermal Neutron in Cold Fusion Materials
Kozima, H. (Japan)
The Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation in Finite System for Explanation of Cold Fusion
Peng, K. (China)
The Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Media for Interaction of Charge Particles in Energy Region is Forming by Maximum Elastic Losses
Romodanov, V. A. (Russia)
Investigation of Nuclear Emissions in the Process of D(H) Escaping from Deuterized (Hydrogenized) PdO-Pd-PdO and PdO-Pd-Ag Samples
Roussetski, A. S. (Russia)
Detection for Nuclear Products in Transport Experiments of Deuterium through Palladium Metals
Shinojima, H. (Japan)
Search for Anomalous Nuclear Reactions in PdDx by Detection of Nuclear Products in Vacuum/ Gas System
Taniguchi, M. (Japan)
Diagnosis of Neutrons from the Gas Discharge Facility
Wang, (China)
Search for Tritium in Pd + D Systems by a Gas Proportional Chamber
Yoshikawa, N. (Japan)
Hydrogen Isotope Effect Induced by Neutron Irradiation in PD-LIOD (H) Electrolysis
Oya, Y. (Japan)
Deuteron Fusion Experiments in Metal Foils Implanted with Deuteron Beams
Ochiai, K. (Japan)
Anomalous Energy Transfer between Nuclei and the Lattice
Hagelstein, P. L. (U.S.A.)
Tritium, Neutron, and Radicarbon Registration with the Yusmar Hydrofacility Running
Bazhutov, Y. N. (Russia)
Possibility of Radioactive Waste Utilization in terms of the Erzion Model
Bazhutov, Y. N. (Russia)
Erzion Model of Catalytic Nuclear Transmutation and its Interpretation of Ball-Lightning and Other Anomalous Geophysical Phenomena
Bazhutov, Y. N. (Russia)
Anomalous Phenomena in E < 18KeV Hydrogen Ion Beam Implantation Experiments on Pd and Ti
Wang, T. (China)
Interpretation of Excess Energy in terms of Quasi-Atom Multi-Body Model
Wang, T. (China)
Observation of Nuclear Products in Gas Release Experiments with Electrochemically Deuterated Palladium
Itoh, T. (Japan)
Authors’ Index
Volume 2
Excess Energy and Nuclear Products
Radiationless Cold Fusion : Why Small “Crystals” are Better, Ncen Requirement, and Energy Transfer to Lattice
Chubb, T. A. (U.S.A.).
Measurements of Excess Heat and Nuclear Products in Pd-D20 System using Twin Open Type Electrolysis Cells
Fukuoka, H. (Japan)
Excess Heat Production and Nuclear Ash in PdO/Pd/PdO Heterostructure after Electrochemical Saturation with Deuterium
Lipson, A. G. (Russia)
Dynamic Movement of Hydrogen Isotopes in Pulse Mode Electrolysis
Oya, Y. (Japan)
Correlation of Excess Heat Generation and Neutron Emission in Pd-LiOD Electrolysis
Ogawa, H. (Japan)
“Excess Heat” Measurement in Gas-Loading D Pd System
Li, X. Z. (China)
Excess Heat Registration in High Current Density Glow Discharge with Various Cathode Materials
Karabut, A. (Russia)
Registration of High-Energy Products in High Current Density Glow Discharge Karabut, A. (Russia)
Karabut, A. (Russia)
Possible Phenomenologycal Model of Initiation of Nuclear Reactions in Solid
Karabut, A. (Russia)
Chemical Changes and Excess Heat caused by Electrolysis with H2SO,-D20 Electrolyte
Dash, J. (U.S.A.)
From “Cold Fusion” to ”Hydrex” and ”Deutex” States of Hydrogen
Dufour, J. J. (France)
Improved, Open Cell, Heat Conduction, Isoperibolic Calorimetry
Miles, M. H. (U.S.A.)
Slow Nuclear Excitation Model
Kucherov, Y. (U.S.A.)
“Fine Tuning” Mechanism for Resonace Tunneling in D/ Pd Systems
Li, X. Z. (China)
Cold Fusion and Electrophysical Processes in Ferroelectric Deuterated Crystals. Influence of Thermal Neutron Background Level, D-H Substitution and Crystal Mass
Lipson, A. G. (Russia)
Electron-Ion Bound State and its Introducing of Nuclear Fusion and Solar Flare
Lu, R. (China)
Reply to S. E. Jones and L. D. Hansen Concerning Claims of Miles, et al. in Pons-FleischmannType Cold Fusion Experiments
Miles, M. H. (U.S.A.)
