Cold Fusion: Then and Now

On April 12, 1989, two researchers at the University of Utah published the results of an experiment that would literally rock the scientific world. The researchers, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, reported that they had produced a tabletop nuclear fusion reaction at room temperature. The reaction was later referred to as cold fusion in reference to the other kind of nuclear fusion which requires extreme temperature (100 million degrees Celcius) required for fusion.

The announcement captured immediate international attention and research groups around the world attempted to replicate the experimental results. Unfortunately most attempts failed and cold fusion gained a reputation as pathological science. Some scientists ridiculed Fleischmann and Pons and at least one, Dr. Koonin of Caltech, called them incompetent and delusional.

Stumble It!

In November of 1989, a panel formed by the Energy Research Board and US Department of Energy (DOE), indicated that the evidence for cold fusion was not convincing and did not recommend funding for further research in this area.

Since 1989, the main stream scientific community has ignored all research relating to cold fusion. Any research done into this field has been at the risk of jeopardizing the researcher’s career as his/her reputation would surely be ruined. In spite of the black-listing, some scientists have carried on and it is estimated that more than 3,000 papers have been published with some successes.  One of the most notable is from a U.S. Navy laboratory that reported in 2002 that the phenomenon is real and that the government should offer funding for research.

In 2004, a panel organized by the U.S. DOE, again concluded the same as in 1989 and there was no recommendation for federally funded programs.

Let’s fast forward to this year. In May 2008 Osaka University physicist Yoshiaki Arata gave a live public demonstration of a cold fusion tabletop device. The device generated excess heat and helium particles. The demonstration was highly repeatable in front of 60 peers from industry and universities.

Now India is making rumblings about entering the world of cold fusion research. See Cold fusion success in Japan gets warm reception in India.

Let’s examine two of the more significant perceived issues with cold fusion. One criticism relates to the lack of theoretical explanation for the nuclear fusion. To address this I would like to rewind the history reel back to 1887 and “the most famous failed experiment”, commonly referred to as the Michelson-Morley experiment.

I won’t go into details of this experiment but it essentially disproved the existence of a luminiferous aether in space. There was much disbelief and the experiment was repeated many times by various scientists with the same results. It wasn’t until 1905 that Albert Einstein provided an explanation in publishing the special theory of relativity. As we all know, the theory of relativity revolutionized our understanding of physics.

A second criticism is the methods by which the experiments were carried out and lack of repeatability. In answering this criticism I would like to say that the original experiment was done on a shoe-string budget. Let’s look at the competing technology: nuclear fusion.

Research for nuclear fusion has been conducted over the last 50 years and is at least another 40 years from commercialization. There are significant technical challenges for nuclear fusion technology and it is quite conceivable that the concept may never be realized. In the year 2001 alone the world budget for nuclear fusion research was approximately $700 million, $240 million in the United States. This is called big business. There is significant interest by the mainstream scientific community to maintain long term large-scale funding for nuclear fusion. It would be too bad if there were an easier way to achieve similar results.

One clear example of scientific community bias was highlighted in a charge by Dr Eugene Mallove that accused the MIT Plasma Fusion Center of fraudulently tampering with data with no explanation. This obscured a possible possitive result at MIT. The inference was that Center was protecting the financial interests of MIT’s research in hot fusion.

Now I am finally getting to the point(s) of this very long post. There is clearly an unexplained phenomenon going on. Groups in India and Japan recognize this. No one really understands the phenomenon but chances are that when the next Einstein arrives there will be a revolutionary change in our view of physics/chemistry. If the United States is not at the forefront of this research then they may lose out, not only on the next discovery but the longer term potentials. Cold fusion may be a solution for our energy problems and climate change. If one accepts the results of the latest experiments then cold fusion is significantly closer to reality than nuclear fusion and research will cost significantly less. Don’t forget the military aspect of this. In the example of the theory of relativity I alluded to earlier, E = mC² ultimately resulted in the development of the atom bomb. Maybe cold fusion will result in better nuclear weapons, perhaps bombs that doesn’t spread radiation. How’s that for going green?

