411he4

Subpage of Kowalski/cf, recovered from archive


411) Messages from the CMNS list (December 2012) 

Ludwik Kowalski; 12/17/2012

Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA

Some of you might be interested in the following messages from the private discussion list for CMNS researchers. They were posted in the first week of December 2012.

 

1) Posted by X1:

 

… X2 Ludwik Kowalski suggests that some of our distinguished CMNS scientists are in a way accomplices of Rossi’s scam. …  [I am certainly not one of them; my critical comments on Rossi’s claims can be seen at:]

 

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/408rossi.pdf

 

2) Posted by X3:

I have not yet received a response from X2.  Regarding my wager, I am confident that commercial hot fusion energy will not happen in my lifetime despite hearing this promise of abundant energy for as long as I can remember.

 

3) X6 :

I also do not expect to live long enough to see commercial applications. But should I expect to see the first reproducible-on-demand demonstration of an undeniably nuclear effect resulting from a chemical process, such as electrolysis? This would be a giant step toward practical applications.

 

4) Posted by X5 (And ul-Rahman Lomax)

It exists. Unfortunately, it’s a fairly expensive experiment. It’s the X6Ős experiment. Use the state of the art to run a substantial series of F&P type cells to see excess heat. Run the cells in such a way as to allow the secure collection of helium and measure it. Compare excess heat and the amount of helium produced. The helium will be proportional to the heat, and if you end up capturing all the helium, which may take some special techniques, the ratio will be as expected for deuterium conversion to helium. The individual cells will vary in heat, but the ratio will be constant.

 

That is a reproducible experiment, it’s been reproduced many times. There are approaches which have shown excess heat in most cells, such as the Energetics Technologies replications at SRI and ENEA.

 

It’s much less expensive to do this without the helium collection, but then all you have is heat, which is not an undeniably nuclear effect.

 

The problem, Ludwik, is that the F&P Heat Effect produces essentially no “nuclear products” other than helium, which is not unmistakably “nuclear” by itself, unless you take the levels above ambient, and still the skeptics will carp, because they did. However, heat correlated with helium at the fusion ratio is strong enough evidence for anyone who is reasonable.

 

It’s possible that this could be done with tritium, but I don’t see that the *reliable production* of tritium has been studied. The rumor is that tritium is not correlated with heat, but I’ve never seen published values that would show this, and it’s a suspicious claim.

 

5) Posted by X6:

Yes indeed. Production of 4He from 2H, even without generation of excess heat, is an undeniable nuclear event, like other reported transmutations. But the correlation with excess heat, at the rate of about 24 MeV per atom of He (even if it were 24 +/- 10 MeV), would be very significant.

 

How much would it cost to reconstruct a setup, and to perform ten experiments? Who would be able to perform such experiments, if money becomes available?

 

6) Posted by X7

 

Evidently X2 has not done his research!  None of the persons criticized in his blog are ISCMNS leaders!  And his conclusions regarding the ISCMNS position do not seem to be based on any relevant facts.

 

I went on record, during the ISCMNS Annual General Meeting at ICCF16 (February 2011) warning the community of the brewing storm.  Allow me to quote some key points from my presentation:-

 

“Recently a demonstration was made of a prototype energy ŇCatalyzerÓ

If it works as described, it may be a blessing to humanity and vindicate 21 years of patient work by this community. If it fails spectacularly, it will create bad publicity for everyone working in the field.

 

Some advice to inventors

Get your invention independently validated.

Demonstrations which hide technical details create unease.

Non disclosure agreements can protect secrets.

 

Advice to Users

If you acquire any technology, whether secret or not, do not accept any clauses which require you to keep quiet if it doesn’t work.

We need whistle blowers.

 

Advice to Evaluators

It’s probably not appropriate to make a public statement in support of a demo miracle device, if you have not examined it yourself.

If you do make a statement, at least make sure that you can correct any eventual errors.

Take care if you get on film, as film will be edited.”

 

This is of course a personal perspective, but it was discussed by the ISCMNS members present at the meeting.

 

If X2 has any evidence of fraud, I suggest he contacts the appropriate authorities.

 

7) Posted by X5:

 

First of all, it’s been done. As I recall, Miles performed about six experiments, taking a total of 33 samples for analysis. … This is the kind of work that can be done in many ways. The exact protocol is not important, but I do caution against going outside the basic PdH approach. Other approaches *might* involve different mechanisms.

 

If one can obtain or make an active cathode — ENEA seems to be able to supply functional cathode material, and seems to have a grip on what sets up the necessary initial conditions — measuring heat is not the most difficult part of this; one should, of course, use good calorimetry, for the accuracy of the ratio will not exceed the accuracy of the calorimetry.

 

The difficulty, though, is in capturing and measuring all the helium. McKubre followed an approach, in some of his work, that involved rigorously excluding helium from the cell materials and cells. Helium can diffuse through some materials. Seals must be helium tight, and tested to be so. And if the cell needs to be disassembled for any reason — connections fail, etc., — then the whole process must be repeated.

 

Storms, in “Status of cold fusion (2010)”, working from the results of various studies, comes up with 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4. That’s rather obviously a bit seat-of-the-pants. I’d say, however, that the results show better than 24 +/- 10 MeV (and I’m not saying that Storms’ result is incorrect).

 

At this point, the work is solid enough that the default hypothesis as to the ash from the FPHE is that it is helium, with the fuel being deuterium. Transmutations and other products are found at levels far too low to explain the heat, by many orders of magnitude. This does *not* establish mechanism, but it obviously puts some severe constraints on mechanism. If the mechanism involves neutron formation, why the products would so tightly focus on helium would have to be explained — or other products would need to be identified, which has not happened. One possible mystery product, of course, could be deuterium, since it would not be detectable in heavy water experiments, nor, for that matter, in light water experiments, so plentiful is deuterium in light water.

 

Miles first reported helium somewhere around 1991, and his first extensive correlation report was published in time to be covered in the second revision of Huizenga’s book, “Cold fusion, scientific fiasco of the century.” Huizenga was highly impressed, in fact, saying that, if confirmed, a major mystery of cold fusion would have been solved, i.e., the ash. He held on to his skepticism by saying that, of course, it was unlikely to be confirmed, because no gamma rays were reported.

 

Huizenga was showing, clearly, how the skeptics thought about cold fusion and why they thought “it” was impossible. “It” was d-d fusion, through “overcoming the Coulomb barrier,” in the classic way or something like it. And “it,” when it produces helium — i.e., rarely — always produces a gamma ray. I consider it likely that they were correct, what they thought of as cold fusion is indeed impossible. They were gloriously and spectacularly incorrect, though, in making the assumption that if there was cold fusion, it would be a new way of making hot fusion.

 

(And all the theories that involve ideas whereby somehow deuterons in condensed matter attain sufficient energy to directly penetrate the barrier are missing the point. That is not happening. Piezoelectric fusion — used in certain commercial neutron generators — isn’t cold fusion, it’s hot fusion, and that’s why it serves to generate neutrons. But the apparatus is at room temperature ….)

 

Because a notable author objected to the idea of this “replicable experiment,” I’ll answer his post separately, as to why what he expects has not appeared. But what I described is indeed replicable, and reliably so, I’ll assert — there is going to be a need for some detailed discussion about this — and *it has been replicated*, quite enough that under normal conditions, the result would be a generally accepted fact.

 

Sitting here twenty years after a cascade, though, conditions still are not normal.

 

8) Also posted by X5, shortly after the above message:

 

X6 asked ŇHow much would it cost to reconstruct a setup, and to perform ten experiments? Who would be able to perform such experiments, if money become available?Ó

 

What it would cost is something that could be estimated by those who have done the work in the first place. Notably, as to those who are active, and off the top of my head, this would be Miles — first and foremost –, McKubre, who did the most accurate work to date, and Violante, who may have done the work at least expense, plus, of course, any of their co-workers and those reported in Storms, 2010.

 

I doubt that it would cost more than $10,000 per cell, though, as a rough guess, particularly if a worker already had good calorimetry in place or easily adaptable. If a lot of cells are run, the cost per cell may go down. Most of this cost, indeed, is labor.

 

As to who, my plan is to write a survey of cold fusion criticism, with a goal toward identifying significant and important unresolved issues. The replication of heat/helium is not significant as far as it is not impeding progress significantly, but because there are lingering doubts about it, it may be politically important. If heat/helium is established, if 24 MeV is confirmed, independently, and with greater accuracy, it confirms cold fusion, very amply, as a side-effect, and it narrows the possibilities for theories as to mechanism.

 

Matters are still at the point where Larsen can suggest that 24 MeV is only approximate and he can attempt to shoehorn his neutron transmutation ideas into it. Note that in spite of what Krivit has implied, Larsen has *confirmed* at least some of McKubre’s work, as to his personal opinion.

This work must be divorced from theory. The goal of any confirmation should be, not to confirm or reject any theory as to mechanism, but simply to measure the ratio of helium to heat. The experiments might as well look for other things that can be done without compromising the heat/helium goal.

 

An important approach may be to define a protocol to be followed, and the broader the consensus on the protocol, the more likely that multiple workers will attempt it. Because few have access to mass spectrometers that are helium-qualified (He-4 must be resolvable from D2), the protocol will need to include a sampling protocol, which will require cooperation between experimenters and labs ready to do the measurements. If a single and simple protocol for submitting samples is followed, actual helium measurement should be relatively cheap per sample.

 

If every researcher does their own fabrication, that’s expensive. If a common protocol is agreed upon, with identical cell design, there is *no harm in cooperation in fabrication.* What would be important would be that the cell materials would all be accessible for thorough testing. I.e., someone could analyze them to make sure that someone didn’t sneak helium into the palladium, in particular. Ideally, there would be an independent supplier of materials and cells, with traceability. All that a researcher, then, in a report, need state, is that they used XYZ company’s model NNN cell assembly.

 

XYZ company, then, is highly motivated to facilitate consensus among its potential customers as to desirable cell design. The Galileo project would have seen much wider participation if there had been such a common fabrication supplier. Indeed, I began working as a supplier of kit materials because, I saw, it should be possible to supply a Galileo-type cell, ready to hook up to a power supply and run, for about $100 per cell *and make a (modest) profit doing it.*

 

(But that design only looks for radiation evidence, from small palladium-plated cathodes in heavy water, and is utterly inadequate, as such, for heat/helium work.)

 

9) Posted by X6:

Thank you for interesting posts, X5. You are probably assuming that a high resolution mass spectrometer (able to distinguish the D-2 peak from the He-4 peak) would be available at no cost. Such instruments are not disposable.

 

10) Another post by X5

Other reported transmutations would be nuclear, but they occur at levels far, far below those of helium in F&P type experiments. Helium itself is problematic because helium is present in ambient air at levels that are generally higher than those expected from the heat. However, that has been addressed in several ways:

 

  1. If enough heat is accumulated, and helium is accumulated, the helium levels can be expected to — and do — rise above ambient, without slowing, indicating a source of helium other than leakage from ambient.

 

  1. Controls do not show helium.

 

  1. If an experiment shows reasonably robust heat, and the cell environment is small, helium as an elevation above ambient can be observed. That this is what Violante did escaped Steven Krivit, who criticized Violante without understanding what he’d done.

 

The big problem with heat/helium work is that helium has very low mobility in palladium, yet it appears that the reaction does implant helium at some (small) depth in the palladium, so as much as roughly half of the helium can be trapped in the palladium. McKubre attempted to flush the helium by repeated deuterium loading/unloading, which appears to have worked, but this is an unconfirmed technique, and it would be useful if more definitive methods could be used. For example, earlier work looking for nuclear products in Arata/Zhang DS cathodes (hollow palladium with palladium black in the interior) not only looked in the interior gas phase, but also sectioned the cathodes and heated the pieces; helium becomes mobile at high temperatures. I’ve also thought that dissolving the cathodes electrolytically might work and might be simpler, if a researcher doesn’t have direct access to helium measurement and must send off samples to a lab.

