Chapter 1    On the Beginning – Nine Years of Cold Fusion Research

 

1.1 Sensational News Overwhelmed

On March 24, 1989, Asahi-shinbun, a Japanese leading daily newspaper, reported the first news on cold fusion with a headline - Nuclear fusion in a test tube Success, reported British paper -. The article read as follows:

The Financial Times, a British business paper, reported on the 23rd, Two scientists from England and the US, M. Fleischmann and S. Pons successfully caused nuclear fusion in a test tube by means of electrolysis. Nuclear fusion is believed to occur only in a super high temperature, super high-pressure environment and require a gigantic apparatus that could cost hundreds of billions of yen.  If their success was true, it could provide solutions to energy issues.

 

 

 

This news caused a tremendous excitement among energy researchers and engineers around the world. Since 1950, the future energy resources became an issue among industrial nations and how to secure energy resource for industrial as well as household use beyond the first half of the 21st century had become a pressing agenda.  That is why, daily newspapers put up such a shocking headline as  "10 tons of coal worth of energy from only 30 kilograms of sea water" (March 25, 1989 Asahi Shinbun) or  "Too much heat, melted cathode" (April 7, 1989 Yomiuri Shinbun). 

 

Initially, cold fusion was perceived as the Holy Grail of the energy issue, and people thought that all the problems would go away.  However, things did not go the way they were expected. Within a year, its existence being questioned, cold fusion was ostracized from the scientific community and lost almost all the financial support. 

 

Let us take a moment here to examine how the cold fusion research came to halt momentary. 

 

The major driving force of the research was in the United States centered especially on Utah. In August 1989, four month after the announcement by M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, the state of Utah established National Cold Fusion Institute at University of Utah and sponsored The First International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF1) held at Salt Lake City on March 29 \teido 31, 1990. Mainly the reports by researchers who observed the cold fusion phenomena were presented there. About 300 people (mostly Americans) participated, and 38 papers were presented. Around that time, researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory and other private research institutes conducted serious research and generated some positive experimental results. 

 

 

1.2 DOE Report

On the other hand, the US Department of Energy  (DOE) formed a panel of scientists to cross-examine the results by the cold fusion research.  The Energy Research Advisory Board (consists of 22 scientists including a Nobel Prize laureate) played the central role among the skeptics who tried to examine the cold fusion research under the microscope. 

 

In November 1989, after six months of investigation, the panel submitted the final report to DOE  (referred to as "the DOE report", hereafter). The following shows an excerpt from Executive Summary of the report. 

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

A. Preamble

(Omitted.)

B. Conclusions:

(1) Based on the examination of published reports, reprints, numerous communications to the Panel and several site visits, the Panel concludes that the experimental results of excess heat from calorimetric cells reported to date do not present convincing evidence that useful source of energy will result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion.

 

(2) A major fraction of experimenters making calorimetric measurements, either with open or closed cells, using Pd cathodes and D2O, report neither excess heat nor fusion products. Others, however, report excess heat production and either no fusion products or fusion products at a level well below that implied by reported heat and reproducibility remain serious concerns. In no case is the yield of fusion products commensurate with the claimed excess heat. In cases where tritium is reported, no secondary or primary nuclear particles are observed, ruling out the known D + D reaction as the source of tritium.

The Panel concludes that the experiments reported to date do not present convincing evidence to associate the reported anomalous heat with a nuclear process.

 

(3) The early claims of fusion products (neutrons) at very low levels near background from D2O electrolysis and D2 gas experiments have no apparent application to the production of useful energy. If experiments, some employing more sophisticated counter arrangements limits on the fusion probability for these experiments, at levels well below the initial positive results. Based on these many negative results and the marginal statistical significance of reported positive a result the Panel concludes that the present evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process termed cold fusion is not persuasive.

 

(4) Current understanding of the very extensive literature of experimental and theoretical results for hydrogen in solids gives no support for the occurrence of cold fusion in solids. Specifically, no theoretical or experimental evidence suggests the existence of D - D distances shorter than that in the molecule D2 or the achievement of confinement pressure above relatively modest levels. The known behavior of deuterium in solids does not give any support for the supposition that the fusion probability is enhanced by the presence of the palladium, titanium, or other elements.

 

(5) Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process.

 

C. Recommendations

(1) The panel recommends against any special funding for the investigation of phenomena attributed to cold fusion. Hence, we recommend against the establishment of special programs or research centers to develop cold fusion.

 

(2)- (6) (Abbreviated.) The Panel is sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system. (They pointed out specific problems and gave suggestions for research topics to be pursued: Note by the author).