The biggest problem I have is that the United States is not only bankrupt financially but also bankrupt in leadership and vision. No real solutions are being put on the table to solve our long term energy and climate problems. Big business controls government decisions. The government spreads propaganda. Propaganda conquers democracy.

Overconfidence caused IBM to lose the PC operating system market to Microsoft. Overconfidence caused Microsoft to lose the internet war to Google. Similarly, overconfidence may result in the United States losing cold fusion technology to another country. If so, U.S.A. would no longer be the superpower it is today.

			Stumble It!

Comments

[Jed Rothwell]

You wrote:

"Virtually no cold fusion research has been published from the early 1990s up until now in respected scientific journals, meaning that the observed results do not have the normal pedigree (scrutiny) that science requires."

That is incorrect. Hundreds of cold fusion papers have been published since the early 1990s in respected scientific journals, albeit mainly European and Japanese journals. Overall, roughly 1,200 cold fusion papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals, and 2,000 others in conference proceedings, government reports and other non-peer-reviewed sources. You will find a bibliography of these papers, along with 500 full-text papers, here:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/

I have some doubts about Arata's most recent claims, although his earlier claims have been replicated and are solid. See:

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

[Steve Auger]

Jed - I am honored to have someone so knowledgeable keeping me honest. My comment was based on a Wikipedia statement:

In 1994, Dr. David Goodstein described cold fusion as "a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between [cold fusion] and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires.

I now realize this statement was made in 1994 so I will correct my post. Please let me know of anything else amiss in my writings.

[Jed Rothwell]

You wrote:

"My comment was based on a Wikipedia statement: "In 1994, Dr. David Goodstein described cold fusion as 'a pariah field . . ..'."

In my opinion, Goodstein is correct to some extent, but he exaggerated. The LENR-CANR.org database lists ~4,000 researchers, and they are all "respectable" professional scientists working at legitimate labs. We wouldn't list them otherwise. They are part of the establishment. Goodstein claims the field attracts "crackpot" but I have met only a few, probably no more than you would find in a group of 4,000 plasma fusion scientists, dentists or programmers.

Goodstein's entire essay is here:

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

I do not think the Wikipedia is a good source of information on cold fusion.

[Steve Auger]

Well - I'm not an expert on cold fusion but it is safe to say that it is an area of extreme controversy. The thing I like about Wikipedia is the openness of the documentation. One can easily see this by going to the discussion page and read various points of view and the status of the posted material. It is clear that there are contributors on both sides. And if the biases are not eliminated then at least the reader can judge for him/her self what is biased. For me this is much better than being presented with material without understanding the originator's agenda.

[Jed Rothwell]

I think Wikipedia has too much opinion and not enough documented facts from the peer-reviewed literature. It has too much about the political controversy and not enough about science. (One could write a separate article about "The Politics of Cold Fusion" but the main article should concentrate on science.)

Here is my version of an on-line encyclopedia article about cold fusion:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cold_Fusion

[Steve Auger]

A very well written article. I am having trouble distinguishing between Wikipedia and citizendium however. Citizendium appears to have a mission of accountability, real names, etc... But what it comes down to is the biases of the people in control and making the decisions. So we will have to see how Citizendium shapes up in the future. And the talk page on Cold Fusion has the following comments:

"Are you sure that it's only a "few" people who take the position that it's pseudoscience? I've followed this whole thing fairly carefully since its inception (being at the time a semi-hard science-fiction writer who, like my friend Jack Vance and other S.F. writers of my acquaintance, was blown away by the possibilities) and it seems to me that except for a few die-hards, it's long since been pretty much discredited. ...

My own impression of the article as at least the opening now stands is that there is not enough emphasis on the general rejection of the idea by the mainstream. But I certainly don't want to get into an ideological battle over this"

So this particular commenter stated what I was trying to get at - that mainstream has disgarded Cold Fusion. If it has been written off by mainstream then it is probably not being fairly peer reviewed.

In any case I think we both agree that there is some unexplained phenomenon happening. The main point of my post is that western science is spending billions of dollars chasing nuclear fusion which may never be practical and stonewalling cold fusion because it doesn't fall into their understanding of physics. And one must wonder whether the mainstream scientific community is tainted by the bucks being showered down upon themselves.