Field Screened Long Range Nuclear Reactions by Thermal Protons
Hora, H. (Australia)
Heat Measurement During the Electrolysis Using Modified Palladium Cathode
Ota, K. (Japan)
Triode Cell Experiments for Controlled Fleischmann/ Pons Effect
Ragland, E. L. (U.S.A.)
Anomalous Increase in Excess Heat in Electrolysis of Heavy Water and Light Water for use of Drilled Cathode of Charcoal
Takahashi, R. (Japan)
The Relationship of Crystal Structure Transition of Ti-Cathode and “Excess Heat” on Cold Fusion
Zhang, Q. (China)
A Confirmation of Anomalous Thermal Power Generation from a Proton Conducting Oxide
Oriani, R. A. (U.S.A.)
Solid Protonic Conductors : Conductivity, Structure, Proton Traps, Phase Transitions, Excess Heat and Neutron Anti-Effect
Samgin, A. L. (Russia)
X-Ray Diagnosis in Gas Discharge
Chen, S. (China)
Transmutation Phenomena in the Palladium Cathode after Ions Irradiation at the Glow Discharge
Savvatimova, I. B. (Russia)
Concentrated Energy and Micro Nuclear Fusion
Jiang, X. L. (China)
Tritium Generations at Transfusion of Hydrogen Isotops through Target in Plasma of Powerful Glow Discharge
Romodanov, V. A. (Russia)
Nuclear Reactions at Effect of Ions Deuterium on Ceramic Materials from Plasmas of Glow Discharge
Romodanov, V. A. (Russia)
Energy Generation Processes and Cold Nuclear Fusion in terms of Schrodinger Equation
Sapogin, L. G. (Russia)
New Experimental Results and Analysis of Anomalous Phenomenon in Gas Discharge
Zhang, X. W. (China)
Structural Changes of Single Crystals in Neutron Generation Experiments
Samgin, A. L. (Russia)
Carbon Production on Palladium Point Electrode with Neutron Burst under DC Glow Discharge in Pressurized Deuterium Gas
Yamada, H. (Japan)
A Study of the Mechano-Nuclear Interaction using Piezoelectric Material of LiNb03 in Atmosphere : Dependence of D2 Gas Atmospheric Pressure
Utsumi, M. (Japan)
“Preliminary Study on Tritium and Elements Transmutation in Water under Simulated Aerospatial Conditions
Liu, C. B. (China)
Nuclear Products Associated with the Pons and Fleischmann Effect; Helium Commensurate to Heat Generation, Calorimetry and Radiation
Bush, B. F. (U.S.A.)
Special Session
CETI Session
Quantitative Observation of Transmutation Products Occurring in Thin-Film Coated Microspheres During Electrolysis
Miley, G. H. (U.S.A.)
Electrochemistry and Calorimetry in a Packed-Bed Flow-Through Electrochemical Cell
McKubre, M. C. H. (U.S.A.)
Analysis of Nickel-Hydrogen Isotope System on TNCF Model
Kozima, H. (Japan)
Nuclear Transmutation in Cold Fusion Experiments
Kozima, H. (Japan)
Isotopic Distribution for the Elements Evolved in Palladium Cathode after Electrolysis in D20 Solution
Mizuno, T. (Japan)
Production of Heavy Metal Elements and the Anomalous Surface Structure of the Electrode Produced during the Light Water Electrolysis on Au Electrode
Ohmori, T. (Japan)
Nuclear Reaction Caused by Electrolysis in Light and Heavy Water Solutions
Notoya, R. (Japan)
The Experimental Discovery of the Phenomenon of Controlling and Changing Probability and Time of Spontaneous Decay and Gamma-Transmutation of Excited Nuclei Statuses
Vysotskii, V. I. (Ukraine)
Experimental Discovery of the Phenomenon of Low-Energy Nuclear Transmutation of Isotopes (Mn55 •Fe57) in Growing Biological Cultures
Vysotskii, V. I. (Ukraine)
Russian Activities
Cold Fusion Activities in Russia
Tsarev, V. (Russia)
Nuclear Products in Cold Fusion Experiments Comments and Remarks after ICCF-6
Bressani, T. (Italy)
Authors’ Index