 

(With those Arata/Zhang cathodes, helium was not found above ambient, and the signs are that the cathode interior volume was breached, the helium leaking out. What was found, though, was He-3, at very significant levels, apparently as a decay product from tritium. The He-3 was found trapped in the palladium, at variable distance from the interior, indicating that it was the product of tritium that had decayed to He-3, becoming immobile, as the tritium diffused through the palladium. But this is unconfirmed work; like much cold fusion work, it’s crying out to be replicated.)

 

11) Also by X5:

 

There are those on this list with substantial experience with this, perhaps they will help us understand the issue.

 

However, Miles did not have such a spectrometer. It is not necessary, obviously, for the researcher running the cells to have a mass spectrometer.

 

SRI has the necessary device, so does Dr. Storms, in his home lab. They are quite expensive, but not impossibly expensive, and, in any case, it is probably a better idea to create a sampling protocol such that a lab or labs can provide analytical services, efficiently.

 

If one were to run 10 cells, that could only be 10 samples to analyze, plus a few controls. It’s kind of crazy to buy a mass spec to make ten measurements, eh?

 

It does appear, from what I’ve heard, that modern mass spectrometers are both cheaper and more accurate than the services that were available to Miles.

 

Yes, for deeper investigational work, in-line, continuous measurement of cell gas could make the investment in a dedicated mass spec worthwhile. But, note: serious exploration of the parameter space leads to a concept of running many cells simultaneously. That can be done through a sampling protocol.

 

Maybe an advanced cold fusion lab would indeed have a mass spectrometer that could be used for in-line, real-time analysis, and then used for analysis of samples that are stored up for later study.

 

It looks like a helium mass spectrometer might be rentable for on the order of $2K – $3K per month. These are used as leak detectors. Used mass spectrometers seem to be going for $10K – $40K.

 

A Varian 979 Helium Mass Spectrometer Leak Detector is on offer on eBay, for quite some time, at $15,000.

 

I think it likely that someone with access to an adequate helium mass spectrometer would be willing to provide services at a reasonable cost. It’s not impossible that such services could be donated. The cost of equipment does not seem to be so high that, if a analysis services are not available, a provider could be set up for that purpose. The real cost of heat/helium measurements, as to the labor of preparing the equipment, running the experiments, and collection of samples, is quite likely much higher than the cost of helium analysis.

 

P.S.

I cited some figures for helium leak detectors. I don’t know how capable these are of separating out the D2 peak. I do know that low-mass mass spectrometers are readily available that can easily resolve the peaks. As I mentioned, Storms has one. D2 can also be eliminated from the gas stream, but that introduces a possible source of error.

 

It’s pretty much a non-issue, really, because it is not necessary for the researchers to own a mass spectrometer. The key will be a sampling and testing protocol, especially one that allows storage of samples for extended periods if necessary. That could be difficult enough! But it is doable. And blinding the tests so that the helium testers don’t know anything about the sample origins can cover a host of contingencies, assuming that control samples are included, some as ambient air, perhaps, some as coming from dead cells, etc.

 

12) Posted by X7:

 

Here is a typical university in-house rental fee for a mass spectrometer:

 

Students who have a demonstrated need for the unique capabilities of this instrument can be trained to run their own samples.  The training is billed at a rate of $100 per hour, with the usual training session taking 4 hours.  Up to four students can attend the same training session to divide the cost.

 

Non-routine samples submitted to us to be run on the Q-TOF are billed at $100 per hour.

Student use of the instrument is billed at $50 per hour.

 

13) Posted by X8:

 

X5, a leak detector is useless for separating He from D2. These instruments focus on mass 4 but they are not designed to separate D2 from He. After all, no D2 is expected to be present in the apparatus being tested for leaks by applying He.

 

The only error is just how much He is present.  Several methods can be used to reduce this error by calibration.

 

14) Posted by X9:

 

X8, Can your spectrometer distinguish D2 from He-4?  Most cannot do this.

 

15) Posted by X8:

 

The spectrometer is made by MKS and has a range of mass 1 to 6. He and D2 are cleanly separated.

 

16) Posted by X10:

 

Folks, a brand new MKS MicroVision II for measuring deuterium versus helium cost about $12,000 according to the company rep. It operates at a pressure of 1E-5 torr(?). It has a ten week lead time to order.

 

17) Posted by X6:

 

The costs reported in this thread are clearly negligible, in comparison with how much the DOE has been spending yearly to support hot fusion research. Failure to perform replication of 4He experiments, during the second DOE investigation, was certainly not due to prohibitively high costs. [That investigation was described in my article at]:

 

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/409social.pdf

 

In philosophically-oriented article (to be published  in 2013?) I wrote that “the DOE experts were not asked to perform correlation experiments; they were asked to read the report submitted by five CF scientists (21), and to vote on whether or not the evidence for the claim was conclusive. Such a way of dealing with a controversy was not consistent with the scientific method of validation or refutation of physical science claims.”

 

This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links

last417

Subpage of Kowalski/cf recovered from archive

417) Last Updating ? (7/20/2014)

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)Department of Mathematical SciencesMontclair State University, Montclair, NJ, 07043

This might be my last item here. I am still reading what CMNS researchers have to say. But penetrating the content conceptually becomes more and more difficult, due to my old-age limitations.In the item 408 I asked “is the device constructed by Andrea Rossi reality or fiction?” Unfortunately, no convincing evidence of realty has been reported on the CMNS website. Neither am I aware of new experimental results. But interpretational debates among highly qualified researchers, from several countries, are going on, as illustrated below.

1) The most significant event was the recent publication of a new book devoted to Cold Fusion. Here How this event was announced by the author, Ed Storms, on July 3, 2014: “My new book will be available shortly from Infinite Energy. To provide a place where discussion can take place, a new website “www.LENRexplained.com

has been created and is operational thanks to Ruby Carat. Please go to BLOG to make comments. The comments will be moderated in order to keep the level of debate high. This is not be the place to vent anger, frustration, or to make snide remarks. I hope this discussion can help expand everyone’s understanding of LENR, including mine.” The printed book is already available; the ebook version is expected to be available in August.

2) On July 18 X1 (who is from Rumania) wrote: “I have just now published:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/07/the-vuca-world-of-lenr-how-long-it-will.html

History of LENR will decide if i was too optimist or, on the contrary…
However I have decided to tell you sincerely everything I think, taking all the risks.
We all have to develop active VUCA awareness.

yours faithfully,

3) On July 19, X3 (who is from Ukraine) wrote: “Dear Colleagues. In our new article “Correlated States and Transparency of a Barrier for Low-Energy Particles at Monotonic Deformation of a Potential Well with Dissipation and a Stochastic Force”

(Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 2014, Vol. 118, No. 4, pp. 534-549.)

the features of the formation of correlated coherent states of a particle at monotonic deformation (EXPANSION or COMPRESSION) of potential well in finite limits have been considered in the presence of dissipation and a stochastic force.

It has been shown that, in both deformation regimes, a correlated coherent state is rapidly formed with a large correlation coefficient r~1, which corresponds at a low energy of the particle to a very significant (by a factor of 10^50…10^100 or larger) increase in the transparency of the potential barrier at its interaction with atoms (nuclei) forming the “walls” of the potential well or other atoms located in the same well. The efficiency of the formation of correlated coherent states, as well as, increases with an increase in the deformation interval and with a decrease in the deformation time.
The presence of the stochastic force acting on the particle can significantly reduce the maximum value and result in the fast relaxation of correlated coherent states with r~0. The effect of dissipation in real systems is weaker than the action of the stochastic force. It has been shown that the formation of correlated coherent states at the fast expansion of the well can underlie the mechanism of nuclear reactions at a low energy, e.g., in MICROCRACKS developing in the bulk of metal hydrides loaded with hydrogen or deuterium, as well as in a low-pressure plasma in a VARIABLE MAGNETIC FIELD in which the motion of ions is similar to a harmonic oscillator with a variable frequency.

PS. This article is in Attachment.

4) On July 20 X4 (who is from Malesia) wrote: “As an experimental physicist, I find models to be very useful for building concepts. As a theoretician, I do as well. However, I don’t have my lab set up; so, I just have to think about them.

The multi-atom, linear, hydrogen molecule does not naturally exist. However, if it were ‘induced’ to form, it might have some interesting properties. One of these could be Rocha’s metallic hydrogen (see the PS below). In 1999, Sinha proposed such a molecule in lattice defects as a potential source of CF. More recently Storms proposed the linear-H model as the ‘only’ possibility for CF. Is there a simple experiment that can convey some of the concepts involved in this structure?

Metallic H requires extremely high pressures to form (maybe! I do not know that it has actually been proven to exist.) Electrolytic loading can provide extremely high pressures for H into a lattice. Is it sufficient? If so, under what circumstances? Under high loading, protons can be inserted into sites that are not ‘natural’ for them, or proton pairs can even be crammed into a single site. Nevertheless, they would not form a linear molecule (at least not of the type we are seeking).

I suggest that the balloon analogy might be useful. The electron ‘cloud’ about a proton has an isotropic distribution. However, in the H ground state, the electron has zero angular momentum (L = ~0). If it had ang mom. it would have a ‘fixed’ vector associated (perhaps nutating and/ or precessing). QM states that it is a ‘probability cloud’. Either way, this distribution, when overlapping with a similar one, does not provide sufficient screening to allow the protons to get close together. Sinha’s Lochon model (paired electrons) and Takahashi’s Tetrahedral model provided possible ways around this problem without requiring a linear structure. (However, Sinha’s model also worked preferentially in such a structure.) The linear lattice is the preferred structure and could exist in special lattices. It might be able form in a crevice (this is not assured). How does a balloon help explain this picture of the linear molecule in a lattice and its consequences?

Consider the balloon:

Actually, we’ll consider two sets of balloons. But first we need to define the nature of the balloon .and the distinction between force F and pressure (P=F/A).
1. When you blow up a balloon, it is necessary to exceed a given pressure before it will expand easily.
2. After that critical pressure is exceeded, the balloon will expand at a lower pressure (see figure, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-balloon_experiment ).

I am skipping the illustration (Dependence of pressure on r/r0)
Why?
1. It takes a given force to stretch the balloon
2. the stretch is proportional to the force
3. as the balloon expands, the area A increases; so that, the force available to stretch the balloon (F = P A) for a given pressure increases.
4. this reduced-pressure regime is maintained (extended to the right in the figure) until the elastic limit is approached (not shown in figure).
In most balloons, e.g. 1/2 inch across by 5 inches long (uninflated):
1. the end never expands (until the balloon is blown up very full, perhaps to beyond a 10 inch diameter)
2. it is possible to push a needle thru the end without bursting the balloon or allowing air to leak out. (It is more difficult to get the needle out again, but it can be done.)
In a second set of balloons (e.g. 3/8 by 5 inches uninflated – I may be wrong about the diameters):
1. the diameter never expands much, the balloon stretches out longer until it is blown up very full, perhaps to beyond a 20 inch length; or,
2. unless the balloon is pinched off at some point and the air pressure is raised sufficiently to cause the early section to ‘balloon’
What is the difference?
1. The pressure peak in the figure is different for the sidewalls of the balloons and the ends.
2. the forces needed to stretch the balloons differ in the various directions.
3. for a given pressure, decreasing the diameter of the balloon decreases the force available to expand the balloon diameter
4. increasing the pressure, until the force on the end is sufficient to elongate the balloon rather than to expand its diameter, may result in different local forces from the different geometries
5. this is similar to the effect seen in the coupling of two balloons (see “two balloon” ref above).
How does this all relate to the linear-H molecule? Consider the inflated balloon to be like the Coulomb repulsion field of a proton. It is possible to push your finger into the center of the balloon. (Is this like tunneling?) However, it is much more difficult to press two balloons together to the same depth. Again, the difference is in force vs pressure. The finger has small area, the balloons are large; so for the same force in pushing a finger vs a balloon, the pressure is quite different.
An electron in orbit about a proton acts to reduce the ‘inflation’ of the balloon. It allows two H atoms to come closer together, but only so far. (We can’t simulate the effects of spin coupling.) If a normal balloon were greased and inserted into a tube (e.g., the tube of a vacuum cleaner), then it could only elongate on inflation. If a pressure sensor were placed in the balloon, and pressures were compared for a ‘free’ and confined balloon, the results would not be dramatically different (but, they would depend on the balloon and tube geometries). If another pressure sensor were placed between the balloon and tube, the pressure difference needed to confine the balloon would not be that large. It would be limited to that needed to expand the balloon toward the end of the tube. Thus we have the condition of the multi-H molecule.
For H2, the external forces needed to reduce the diameter of the molecules is not large, but the effect of reducing the electron’s 3-D degrees of freedom to 1 is dramatic (see fig. attached). An order of magnitude decrease in equilibrium spacing between two H atoms will bring the atoms close to a self-sustaining 1-D configuration (meaning that the electrons are no longer isotropically distributed about the proton(s), they more closely align themselves along the potential minimum of the proton axis). There may be a stable or metastable 1-D configuration for H2, if it can be formed. Many balloons, such as the long balloons used to make toy animals, have such a bistable mode.
The 3-D H2 molecule has little attraction for a lone H atom or another H2 molecule. However, a 1-D H2 molecule would likely have more attraction if the atom or molecule were at the end of the line. The added component could then become an addition to the linear molecule and even join the 1-D state with shrunken electron orbital(s) and closer molecular bonds. It is often observed that blowing up longer balloons will fill up one section while leaving the remainder in an unexpanded state. Thus, the growth of multi-H linear molecules, under the proper circumstances, could become an expected event. CF would be a likely consequence and the bistable mode in balloons could represent the configuration changes that lead to cold fusion.
I had an excellent demonstration (in my apartment in Malaysia) of how resonance can overcome very strong barriers. Unfortunately, I did not ‘notice’ it until I was about to leave there for good and did not have time to record it. I had been annoyed by the effect on many occasions, but did not recognize it as the example it was of overcoming the Coulomb barrier.
PS The paired electrons in the ground state of an atom (or molecule) are a boson. If two H2 molecules, each with such a paired boson are combined, then would the bosons not want to share the common H4 molecular orbital? The multi-H linear molecule in a proper lattice or defect would provide such an example and thus would be metallic H at room temperatures and internal lattice pressures. Furthermore, it might even be a high-temperature superconductor. However, it might also lead to CF and ‘spoil’ the whole concept. What a shame!

5) Responding to X4, X5 (who is from the US) wrote (also July 20):
“I like your analogy. I agree, the process needs to be made simple enough for it to be understood by anyone. Being of chemical persuasion, I would like to offer a different description and analogy. The Hydroton is a chemical structure. Therefore, it has to follow the rules that apply to all chemical structures. All chemical structures are held together by bonds that involve electrons. These bonds have certain well defined energies and configurations. In the case of H, two basic electron configurations exist that are designated s and p. The s level is the most stable and normally forms between other H to make the molecule H2. To allow a larger structure to form, the electrons must occupy an energy level that allows electrons to be shared between all H atoms in the structure. In other words, a metallic-type* bond must form. This electron level requires energy to form, hence is not stable under normal conditions. In 1935, Wigner and Huntington proposed using high pressure to force the electron into the required energy level, thereby creating what they called metallic hydrogen (MH). Because the electron would be then able to move freely between nuclei, the structure was proposed to be superconducting. In 1991, Horowitz proposed that this structure would fuse, thereby explaining the extra heat produced in Jupiter. I then took the logic one step further and proposed that LENR was initiated by formation of MH, I call the Hydroton, which initiated the fusion reaction in certain cracks.

The question is, “What is present in the crack that can force the electron into the required metallic state?” I suggest the high concentration of electrons associated with the Pd or Ni atoms in the wall of the gap force the electron associated with H to move to a new energy state in order to avoid the high negative potential in the gap.

A boat can be used as an analogy. The level of the negative sea has been raised by the electrons in the wall, thereby raising the boat, which is the electron associated with hydrogen. The boat is forced to move up the energy scale and into a configuration that is normally not available. This configuration allows the boat to now move from port to port rather than being trapped in a single port by energy barriers, i.e. rocks. This configuration allows the hydrogen nuclei to resonate, thereby acquiring enough energy to periodically and partially overcome the Coulomb barrier. The same process would occur in metallic hydrogen regardless of how it is formed. Therefore, I suggest in the book that the failure to make MH results because it discomposes by fusion immediately upon formation. Looking for the resulting radiation would be one way to test this prediction.

*The three known bond types are designed as ionic, covalent and metallic. The bond in H2 is covalent.”

6) On July 19, X6 (who is from Japan) wrote: (responding to X4 and to another researcher): “Every particle in nature stays only in the 3-dimesional space, and HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) rules its special distribution. Therefore, any PURE linear molecule for p-e-p, p-e-p-e-p, e-p-e-p-e-p-e, etc. systems in 1-dimensional alignment cannot exist. However, LINEAR-LIKE molecule as elongated di-cone or elliptic rotator can exist if the freedom of electron motion in other two dimensions were extremely constrained by surrounding Coulombic (or Electro-Magnetic) interactions of many particles charge-field. (I do not know how it is possible in nano-cracks.)

In such an extremely ‘vertically constrained’ linear-like molecule as p-e-p one, supposing it to be treated adiabatically separated from surrounding many charged particles which made constrained field (namely supposing Born-Oppenheimer wave function separation and Variational Principle for minimum energy system: the principle of electron Density Functional Theory), the constrained condition for the vertical two-dimensional space other than the one-dimensional line of linear-like molecule can be realized by requiring the high kinetic energy rotation motion of the QM center of electron moving around the center-of-mass point of the p-e-p system. The required electron kinetic rotation energy will be more than 1 MeV, really in relativity motion. When the electron kinetic rotation energy would become infinite, it approaches to an ideal linear p-e-p molecule (Hydroton?) with very diminished p-p inter-nuclear distance (to make weak-boson interaction between proton and electron efficiently, 2.5 am i.e. 2.5E-18 m is the considering scale). I do not know if some bodies made Time-Dependent Density Functional calculation by using coupled Dirac equations for such cases.

I hope, Andrew and Daniel will get to some rational solutions. How much the nuclear reaction rates are is to be answered for making a theory rational, in any way.”

7) On July 22, X7 (who is from the US) wrote:

Also, if anybody does not yet have the book, but would like to read a thorough treatment of the theory, the JCMNS included a lengthy article from Ed on the theory last year:

http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol11.pdf

8) Responding to a comment of X5, X8 (myself) wrote (July 23):

To most physicists the term logical approach can mean two things:

a) formal logical, which they associate with mathematics,

b) informal logical, which they associate with intuition.

Both play an equally important role in science, as we all know.

9) Responding to X8, X5 wrote (also July 23)

Which of these would you say I use, Ludwik? My model is built on finding a logical structure that explains all observations without violating any law. Yes, intuition is used, but that is not the only feature.

All theory is based on assumptions. These assumptions are used to guide the math, frequently without being acknowledged. I acknowledge all my assumptions and apply them using cause and effect. How does this differ from using mathematical equations? The only difference is that I use words instead of equations. Of course, I make no effect to calculate values. But what good are such calculated values without agreement that the basic model on which the values are based is correct? In other words, the values to not prove the model. Instead the model determines the values. The theoreticians insist that the cart be placed in front of the horse.

The problem is that I do not use the assumptions required by QM. Therefore, my arguments are not acceptable to modern physics. I suggest this conflict between my approach and that used by the various theoreticians has revealed a flaw in the way modern physics explains reality. Mathematical equations based on QM is their god. No explanation that does not use these tools can be accepted. Do you agree?

10) Another post from X5, addressing X8 (July 24):

Ludwik, I suggest philosophers of science such as you might want to address the issue of how physics evaluates reality compared to the other sciences. What criteria should be used to test a theory? The conventional requirements state that a theory must be tested. If so, what role do calculated values have when the values cannot be compared to any measurement? What role does logical consistently with a large data set have in evaluating a theory? Does such consistency not represent a test based on known behavior? Must all tests be made after the theory is proposed rather than before? Something worth discussing?

11) Another post from X8, (July 24):

Yes, the topic is worth discussing. But I am not a philosopher. Let me say this:

Scientific theories are finally accepted or rejected on the basis of laboratory work and observations of our material world. But intuition, inspiration and emotion also play an important role in scientific research, especially at earlier stages of scientific theoretical investigations. Mathematical theories, on the other hand, are rejected only when logical (mathematical) errors are found in derivations.

12) Another post from X5, (July 24):

With what you say being true, how should the theories describing LENR be evaluated? What criteria should be applied to decide which are flawed and which are worth exploring. All the theories at the present time conflict with each other and with observed behavior. Each is justified by a different mathematical analysis. They all conflict with one or more basic natural laws. How can a person who wants to understand LENR decide which theories to use to design future studies and to interpret what is observed. That is the problem I’m trying to address. This is a serious issue. Ed

13) Another post from X8, (July 24):

Ed asked: “how should the theories describing LENR be evaluated?”

1) LENR are physical phenomena; scientific theories describing these phenomena should be evaluated in the same way as other scientific theories. Predictions of all such theories should be tested in laboratories. A theory whose predictions are verified is usually accepted. Confidence in a theory increases when additional predictions are verified. That is what most of us learned in school, long ago.

2) A theory, according to Karl Popper, is not scientific unless it is falsifiable. In other words, a theory is not scientific unless it makes predictions, which can be tested experimentally.

3) In talking about science I often say that falsifiability is a necessary requirement for a scientific theory but not for a scientific hypothesis. That is why a theory is more difficult to formulate than a hypothesis. Yes, I know that nonscientists often identify theories as unreliable guesses.

14) Another post from X5, (July 24)

After quoting my point 1 (see 13 above):

1) Yes Ludwik, that is what I learned as well. However, testing a theory takes time and money. If the test is complex, the interpretation can be ambiguous, requiring many different tests. If only one theory is involved, the tests can be focused on that one idea. But suppose we have a dozen proposed theories? How do we start to decide which deserves the expense and time?

After quoting my point 2 (see 13 above):

2) The test has to be such that the theory is actually tested. Frequently the behavior can be explained several different ways. This is the present situation with LENR where the observed behavior is claimed to support a particular theory, yet the behavior can be explained equally well several different ways. When this happens, which “theory” is tested? What does the test mean?

After quoting my point 3 (see 13 above):

What does “falsify” mean with respect to a theory describing behavior? If an experiment fails to give the predicted result, is this a falsified result or just a failure to do the experiment properly? For example, most efforts to produce LENR fail. Does this failure mean that LENR is not real, as claimed by the skeptics?

I think this idea for the need to “falsify” actually applies to a mathematical theory, not one that describes physical behavior. Confusion has resulted from the mixing of these different concepts.

15) Another post from X8, (July 25)

1) Yes, some projects might not be possible without big money. But the scientific methodology of validation for expensive projects should be the same as for those, which are less expensive. And yes, the problem of initial irreproducibility should be addressed, for each part of a project.

2) Practical considerations, such as costs of experiments, clarity of publications, reputation of authors, etc., will probably determine how to deal with competing theories.

3) All scientific theories describe physical behavior. The “falsibility” requirement–which I would have named the “confirmation” requirement– was introduced to deal with scientific theories, not with mathematical theories. Mathematicians do not perform experiments to validate theorems.

00 project

Subpage of Kowalski/cf recovered from archive


About my “learn cold fusion” project

Ludwik Kowalski, <kowalskiL@mail.montclair.edu>
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, N.J. 07043

Return to the clickable list of items

In the fall of 2002, to my surprise, I discovered that the field of cold fusion is still active. This happened at the International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Systems (ICENES2002 in Albuquerque, New Mexico). Several papers presented at this conference were devoted to cold fusion topics. Intrigued by the discovery I started reading about recent cold fusion findings and sharing what I learned with other physics teachers. I have been doing this over the Internet using Montclair State University web site

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/

What follows is a set of items posted, more or less regularly, on that web site since October of 2002. The items reflect my own process of learning, mostly from articles published by cold fusion researchers. I am still not convinced that excess heat, discovered by Fleischmann and Pons, is real or that nuclear transmutations can occur at ordinary temperatures. But I do think that time is right for the second evaluation of the entire field. I do not believe that extraordinary findings of hundreds of researchers are products of their imagination or fraud. Our scientific establishment should treat cold fusion in the same way in which any other area is treated. Those who study cold fusion do not appear to be pseudo-scientists or con artists. The items on my list are arranged in the order in which they were posted on my web site.

P.S.

What follows is an email message I received recently:

Dear Mr. Kowalski,
Help! My name is XXX XXXXX and I am a sophomore at XXXXX High School.  In my chemistry class, I am doing a project on Cold Fusion.  I was looking on the Internet for websites on Cold Fusion, and I came across your links to your Cold Fusion items.  I was wondering if you could give me some advice or information?  I would like to know what Cold Fusion is, [and] how Cold Fusion was started. . . . .

I am no longer comfortable saying that “cold fusion is voodoo-science.” I am a physics teacher; how should I answer questions about cold fusion?

Can a nuclear process be triggered by a chemical process? The answer, based on what we know about nuclear phenomena, is negative. On the other hand many experiments seem to indicate the opposite. These experiments were performed many years after the first evaluation of “cold fusion” was made by our Department of Energy. As a teacher I would very much appreciate a second evaluation of the field by a panel of competent investigators. What can one do to make this happen?

Return to the clickable list of items

cmns2015

Subpage of Kowalski/cf, retrieved from archive


418) First 2015 contributions

(1/4//2015)

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

Department of Mathematical Sciences

Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, 07043

The CMNS discussion group, to which I belong, remains active. Numbered examples of recent contributions are shown below.

1) L.K. (myself) asked: “What is more important, in a published report,

(a) the description of the protocol, which the author wants to be recognized as a reproducible way to generate excess heat, or

(b) the description of the method by which such heat was measured by the author?

I think that (a) is much more important than (b), especially in the context of our present situation.

If I were still experimentally active, and if I had new excess heat results, I would focus on the protocol, and on the main result–how much excess heat, at what mean input power, and for how long. THe rest would be less important. I would not worry about absence of details in the description my calorimeter.
… In fact, new experimental data are more likely to be recognized as reproducible when different methods of measuring excess heat are used, for a given protocol.

P.S.
Naturally, a description of my calorimeter would be included if it were unusual, or if the goal were to teach calorimetry.

P.P.S.
Explaining an experimental result, before it is recognized as reproducible, might become a big wast of time. I would not try to do this, except in an usual situation, for example, if I actively particpated in collection of experimental data.
………………………..

1) X1 responded: “I agree completely. As to (b) what is important is the data and actual analysis. (a) without (b) is useful as a proposed experimental approach, but won’t necessarily move mountains. (b) without (a) is not reproducible. …”
………………………..

2) X2 responded: “Ludwik, why would any one want to explore a protocol claimed to make nuclear energy unless it was actually shown to do this? In the present discussion, the protocol claimed to make Ni active seems very simple. Setting up a device to test the protocol is neither simple nor inexpensive. Nevertheless, I agree showing how to make active material is more important than proving it is active once someone cares to test the protocol.”
………………………..

3) X3, referring to organized suppression of CF, in 1989, wrote: “The suppression of cold fusion is not a “story” or a “narrative.” It is a fact. It was the most savage and effective suppression of academic freedom in the last 200 years. The people who carried out this suppression did not hide their identities or their motives. On the contrary, they bragged about their roles. They still do. Robert Park vowed to ‘root out and fire’ any scientist who supports cold fusion. He said that to me, in person, and to others. He meant it, and he and others damn well did it. …”
………………………..

4) X2 , responding to this description, wrote: “Well said, X3. The rejection was without mercy and is continuing. No change in response by anyone would have had any effect on the rejection. The rejection was fueled by academic and commercial interests that apply even today. Nothing will change until the effect is made so commercially viable that rejection is no longer an option. The rejection is not stupid, unreasonable, or based on ignorance. It is based on pure self interest. Consequently, nothing we say can have any effect. Nevertheless, a rational effort to explain and advance understanding would accelerate the required commercial application.”
………………………..

5) L.K. wrote: “I agree with these two observations. Why doesn’t the US government try to end the CF feud, by promoting objective research? The cost of such research would be relatively neglible. But, according to X1, supporting one or two promissing research projects would not be sufficient. In a subsequent post he wrote: “The real issue is the money lost when CF takes the place of conventional energy. The money involved in the various aspects of finding, refining, and moving energy is so great that introduction of LENR will cause significant disruptions. The smart people who run the financial world know this. I predict every effort will be made to slow introduction of this energy into the commercial mix. That is why significant money is not going into the field.

A conspiracy is not required when most scientists react to the same self interest, which is your point. This self interest exists as long as money is not available. Money will not be available because the people who control money would be hurt if LENR works. That is my point. The situation is truly diabolical.”
………………………..

6) L.K. wrote: “The issue, in other words, is not only morality and science; it is economy. But something is not clear to me. Attempts to develop other nonconventional sources of energy, such as solar, were not blocked by the same immoral politicians? How can this be explained? Didn’t they know that mastering of solar energy might also ’cause significant disruptions’? ”

P.S.
Selfishness and competition exist in all fields of human activities. But the CF episode seems to be highly unusual, in terms of duration and high caliber of participants. A random fluctuation, I suppose.
………………………..

7) Addressing X2, X4 wrote: “Actually, you do not need a conspiracy, you need several groups of people having same interest:

A- Most scientists do not want a revolution in science, they want to continue in their career. They have worked hard to reach their position, and entering in a new field, especially like electrochemistry and calorimetry is difficult. When yo are a senior scientist with all your knowledge, you do do not want to start all over again like a graduate student.

B- Energy and finance industries are not interested in a new competitor. There is already plenty of energy in the world, as we can see now with the price of oil. Imagine that the major news agencies announce that with 1g of nickel, and some additives you can produce kilowatts of heat! For a few days, billions or maybe trillions of dollars will evaporate immediately on the stock market. Economy is very fragile and sensitive to any news. Nobody wants that. I am sure that the day the announcement of the rebirth of CF, the opposition will be fierce. The greens will argue that cheap energy will deplete the earth, the nuclear industry will claim that there might be dangerous radiations, since it is nuclear…..

C- The military did not want CF. Martin Fleischmann said that he wanted the field to be classified, but it was probably already classified.”

………………………..

8) Referring to my post, X3 wrote: “Solar energy was not blocked because until recently it was too expensive to compete, so the fossil fuel industry did not fear it. Recently, power companies and others have begun serious efforts to block it.

Wind energy, on the other hand, has been attacked by the fossil fuel industry for years. It now produces 5% of U.S. electricity, meaning it has taken away roughly 10% of the market for coal. The coal industry is fighting it tooth and nail. For example, a Member of Congress from West Virginia, a coal producing state, tried to pass a law banning the use of wind energy in the U.S., ostensibly because wind turbines kill birds. This is preposterous; coal, nuclear and other steam generators kill millions of birds from steam and smoke, whereas wind turbines kill a few thousand.”

=======================================================================================================

reactor419

Subpage of Kowalski/cf, recovered from archive.


419 A New Kind of Nuclear Reactor? 

Ludwik Kowalski, Ph.D. (see Wikipedia)
Montclair State University, Montclair, N.J. USA
Abstract

Consider a short sealed porcelain tube, containing about one gram of white powdered LiAlH4 fuel mixed with ten grams of powdered nickel. Professor Alexander G. Parkhomov, who designed and tested it, calls this small device a nuclear reactor, in a published report. The purpose of this short article is to briefly summarize Parkhomov’s discovery, in as simple a way as possible, and to make some general comments. Such setup, even if scaled up, would not be useful in an industrial electric power generating plant, due to well-known conversion efficiency limit. The expected readers are scientists and educated laymen.

Section 1 Introduction

Consider a sealed porcelain tube 20 cm long, containing about one gram of white powdered fuel mixed with ten grams of powered nickel. Professor Alexander G. Parkhomov, who designed and tested it, calls this small device a nuclear reactor, in a published report (1). The purpose of this short article is to briefly summarize Parkhomov’s discovery, in as simple a way as possible, and to make some general comments. The expected readers are scientists and educated laymen. Hopefully, this article will prepare them to understand Parkhomov’s report, and similar technical publications on the same topic.

The author, a retired nuclear physicist educated in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA, has dedicated this article to his father who died in a Gulag camp, and to his famous mentor Frederic Joliot-Curie. Who is Alexander Parkhomov? He is a Russian scientist and engineer, the author of over one hundred publications. The photo shown below was taken in 1990. Electronic equipment on the table is probably not very different from what he used to measure thermal energy released in the reactor.


 

Parkhomov in his lab

Section 2 Describing the Reactor 

The title of Parkhomov’s recent report is “A Study of an Analog of Rossi’s High Temperature Generator.” Is the word “reactor,” in the title of this section, appropriate? Yes, it is. A totally unexplained reaction, releasing an extraordinary amount of heat, must be responsible for what is described in Sections 3. Is this reaction nuclear? Parkhomov certainly thinks so; otherwise he would not use instruments designed to detect nuclear radiations. His powdered fuel was 90% natural Ni; the rest was a LiAlH4 compound.

The controversial field of science and technology (2,3), in which Rossi (4) and Parkhomov are active, is Cold Fusion CF), also known under different names, such as CMNS, LENR, etc. Reference to Andrea Rossi in the title of the report is puzzling. Yes, Rossi also thought that thermal energy released in his device was nuclear, rather than chemical. But that is where the similarities end; the two reactors differ in many ways. For example, Rossi’s fuel was hydrogen gas, delivered from an outside bottle.

The illustration below is a simplified diagram of Parkhomov’s setup. The diagram does not show that the porcelain tube (red in the diagram) was closely wrapped by a heating wire. The electric energy delivered to the heater, in each experiment, was measured using several instruments; one of them was a standard kWh meter, similar to those used by electric companies. Heating of the fuel was necessary to keep the fuel temperature very high; the required temperature had to be between 1000 C and 1400 C.


Simplified diagram of Parkhomov’s setup

The reactor container (a covered box) was immersed in an aquarium-like vessel, filled with boiling and steaming water. To keep the water level constant during the experiment, a small amount of hot water (probably 90 grams) was added through a funnel, every three minutes or so. The mass of the escaped steam, turned into liquid water, was measured outside of the setup. Knowing the mass of the steam that escaped during an experiment one can calculate the amount of thermal energy escaping from the aquarium. Parkhomov’s method of measuring excess heat was not very different from that used by the leader of Russian Cold Fusion researchers, Yuri Nikolaevich Bazhutov (5).

Section 3 A Surprising Energy Result 

Here is a description of results from one of three experiments performed by Parkhomov in December 2014. The porcelain tube with the powdered fuel was electrically heated at the rate of 500W. Then the state of thermal equilibrium was reached. The water in the aquarium remained in that state for nearly one hour. The constant fuel temperature, measured with a thermocouple (also not shown in the diagram) was 1290 C. The time interval of 40 minutes was selected for analysis of experimental results. The amount of water evaporated during that interval was 1.2 kg. The amount of electric energy the heater delivered to water in the aquarium, during that time, was 1195 kJ. Most of that energy was used to evaporate water. But 372 kJ of heat escaped from water via conduction. That number was determined on the basis of results from preliminary control experiments
Let XH be the amount of heat the aquarium water received from the reactor that is from the porcelain tube containing the fuel.
Thus the net “input” energy was

INPUT = 1195 – 372 + XH = 823 + XH

It represents thermal energy received by water, during the experiment.
Knowing the water’s “heat of evaporation” (2260 kJ/kg), one can calculate the thermal energy lost by water to sustain evaporation. It was:

OUTPUT = 2260*1.2 = 2712 kJ.

This is the thermal energy lost by water, during the experiment. According to the law of conservation of energy, the INPUT and the OUTPUT must be equal. This leads to:

XH = 2712 – 823 = 1889 kJ.

This is a surprising result. Why surprising? Because it is much larger than what is released when one gram of a familiar fuel is used. Burning one gram of powdered coal, for example, releases about 30 kJ of thermal energy, not 1889 kJ. What is the significance of this? The superficial answer is that “Parkhomov’s fuel is highly unusual, and potentially useful.”

Section 4 Cold Fusion Contoversy 

Parkhomov’s box is not the first device that was introduced as a multiplier in which electric energy is turned into heat, and where outputted thermal energy exceeds the electric energy supplied. A conceptually similar device, based on electrolysis, was introduced in 1989, by Fleischmann and Pons (F&P). Their small electrolytic cell also generated more thermal energy than the electric energy supplied to it. Trying to establish priority, under pressure from University of Utah administration, the scientists announced their results at a sensational press conference (March 23, 1989). They wanted to study the CF phenomenon for another year or so but were forced to prematurely announce the discovery (private information)

The unfortunate term “cold fusion” was imposed on them. Why unfortunate? Because it created the unjustified impression that cold fusion is similar to the well known hot fusion, except that it takes place at much lower temperatures. This conflicted with what had already been known–the probability of nuclear fusion of two heavy hydrogen ions is negligible, except at stellar temperatures (6,7).

Suppose the discovery had not been named cold fusion; suppose it had been named “anomalous electrolysis.” Such a report would not have led to a sensational press conference; it would have been made in the form of an ordinary peer review publication. Only electrochemists would have been aware of the claim; they would have tried to either confirm or refute it. The issue of “how to explain the heat” would have been addressed later, if the reported phenomenon were recognized as reproducible-on-demand. But that is not what happened. Instead of focusing on experimental data (in the area in which F&P were recognized authorities) most critics focused on the disagreements with the suggested theory. Interpretational mistakes were quickly recognized and this contributed to the skepticism toward the experimental data.

5) Engineering Considerations 

The prototype of an industrial nuclear reactor was built in 1942 by Enrico Fermi. It had to be improved and developed in order to “teach us” how to design much larger useful devices. The same would be expected to happen to the tiny Parkhomov’s device.
a) One task would be to develop reactors able to operate reliably for at least 40 months, instead of only 40 minutes. This would call for developing new heat-resisting materials. Another task would be to replace the presently used (LiAlH4 + Ni) powder by a fuel in which energy multiplication would take place at temperatures significantly lower than today’s minimum, which is close to 1000 C .
b) The third task would be to scale up the setup, for example, by placing one hundred tubes, instead of only one, into a larger aquarium-like container. This would indeed increase the amount of released thermal energy by two orders of magnitude. Scaling up, however, would not increase the multiplication factor. The only conceivable way to increase the MF would be to find a more effective fuel.
c) A typical nuclear power plant is a setup in which a nuclear energy multiplier (a uranium-based reactor) feeds thermal energy into a traditional heat-into-electricity convertor. Such multipliers are workhorses of modern industry. Note that MF of an industrial nuclear reactor must be larger than three; otherwise it would not be economically justifiable. This is a well-known fact, related to the limited efficiency of heat engines.
d) Uranium and thorium seem to be the only suitable fuels, in any kind of energy multiplier. Why is it so? Because fission is the only known process in which more than 100 MeV of nuclear energy is released, per event. This number is about four times higher than what is released when two deuterons fuse, producing helium. Will more efficient fuels be found? If not then chances for replacing coal, oil, and gas by a Parkhomov-like fuels are minimal, except in heating applications.

6) Scientific Considerations

Science is at the base of all modern engineering applications. But the main preoccupation of most scientists is to understand laws of nature, not to build practically useful gadgets. Confirmation of claims made by Parkhomov is likely to trigger an avalanche of scientific investigations, both theoretical and experimental, even if the energy multiplication factor remains low.

a) Suppose that Parkhomov’s energy multiplier, described in this article, is already recognized as reproducible on demand, at relatively low cost. Suppose that the “what’s next?” question is asked again, after two or three years of organized investigations. Scientists would want to successfully identify a “mystery process” taking place in the white powder, inside the porcelain tube. Is it chemical, magnetic, pyrometallurgic, biological, nuclear, or something else? Answering such questions, they would say, is our primary obligation, both to us and to society.

b) Parkhomov certainly believes that a nuclear process is responsible for XH, in his multiplier. Otherwise he would not use instruments designed to monitor neutrons and gamma rays. But, unlike Fleischmann and Pons, he does not speculate on what nuclear reaction it might be. He is certainly aware of tragic consequences of premature speculations of that kind.

7) Social Considerations 

The social aspect of Cold Fusion was also debated on an Internet forum for CMNR researchers. Referring to the ongoing CF controversy, X1 wrote: “The long-lasting CF episode is a social situation in which the self-correcting process of scientific development did not work in the expected way. To what extent was this due to extreme difficulties in making progress in the new area, rather than to negative effects of competition, greed, jealousy, and other ‘human nature’ factors? “A future historian of science may well ask “how is it that the controversy ignited in 1989 remained unresolved for so many decades? –who was mainly responsible for this scientific tragedy of the century, scientists or political leaders of scientific establishment, and govrnment agenies, such as NSF and DOE? Discrimination against CF was not based on highly reproducible eperimental data; it was based on the fact that no acceptbal theory was found to explain unextected experimental facts, reported by CF researchers.

Parkhomov’s experimental results will most likely be examined in many laboratories. Are they reproducible? A clear yes-or-no answer to this question is urgently needed, for the benefit of all. What would be the most effective way to speed up the process of getting the answer, after a very detailed description of the reactor (and measurements performed) is released by Parkhomov? The first step, ideally, would be to encourage qualified scientists to examine that description, and to ask questions. The next step would be to agree on the protocol (step-by-step instructions) for potential replicators. Agencies whose responsibility is to use tax money wisely, such as DOE in the USA, and CERN in Europe, should organize and support replications. Replicators would make their results available to all who are interested, via existing channels of communication, such as journals, conferences, etc. A well-organized approach would probably yield the answer in five years, or sooner.

References

(1) A.K. Parkhomov, “A Study of an Analog of Rossi’s High Temperature Generator” http://pages.csam.montclair.edu~kowalski/cf/parkh1.pdf
(2) L. Kowalski, “Social and Philosophical Aspects of a Scientific Controversy;” IVe Congres de la Societe de Philosophy des Sciences (SPS); 1-3 Juin 2012, Montreal (Canada). Available online at:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2012/PP-29-L2.PDF
(3) Ludwik Kowalski, http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/413montreal.html
(4) Ludwik Kowalski, ” Andrea Rossi’s Unbelievable Claims.” a blog entry: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/403memoir.html#chapt24
(5) Peter Gluck interviews Bazhutov:
http://coldfusionnow.org/interview-with-yuri-bazhutov-by-peter-gluck/

(6) John R. Huizenga, “Cold Fusion, The Scientific Fiasco of the Century.”
Oxford University Press, 1993, 2nd ed. (available at amazon.com)

(7) Edmund Storms, “The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction,” Infinite Energy Press, 2014.
(also available at amazon.com)

 

This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links

reactor420

Subpage of Kowalski/cf, recovered from archive.


420 Notes About Parkhomov’s Nuclear Reactor)  

Ludwik Kowalski, Ph.D. (see Wikipedia)

Professor Emeritus

 Introduction

I am going to be 84 this year. Why am I still adding items to this website? Because I like to share what I know and think about the still-ongoing CMNS controversy. This item #420, like the previous item:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/reactor419.html

is devoted to Parkhomov’s mystery reactor. It is an informal set of sections (notes for myself).

Section 1 (3/27/2015)

My article about Parkhomov’s reactor (see the link above) has been submitted to a Russian Conference, ESA. Actually this is a journal, not a conference. The article was accepted at once.  Three weeks later, responding to my email, they wrote:

“your article was already published. Officially date of publication is February 28th 2015. You can see all articles from the ESA conference in our website:

http://esa-conference.ru/journal/ii-mezhdunarodnaya-nauchnaya-konferentsiya-eno/

 Here is reference to your article:

http://esa-conference.ru/wp-content/uploads/files/pdf/Kowalski-Ludwik.pdf “

BUT THESE LINKS BRING ME GIBRISH. HERE IS THE WORKING LINK:

 http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/reactor419R.pdf

or

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/reactor419R.htm (text only)

 The article which I sent them (to be translated into Russian and then published) was actually composed before the item #419 (see the link above).  That is why the English and the Russian texts are not exactly identical.

==========================================

Section 2 (3/27/2015, posted at the Internet CMNS list for researchers)

*) Reading new (3/27/2015) Parkhomov’s reoprt (15 pages in Russian) at:

https://yadi.sk/i/zTRxBwVofYmaE

*) He calls the new setup “a new variant of Rossi’s thermogenerator.” The calorimeter is no longer based on tha amount of evaporated water; this is not practical when time of operation is much longer that in previous variants. (why is the type of calorimeter not described on page 2) Because the COP and excess power are determined without using a calorimeter, as described on page 12.

*) Page 3 is the new schematic diagram. The reactor is red in the diagram.

  1. a) The ceramic tube has the lenght of 29 cm.
  2. b) In the ceter of the tube is about 12 cm long stainless steel container (ered in the diagram) filled with powder (640 mg ofof Ni and 60 mg of LiAlH4).
  3. c) The electic heater (a 12 cm long solenoid), is outside the tube. The conductivity of the ceramic (tube material) is low. Because of this the tube temperature near the edges is about 50 C, when the temperature near the center is 1200 C. The solenoid wire (Kathal A1) can be heated up to 1400 C.
  4. d) The thermocouple is in the body of the ceramic tube, there the the temptrature is the highest.
  5. e) The tube is hermetically plogesd, to minimize the amount of air inside. The pressure inside the tube is measured with a manometer (zero to 25 atm).

*) Page 4 shows how electric heting energy was was measured and regulated.

*) Page 5 is the photo of the setup. Pages 6 and 7 other photos (during testing)

*) Plotting temperature and power (during initial preparations)

*) Page 8 A temperature and pressure plot

*) Page 9 (Approaching desired temperature temperature and pressure plot).

  1. a) What does one learn by measuring pressure, in the new version of Parkhomov’s reactor? Pressure of what? What is the significance of the pressure peak on page 9 ?

*) Page 10 Electric power during 4 days od the experiment, up to the moment at which the heating wire burned.

  1. a) Why was the electric power changing? Because the operator adjusted it to keep the temperature constant. Yes or no? How to interpret narrow (and not so narrow) peaks. ? Sudden changes in the resistance of the sloenoid wire? Why is this significant?

*) Page 11 Electric power versus time after new heater was installed Same questions as for page 10.

  1. a) Why so many different powers produce teh same reactor temperature, 1200 c ?

*) Page 12 Comparing Watts-versus-temoperature curves (with fuel and without fuel). The rough COP=1100/330=3.3  (at constant temp = 1200 C) Excess heating power 800 W

  1. a) To sustain any chosen temperature (see x axis)one should  impse a certan electric heating power (see y axis). This is unambigous when the fuel is in the reactor (upper line). THis is also unambigous for reactors without fuel–provided T<1200 C.
  2. b) Yes, (1100 – 300)=800 W. But also (1100-640)=460 W.
  3. c) The first gives COP=1100/330=3.3; the second gives COP=1100/460=2.4. Which one is correct?

*) Page 13 More accurate COP=800/330=2.4

*) Page 14 Other photos

*) Page 15 Conclusions

  1. a) The operation of the new setup was stable during the time interval exceeeding three days.
  2. b) The thermal energy released by the setup, during that time, was twice as large as the electric energy suppied.
  3. c) The excess heat was 50 kWh or 18 mega-joules. This is equivalent to heat released when 350 grams of oil or gasoline is burned.
  4. d) Chemical and isoptopic analysis (of the original and spent fuel) is in progress.

 ==========================================

Section 3

 Describing the last day (4/16/2015) of the ongoing C.F. conference in Italy–(ICCF19)–one participant wrote:”

“A highlight at ICCF-19 was the presence of Dr Parkhomov. At the end of the presentations on Thursday we were invited to attend at Dr Parkhomov’s poster.  This was apparently his preference over the alternative of being on the podium. At the poster his teenage daughter stood by his side.

 Some 200 – 300 people circled in a great crowd, straining to hear his answers to questions being asked.  At first Olga translated and then the granddaughter. It was a very special moment. Dr Parkhomov is small and unassuming, but his contribution is enormous. Those moments were the highlight of ICCF-19.”

Replying to the above, I wrote: “On Page 15 of his Russian report (see my post of 3/27/2015) Parkhomov informed readers that: “chemical and isotopic analysis (of the original and spent fuel) is in progress.” What is the current status of this part of his project?

 On 4/18/2015 Peter Gluck shared with us (the CMNS discussion list) the link:

https://yadi.sk/d/_agVKcYdg5GdH

to an English-written article of A.G. Parkhomov and E.O. Belousova. The title is “Researches of the Heat Generators Similar to High-Temperature Rossi Reactor.” Why is the date of the publication not specified? On page 11 (under conclusions) the authors report that “Preliminary conclusions from the analysis of fuel element and isotope composition indicate minor change of isotope structure and emergence of new elements in the used fuel.” Will this preliminary conclusion be confirmed? This remains to be seen.

 ==========================================

 Section 4

Dear Peter, My CMNS post on 4/18/2015

Thank you for the < https://yadi.sk/d/_agVKcYdg5GdH > link. 

 1) It brings an English-written article of A.G. Parkhomov and E.O. Belousova. Who is Belousova? The title is “Researches of the Heat Generators Similar to High-Temperature Rossi Reactor.”  

 2) Was this their ICCF19 poster presentation? The affiliation is specified, but not the date. 

 3) On page 11 the authors report that “Preliminary conclusions from the analysis of fuel element and isotope composition indicate minor change of isotope structure and emergence of new elements in the used fuel.” 

 4) This preliminary conclusion is exciting. Being an optimist I am assuming that the “minor change” stands for the “statistically significant change. ” 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

4/19/20150 ==> Dear Ludwik,

———————————-

To answer your questions:

1)a E.O. Belousova is the young lady who has helped Parkhomov with translations at Padua, a relative of him (grandaughter or niece).

If you make a Google search “E.O. Belousova” “Lomonosov” you will discover more LENR publications in which she is co-author with Parkhomov and/or Bazhutov- so she is a professional physicist. (ICCF17 too)

  1. b) Her name is Ekaterina and Rossi who spoke with her made the word play Ecaterina =

 E-cat- erina, a good omen.

2 t seems that was exactly their poster presentation- not many new fact from the last one, not time for new data.

3)-4) Be realist, the analysis at Lugano was made after 32 days work, at Parkhomov after 3-4 . Less changes. We have to wait for the official data and will see if they are decisive.

Greetings,

Peter

————————–

 ============================================

 Section 5

 Parkhomov describes the ICCG19, in Russian (at

< http://lenr.seplm.ru/articles/doklad-na-iccf19-ag-parkhomova >

               Доклад на ICCF19 А.Г. Пархомовадоклад
Конференция ICCF-19 прошла весьма успешно. 470 делегатов, 98 докладов. Это рекордные показатели. Характерен оптимистический настрой, предчувствие больших свершений. Конференция проходила в наиболее престижном помещении Падуи Palazzo della Ragione, в грандиозном зале с 800 летней историей, украшенной фресками Джотто и Мирето.
Я посетил университет в Болонье по приглашению Джузеппе Леви, одного из экспертов, наблюдавших работу реактора Росси в Лугано. Он показал свои экспериментальные установки и организовал связь по скайпу с университетом Упсала (Швеция) с другими экспертами в Лугано Петерсоном и Бо. Они показали свои устройства, которые планируют запустить в середине мая. Затем к нашей скайп – конференции подключился Росси. Впервые удалось поговорить с этим незаурядным человеком. Он планирует посетить Россию.

А.Г. Пархомов

 ============================================

 Section 6 (To be posted at our CMNS list)

The term “Cold Fusion” (CF) can now be used to describe a process in which a nuclear reaction (of any kind) is triggered by a chemical process, at a temperature lower than several thousand degrees. CF must, however, be very different from the so-called “hot fusion,” in which two heavy hydrogen nuclei fuse to form helium, at stellar temperatures. Why are we certain of this? Because nuclear fusion at low temperatures, according to most physical scientists, is impossible, due to mutual electric repulsion of positive charges.

Yet, reality of CF was announced, in 1989, by two chemists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. Why do I thnk that their announcement should be called an invention not a discovery? Because what they actually announced was the unaccounted-for amount of thermal energy. This by itself is not an evidence fora nuclear reaction. The idea that the measured heat was due to fusion of two heavy hydrogen nuclei, like in a star, was a pure speculation, at that time.

The CF feud is often characterized as the �Fiasco of the Century.” A more appropriate name would be “Tragedy of the Century.” Why tragedy? Because unlimited clean-nuclear-energy resources are desperately needed while highly qualified scientists offering help are often not supported by those whose obligation is to use tax money wisely.  This is an international phenomenon; CF pioneers from several countries (France, Italy, Israel, India, Japan, and Russia) have also encountered similar treatment. How can it be explained that more than a quarter of a century has not been enough to resolve the CF controversy, one way or another?

Future CF reactors, if any, like today’s reactors, would have to be periodically stopped and refueled, in order to remove and reprocess spent fuel, Will the fresh fuel be more widely abundant and less expensive than now available nuclear fuels? Will spent fuel be practically nonradioactive and save to handling, as expected by some investigators? It is too early to answer such questions.

 =============================================

 Section 7

 =====================================================

 

420nae

Subpage of Kowalski/cf, retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20161109181235/http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/420nae.html

420 Oriani’s Death and Quick Comments on NAE 
 
Ludwik Kowalski, Ph.D. (see Wikipedia)
 
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, Montclair, N.J. USA

1) Yesterday (9/3/2015) I learned about the death of Richard Oriani at age 94. The obituary in StarTribune, his local newspaper, can be seen at:

http://www.startribune.com/obituaries/detail/95363/?fullname=richard-a-oriani

My contribution to this formal goodbye is also there.

2) In a private message received today, a colleague quoted Max Planck–“science does progress funeral by funeral.” Another CMNS researcher commented: In this case we are seeing regress, not progress. As I said years ago this is a generational role reversal. Young scientists are conservative while the old, and now dying ones champion new ideas! The world is upside down. …”

Is the CMNS field progressing or regressing? I do not know how to answer this question. One thing is sure, this area of science, often called “Cold Fusion,” is still active.

3) A good example of activity is the “Interview with Dr. Edmund Storms, conducted by Peter Gluck. It was posted on the CMNS forum for active scientists (see the blue italic text below, and my comments, next to it). Dr. Storms is a nuclear chemist with over thirty years of service at Los Alamos National Lab, and now working privately at Kiva Labs. His 2014 book, “The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction,” describing the field, is commercially available:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Explanation-Energy-Nuclear-Reaction/dp/1892925109/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0W6QXKDRE343BXFS7ZT6&dpSrc=sims&dpST=_AC_UL320_SR216%2C320_

Also see his YouTube presentation at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpdvwaQSnA&noredirect=1

Peter Gluck, PhD in chemical engineering, is a retired technologist who has worked many tens of thousands of hours with matter (chemical industries), energy (new sources of energy) and information (web search). He communicates with the world via the blog EGO OUT.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2015 >


INTERVIEW WITH DR. E. STORMS

Based on a discussion stimulated, in part, by the coming CERN Seminar on D/H loaded palladium , Ed Storms has summarized his answers in this way. It is about the essence of the problems of the field.

“LENR [Low Energy Nuclear Reactions] has two aspects, each of which has to be considered separately. The first question is where in the material does the [new kind of] ]nuclear reaction take place. In other words, were is the NAE [Nuclear Active Environment] located. This means where in space is the NAE located, such as near the surface, and what is unique about the NAE. The LENR reaction CAN NOT take place in the normal lattice structure where it would be subjected to the well known laws [such as law of mutual electric repulsion of positive nuclei] that apply to such structures.

I propose the only place able to support such a nuclear reaction while not being subjected to the known chemical requirements are cracks consisting of two surfaces with a critical gap between them.  Before the nature of the nuclear process can be discussed, a NAE must be identified and its existence must be agree to.  Failure to do this has resulted in nothing but useless argument with no progress in understanding or causing the phenomenon[of nuclear fusion].

Once the characteristics of the NAE are identified, a mechanism can be proposed to operate in this NAE with characteristics compatible with this environment.  Attempts to propose a mechanism without identifying the NAE are doomed to failure.  Without knowing the NAE, we are unable to test the characteristics of the nuclear mechanism to see if it can take place in an ordinary material and we are unable to know how to create a potentially active material.

This requirement is so basic, further discussion is pointless unless agreement is achieved.

This is not a normal physics problem where any idea can be made plausible simply by making a few assumptions. The nature of the chemical environment prevents many assumptions. We are proposing to cause a nuclear reaction in ordinary material where none has been seen in spite of enormous effort and none is expected based on well understood theory. A significant change in the material must first take place. This change must be consistent with the known laws of chemistry. Only the creation of cracks meets this requirement.

Once the NAE is identified, the characteristics of the nuclear reaction must be consistent with what is known. Simply proposing behavior based on general physics concepts is useless.  For example, the role of perturbed angular correlations, which you suggest, must be considered in the context of the entire proposed reaction. The question means nothing in isolation.  Like many proposed mechanisms, the idea cannot be tested because it has no clear relationship to the known behavior of LENR or to the variables known to affect the phenomenon.

This is not a guessing game. We now have a large collection of behavior all models most explain.  Why not start by considering models that are consistent with this information?”

4) NAE, in other words, if I understand Storms correctly, is a hypothetical environment in which mutual repulsion of protons is much weaker (and we do not know why) than in the vacuum separating atoms. He is right that cold fusion would take placespontaneously (essentially by definition) in such environment. But is he also right by saying that “attempts to propose a mechanism [of cold fusion] without identifying the NAE are doomed to failure.” Probably not. Theoretical scientists have no other options but to use models that have already been validated.

5) Let me mention something else questionable. On one hand Ed states that we know nothing about NAE; on the other hand he claims that NAE can be created “in cracks only.” How does he justify this?

6) Is it correct to say that NAE is related to nuclear cold fusion like AIR, our well-known “Flying Active Environment,” is related to airplanes on Mars? We know a lot about AIR but we know nothing about NAE.

7) The last paragraph of the interview is profound; it has to do with the essence of scientific methodology. Yes, speculations resulting from arbitrary assumptions belong to mathematics (and to theology), not to physical science, where theories are “made plausible” by reproducible experimental data, as we know.

cf

Subpage of Kowalski

This is from Google’s cache of http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 10 Aug 2018 18:06:54 GMT.

Original links may be replaced with local links where I have a page, the link has been bolded when I have recovered the page.


This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links
 

Links to “cold fusion” items.Ludwik Kowalski
My motivation? Click to see a short introduction. 


Click here to go to the bottom of this long list


0) I am no loger saying “it is woodoo sciece.” click 
1) Introducing Cold Fusion to students. click 
2) A typical “cold-fusion” setup. click 
3) Three kinds of Cold fusion. click 
4) Short biographies of three Cold Fusion Scientists. click 
5) Aberration of the scientific methology. click 
6) On dangers of “second hand” publishing. click 
7) On Pathological Science (N-rays story). click 
8) On Burden of Proof in Science. click 
9) Scientific Method in Cold Fusion. click 
10) A Russian connection. click 
11) Bottom Line. click 
12) What do physics teachers think about CF? click 
13) More about the Russian Connection. click 
14) What is pseudo-scientific in this? click 
15) Or what is pseudo-scientific in this? click 
16) Here is an example of real pseudo-science. click 
17) An Italian connection. click 
18) Nobel Prize for “cold fusion?” click 
19) A French connection. click 
20) Excommunication of heretics? click 
21) If it were up to me I would do it. click 
22) Another good article summarized. click 
23) A Japanese connecion. click 
24) Three short introductionary tutorials. click 
25) A technical tutorial. click 
26) Comments on the 1989 ERAB report. click 
27) Conspiracy? For what purpose? click 
28) Summary of a very impressive paper. click or
29) Another French connection. click 
30) New APS ethics guidelines and the CF issue. click 
31) Excess heat for a student lab? Yes, why not. click 
32) Pathological science or important observations to share? click 
33) How would Richard Feynman react to CF? click 
34) My own proposal. click 
35) On methodology and on difficulties. click 
36) Ethical issues as seen by an active CF researcher. click 
37) On coulomb barrier lowering. click 
38) Producing radioactive tritium. click 
39) Changing isotopic composition. click 
40) My cold fusion lecture plan. click 
41) Comments from a friend. click 
42) More comments.; to publish or not to publish? click 
43) One year after the announcment: click 
44) Before going to Salt Lake City: click 
45) After returning from Salt Lake City: click 
46) Charlatans versus scientists: click 
47) Catalytic fusion: click 
48) Charge Clusters ? click 
49) Not accepted by The Physics Teacher: click 
50) From the last APS meeting: click 
51) US Navy supported cold fusion: click 
52) Alchemy in cold fusion: click 
53) Another way; role of surface structure: click 
54) Criticizing cold fusion: click 
55) The smoking gun?: click 
56) Technological Con Artistry?: click 
57) And what about hydrinos?: click 
58) From a debate on another list: click 
59) A piece to publish in a newsletter: click 
60) Nuclear Alchemy, 1996: click 
61) What are the causes of this conflict?: click 
62) Cold Fusion was compared with creationism: click 
63) Jed’s interesting general observations: click 
64) Stalin’s pseudo-science: click 
65) Pseudo-science in Russia today: click 
66) Cybernetics as pseudo-science: click 
67) Observations made at Texas A&M University: click 
68) Two meanings of “impossible:” click 
69) Conspiracy to deceive? I do not think so:” click 
70) Please help us click 
71) A Nobel Laureate about voodoo science click 
72) Anecdotal Evidence? click 
73) A confirmation of a reproducible excess heat experiment click 
74) E. Mallove describes reproducible excess heat experiments click 
75) Do not mix science with fiction click 
76) Secrecy in cold fusion research click 
77) Another evidence of nuclear reactions in “cold fusion” click 
78) An older fight for acceptance; the story of Arrhenius click 
79) Early beta decay studies compared with cold fusion click 
80) Secular theology? click 
81) Where are theories of cold fusion? click 
82) Speculations of a retired physicist (This unit is being revised by the author) click 
83) Disassociate cold fusion from antigravity, hydrinos, etc. click 
84) A cold fusion opinion statement of a physics teacher click 
85) From a book of a cold fusion researcher in Japan. click 
86) Pseudoscience in Russia. click 
87) Fighting a straw man. click 
88) Rejections of cold fusion papers by editors click 
89) Hydrinos again click 
90) My talk at the 10th International Cold Fusion Conference click 
91) My poster at that conference click 
92) Agenda for the preconference cold fusion workshop click 
93) Back to stories from Kruglyakov’s book click 
94) Browsing the Internet click 
95) Catalysts in cold fusion? click 
96) No gamma rays were found in our experiment click 
97) My published letter to the editor of The Physics Teacher click 
98) Students demonstrating excess heat from cold fusion click 
99) Speeding up radioactive decay? click 
100) Documenting a rejection by Physics Today click 
101) How excess heat was measured. click 
102) A paper by the retired physicist from unit #82. (This unit is being revised by the author) click 
103) Students trying to demonstrate excess heat. Is it nuclear? click 
104) New alchemy? Yes, indeed. click 
105) More about new alchemy experiments. click 
106) Why is Norman Ramsey silent today? click 
107) Biological alchemy ? click 
108) Another experiment for your students ? click 
109) A video cassette “Fire from Water” for your students click 
110) They need a real leader click 
111) Photos of Fleischmann and Jones, August 2003 click 
112) The dilemma of a physics teacher. click 
113) Unexplained neutrons and protons; recent papers of Steven Jones. click 
114) Voices from teachers and students (?) click 
115) They need your suppost click 
116) A negative evaluation of cold fusion claims click 
117) Exposing false claims click 
118) New error analysis versus old? click 
119) Errors in unison click 
120) A Chinese connection click 
121) Just Withering from Scientific Neglect click 
122) Laser-like X-rays in “cold fusion?” click 
123) An important Japanese connection (Iwamura) click 
124) How can one doubt that charged particles are real (WAITNING FOR PERMISSION TO SHARE) click 
125) An article I want to publish click 
126) Reactions or contamination, that is the question click 
127) “Water remembers?” This is pseudoscientific click 
128) Screening in condensed matter or something else? click 
129) Quixotic Fiasco? click 
130) Sonofusion becomes acceptable click 
131) Cold Fusion History described by Steven Jones click 
132) Cold Fusion History described by Martin Fleischmann click 
133) Cold Fusion name was dropped click 
134) Second evaluation by the DOE decided. How certain is this? click 
135) Seek not the golden egg, but the goose click 
136) What is cold fusion? click 
137) An inventor or a con artist? click 
138) Recent Internet messages. click 
139) If I were in charge. click 
140) Kasagi’s papers. click 
141) A paper from Dubna, Russia. click 
142) In memory of Eugene Mallove. click 
143) Questions about science and society. click 
144) Catalytic nuclear reactions. click 
145) Role of the non-equilibrium. click 
146) Scientific or not scientific? click 
147) Extract from an old good summary (E. Storms, 2000). click 
148) On difficulties communicating. click 
149) A message from a young person. click 
150) Answers to some of my questions formulated in unit #148. click 
151) Richard’s simulated debate about excess heat errors. click 
152) My review article on current cold fusion claims. click 
153) TOO LONG (History of rejections of my review article.) click 
154) SHORTER (History of rejections of my review article.) click 
155) Storms’ tutorial on diffcult cases in calorimetry. click 
156) Unexpected charged particls were observed again. click 
157) Detecting cold fusion charge particles with CR-39: Comments and questions. click 
158) An extract from an interesting MIT article. click 
159) Categorization of cold fusion topics. click 
160) Radon background or not? (WAITNING FOR PERMISSION TO SHARE) click 
161) Josephson’s lecture and other comments on cold fusion (mostly from teachers). click 
162) An example of a cold fusion claim that makes no sense to me. click 
163) Absence of 100% reproducibility: What does it mean? click 
164) A case of mutual deception? click 
165) A short comment on names and definitions. click 
166) Non-scientists in cold fusion? click 
167) An unnecessary “open letter?” I think so. click 
168) Nucleosythesis in a lab? A Ukrainian connection. click 
169) An interesting effect was discovered in Texas click 
170) A Swedish connection that became something else. click 
171) A lively and informative discussion? I hope so. click 
172) Cold fusion being presented to students. click 
173) Wikopedia: Philosophical points of view. click 
174) What was the origin of excess power? An experiment worth replicating. click 
175) According to Mizuno et al. excess power can not possibly be chemical. click 
176) Swift nuclear particles from an electrolyte? Check it in a lab. click 
177) List of eleven international cold fusion conferences. click 
178) Sharing recent messages and comments click 
179) A student project. Work in progress. NOT YET POSTED click 
180) Please help to preserve cold fusion history. click 
181) A new cold fusion book. click 
182) Seeing a huge number of cold fusion tracks with my own eyes. click 
183) Pictures and numbers. (continuation from the unit #182). click 
184) Contamination or very long “life after death?” (continuation from the unit #183). click 
185) CR-39 detectors of charged nuclear particles. click 
186) Too good to be true? Turning radioactive isotopes into stable isotopes. click 
187) Magnetic monopoles in cold fusion, and other claims. click 
188) A chemically triggered nuclear process? What else can it be? click 
189) About my four attempts to observe a nuclear “cold fusion” effect. click 
190) A better generic name for “cold fusion?” click 
191) Trying to describe my understanding of Fisher’s polyneutrons. click 
192) Trying to replicate Oriani’s observations in my own cell. An electronic logbook. click 
193) Links to another website. click 
194) Comments about theories. click 
195) A pdf file to share. Click to see my introduction. Then download, if you want. click 
196) Open letter to the DOE scientists who investigated recent CANA claims. click 
197) My second Oriani effects experiment (the first is described in the unit #192). click 
198) Work in progress
199) Nonsense, fraud or very advanced science? click 
200) Teachers discussing scientifc methods click 
201) Cooperating with a high school student performing excess heat experiments. click 
202) Fraudulent claims of a German anthropologist. click 
203) On ending the controversy. click 
204) An Israeli connection. click 
205) A troubling episode. What can be done to prevent such things? click 
206) A new Russian report on nuclear alchemy. click 
207) Controversial cases in science (from New Scientist). click 
208) Haiko’s conversation with Martin Fleischmann click 
209) An Australian connection. click 
210) Making progress toward 100% reproducibility? click 
211) Charles Beaudette writes about the DOE report. click 
212) Answering four questions. click 
213) About the company Energetics Technologies in Israel. click 
214) The power of delusion or healthy optimism? click 
215) Solar Electricity click 
216) Too good to be true click 
217) Ukrainian connection again click 
218) To do or not to do it? click 
219) A workshop at Stevens Institute of Technology. click 
220) Upcoming CF workshops and conferences. click 
221) Work in progress (Mitch) click 
222) The majority of nature’s treasures are still hidden. click 
223) A spectacular excess heat report from Russia. click 
224) A cold fusion colloquium at MIT. click 
225) A student essay (WORK IN PROGRESS) click 
226) Another attempt to commercialize? click 
227) A new version of Fisher’s polyneutron theory. click 
228) Cars running on water? An old US patent. click 
229) A Russian patent of Gnedenko et al. click 
230) Translations of two Russian papers. click 
231) Gold from carrots. click 
232) Free energy and its impact. click 
233) More on free energy. click 
234) Comments on Ellis’ article about laws of complexity. click 
235) One year later. click 
236) Promises promises. click 
237) An MIT professor writes a report on an iESiUSA device shown to him. click 
238) What is cold fusion? click 
239) Identity theft? Cold fusion claims should be justified scientifically. click 
240) Generation of helium in cold fusion. click 
241) Questions concerning the protocol described in unit #240 click 
242) Now I must deal with two slightly different protocols. click 
243) Will sixty letters to the editor be published by Physics Today? click 
244) Coulomb barrier depends on the range of nuclear forces. click 
245) Avoiding a global disaster. click 
246) Manipulating half-lives of radioactive nuclei ? click 
247) Can magnetic forces (resulting from rotation) help deuterons to overcome coulomb barriers? click 
248) A proposed set of better names for known nuclear anomalies. click 
249) Trying to understand a theory explaing Condense Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) data. click 
250) Stanislaw Szpak et al. — another case of nuclear alchemy. click 
251) Fracto-fusion, crack-fusion, Casimir-fusion, van der Waals fusion, hammer-fusion. click 
252) An invitation to perform a simple excess heat experiment. click 
253) History of Mizuno-type experiments (such as that described in unit #252). click 
254) Comments of a theoretical paper of Windom and Larsen. click 
255) Progress report and comments. click 
256) A possible source of error in some excess heat reports click 
257) A difficult to accept statistical protocol of Bass and McKubre click 
258) Can systematc errors result from sampling of irrecular waveforms? click 
259) The excess heat can be apparent in our next week experiment. click 
260) Is that kind of excess heat real or apparent? click 
261) How much excess heat ? click 
262) Common hydrogen (H2O) verus heavy hydrogen (D2O). click 
263) Fraudulent schemes are probably as old as civilization. click 
264) Measuring electric energy. click 
265) Another Italian connection. click 
266) Scared, reassured and scared again. click 
267) Excess heat not confirmed in our Texas experiment. click 
268) With an apology to Dr. Dean Sinclair click 
269) Analytical methods used in CMNS (condense matter nuclear science) research. click 
270) Colorado experiments also fail to confirm excess heat. click 
271) Another Colorado experiment. click 
272) No excess heat from Mizuno-type experiments. click 
273) Mircobial Transmutations at ICCF12 click 
274) Scientific Fraud ? An article in Washington Post and comments it generated. click 
275) Kasagi and excess fusion cross sections at low energies. click 
276) Low counts statistics (not finished?) click 
277) An outburst of messages. click 
278) New tabletop fusion devices: is it hot fusion or not? click 
279) Fraudulant financial manipulations ? click 
280) No courtesy of replying from Yale Scientific. click 
281) All reliable results should be reported. Hiding negative results is not scientific. click 
282) Velikovsky’s speculations. click 
283) Trying to be a moderator at the ISCMNS meeting. click 
284) Hydrinos versus CMNS click 
285) Our private correspondence before the Colorado-2 experiment. click 
286) An exciting Colorado2 experiment and comments over the Internet. click 
287) Social aspects of our controvery that started 17 years ago. Work in progress click 
288) Voices from a restricted list for CMNS researchers. click 
289) Another Russian connection? click 
290) Unexpected comments from some subscribers of the restricted CMNS discussion list. click 
291) Yes, these experiments are dangerous, but . . . click 
292) Why is this kind of discrimination legal? click 
293) Pathological science? click 
294) A historical overview of cold fusion. click 
295) Chiropractic also had to fight for recognition. click 
296) About the origin of Mizuno-type excess heat. click 
297) Too much sociology? click 
298) Nuclear alchemy in CMNS. click 
299) Randy Mills and his new chemistry. click 
300) Preliminary Colorado2 results. click 
301) Colorado2 results are now much less certain. click 
302) Alarming numbers and comments. click 
303) Well known reactions or something else? click 
304) Researchers discussing excess energy. click 
305) Science versus protoscience. click 
306) How to restrict a Google search to one server? click 
307) Archive of private correspondence about Mizuno-type experiments click 
308) Steven Jones plus an expecting new book about CMNS click 
309) Researchers speculate about NAE (nuclear active environment) click 
310) Alchemy versus CMNS; waiting for the proverbial “proof in the pudding.” click 
311) Reifenschweiler Effect (introducing an expected essay) click 
312) My old speculation about another kind of beta decay click 
313) Are oil companies responsible for conspiring against CMNS? click 
314) Will this be the first simple and truly reprodicible-on-demand demo? click 
315) A new phenomenon or a wrong interpretation of experimental data? click 
316) A new paradigm at the next stage! Why not? click 
317) About CR39 and other things click 
318) Theories, metatheories and philosophy click 
319) Our Phase 1 of The Galileo Project experiment click 
320) Our first steps in Phase 2 of The Galileo Project click 
321) My rejected publication + references click 
322) Rutherford-Bohr model being questioned. click 
323) This publication was not rejected; it was withdrawn. click 
324) Additional validation of our claim (made in unit #319). click 
325) More about SPAWAR results. click 
326) Online logbook of an experiment (continuation of unit #320) click 
327) Online logbook of the next PACA experiment (continuation of unit #326) click 
328) Srategy and scientific methodology: Recent comments and observations. click 
329) Continuation of after item 327; the online logbook. Experiment #5. click 
330) Trusting authotities in science click 
331) An illustration of propagation of errors via calibration. click 
332) Sonofusion is also struggling for recognition. click 
333) Oriani’s paper that was rejected by Phys Rev C without sending it referees. click 
334) For an item devoted to an ongoing Canada project (to be shown to me). still waiting 
335) A draft of my Catania 2007 workshop paper. click 
336) Catania 2007 paper as submitted, after the workshop. click 
337) Catania 2007 paper on nuclear radiation inside a glow discharge cell. click 
338) Voices from an interesting discussion about theories. click 
339) Three body orbiting: macroscopic and submicroscopic. click 
340) Speeding up radioactive decay: why is it not used to destroy radioactive waste? click 
341) Bazhutov’s search for erzions and enions click 
342) Two speculative messages from theoretically-oriented people click 
343) Work in progress click 
344) A new book about cold fusion (plus 4 recent messages from the CMNS list). click 
345) My own comments on the new book about cold fusion. click 
346) Calibration of CR-39 and other useful data. click 
347) About a new cold fusion paper published in a European mainstream physics journal. click 
348) Replying to a student interested in cold fusion click 
349) Modeling CR-39 tracks click 
350) What is it, unexplained alpha particles or something else? click 
351) High voltage electrolysis experiments (updates) click 
352) Ludwik’s paper for the next Cold Fusion conference (Washington DC, August, 2008) click 
353) After the Cold Fusion conference (notes and reflections) click 
354) Excess-heat cell of John Dash. click 
355) Neutrons ? click 
356) 20th anniversary is approaching click 
357) Discussing SPAWAR interpretation in a mainstream refereed journal. click 
358) Summary of Ludwik’s CMNS projects click 
359) SPAWAR high energy neutrons (plus other things) click 
360) CBS broadcased a unit about cold fusion click 
361) SPAWAR triple tracks click 
362) Curie Project click 
363) About Alchemy and CMNS click 
364) Do polyneutrons explain CMNS? click 
365) My shot-in-a-dark experiment click 
366) Cold Nuclear Fusion: Does it exist? A recent review by a Russian scientist click 
367) Discussing theories click 
368) The Curie Project (a difficult start) click 
369) History of my CR-39 cooperation with Oriani click 
370) Spawar new results and new interpretation click 
371) Physics Teachers discuss our energy options (not a cold fusion item) click 
372) Technical information about CR-39, mylar, etc. click 
373) The Curie Project (update) click 
374) New Scientist thread (NOT READY discussing cold fusion) click 
375) Results from The Curie Project (NOT READY. To be shown after results are published) click 
376) Arata-type experiments click 
377) Scientific method click 
378) Destruction of radioactivity by cavitation or a false alarm? click 
379) My paper (comments about SPAWAR results) was rejected by a mainstream journal. click 
380) Destruction of radioactivity by cavitation or a false alarm? click 
381) Free proceeding from the 4th cold fusion conference (ICCF4) click 
382) Four most important cognitive terms to discuss scientific validations. click 
383) Other sets of CR-39 results click 
384) Loose ends: The debate is going on. click 
385) More speculations. click 
386) Integrity or hypocrisy (on the Physics Today web site)? click 
387) Voices from the private discussion list for researchers.? click 
388) A patent for a spectacular energy amplifier click 
389) This article might be a joke. click 
390) Another set of spectacular claims. But the two papers are poorly written. click 
391) Topic to be assigned click 
392) A potentiall damaging episode click 
393) Rejections of CF manuscripts click 
394) Draft of the Montreal article click 
395) A new SPAWAR paper (emission of high enegy neutrons). click 
396) What is new in March 2012 ? click 
397) Ludwik’s first Progress in Physics article (about Rossi) to download. click 
398) Ludwik’s second Progress in Physics article (Social aspects of CF) to download. click 
399) Spectacular claims of Andrea Rossi click 
400) Why no follow-up investigations? click 
401) Curie Project and SPAWAR project (July 2011). click 
402) Bacterial transmutations (to download). click 
403) Ludwik’s 10 Years With Cold Fusion: A Memoir. click 
404) Cold fusion is not the same as hot fusion. click 
405) AmoTerra Process Destroying Radioactive Waste Again (see Unit 186). click 
406) History of the biological alchemy controversy. click 
407) Our Curie Project did not confirm this CF claim. click 
408) Rossi’s claims conflict with traditional nuclear physics. click 
409) Social aspects of the cold fusion controversy. click 
410) Cold Fusion Energy Levels. click 
411) Interesting Fall 2012 messages (production of He4). click 
412) NAE again; Storm’s summary click 
413) Philosophical and Social Aspects click 
414) Sample of interesting posts click 
415) Another Cold Fusion conference is approaching click 
416) Discussing reproducibility click 
417) Recent posts click 
418) Voices from the CMNS list (January 2015) click 
419) Parkhomov’s Nuclear Reactor (March 2015) click 
420) Loose notes on his Nuclear Reactor (May 2015) click 

420) Peter Gluck interviews Edd Storms (September 2015) click 

Return to the top of this list of items.

This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links

============================================ Comments will be appreciated

kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu


 

Kowalski

Ludwik Kowalski (Wikipedia, archived) maintained a set of pages commenting on cold fusion issues, hosted by his university. That site is down at the moment, so I’ve decided to mirror what I can find of it on the internet archive.

I did attempt to contact Dr. Kowalski, but he did not respond as far as I know. However, the site returned, and I am mirroring it at http://coldfusioncommunity.net/kowalski.

This is as a subpage here, Kowalski/cf