 

 

 

 

Experiments reporting fusion products (e.g., neutrons) at a very low level, if confirmed, are of scientific interest but have no apparent current application to the production of useful energy. In view of the difficulty of these experiments, collaborative efforts are encouraged to maximize the detection efficiencies and to minimize the background.

 

These conclusions and recommendations helped to eliminate the illusions such as a nuclear fusion reactor could be build immediately, and cooled down the heat of patent applications rush. At the same time, they are also responsible for spreading the notion that the cold fusion research is not a science, and negatively affecting the public judgment on the research later. 

 

Following these events, the above-mentioned National Cold Fusion Institute at University of Utah was closed in June 1991 and Dr. Pons left the University.

 

The impact of the DOE report extended beyond the American border and caused a vastly negative impact on the researches around the world and hampered the progress of the research significantly. 

 

Why did all this happen? It is probably because the phenomenon called cold fusion could not be explained in the framework of the conventional solid state and nuclear physics.

 

Cold fusion occurs in an environment where background radiation (n, ƒΑ-ray, ƒΐ-ray (e)) exists in an  extremely complex system, where hydrogen isotopes (H, D) are unevenly included in transition metals (Pd, Ti). Complexity such as chaos and fractal attracted physicistfs attention very recently.  Cold fusion should be related to such phenomena. Thus it is not easy to predict what kind of physical phenomena will take place there.

 

The above-mentioned 6-month investigation by the DOE Energy Research Advisory Board failed to see through the complexity of the phenomenon and concluded that the discovery of cold fusion was an illusion.

 

 

 

Let us point out mistakes in the DOE report.

 

Conclusion (1) is based on Conclusions (2) \teido (5), and it has no basis if Conclusions (2) \teido (5) are incorrect. The issue of excess heat and fusion products discussed in Conclusion (2) has significance only when D + D reaction is assumed as the main process. The majority of the scientists adopted this assumption at that time, including those who discovered cold fusion.

 

If there is some other mechanism governing the process, this argument is no longer valid. If you are searching for truth, whether one assumption made by a scientist is correct or not has no importance. You should search for the truth based on the fact that the phenomenon did occur. From this point of view, we will show, in Chapters 11 and 12, that it is possible to explain the results of cold fusion experiments without any inconsistency. 

 

Conclusion (3) was based on the fact that the cold fusion phenomenon presented poor reproducibility. However, the reproducibility of a phenomenon is determined by the condition of the entire system, in which the process takes place. Simple analogy from other physical phenomena should not have been used to draw a conclusion. We will also show the reasons for the poor reproducibility and the way to improve it in Chapters 11 and 12.

 

Conclusion (4) only shows that the interpretations of the discoverers of cold fusion were not appropriate, and it has nothing to do with the truth. It is hard to believe that board members have made such an elementary mistake. It was found later that inside solid, such as Pd or Ti, with a combination of various factors, complex phenomena could occur. There is always such possibility in science. Today, it is quite obvious to everybody. The board members might have forgotten for some reason that natural science is build upon the fact.

 

Conclusion (5) is similar to Conclusion (4). If any new findings had been denied only because they were contradiction with the existing knowledge, there would have been no progress in science and there will not be any progress in the future. 

 

The discussions expressed in the DOE Report remind us Procrustes' bed. As Procrustes used his bed as an absolute standard to measure heights of his captives, the critiques against the cold fusion used \dee - \dee reaction as an inevitable standard to judge anomalous events.

 

 

 

Today it is our consensus that a paradigm shift is brought about and subsequent creation of a new science occurs when newly discovered facts are in contradiction with the existing knowledge and the theoretical framework.

 

The conclusions drawn in the DOE report were based on non-scientific thought and biased. Yet, the recommendations hampered the progress of the cold fusion research and hindered the progress of the science and technology for the new energy source. 

 

It should be mentioned, however, for the honor of the American scientific community, that there were some members of the Board who stood by science. 

 

Comment by N.F. Ramsey.

Let us quote from the executive summary of the report, which was believed to be written by Dr. N.F. Ramsey who won Nobel Prize in 1989.

 

 

 

 "c as a result, it is difficult convincingly to resolve all cold  fusion claims since, for  example, any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be  discounted as merely  not working for unknown reasons. Likewise the failure of a theory to account for cold fusion can be discounted on the grounds that the correct explanation and theory has not been provided. Consequently, with the many contradictory existing claims it is not possible at this time to state categorically that all the claims for cold fusion have been convincingly either proved or disproved \tenten "

 

%

 

 

1.3 Cold Fusion - a New Science

Experimental facts on cold fusion have been accumulated over the past 9 years and there is no doubt that cold fusion phenomenon exists. There have been observations, in experiments with various materials, of excess heat, helium, tritium, neutron, gamma ray and nuclear transmutation (transformation of nucleus to the one with larger or smaller mass, abbreviated as NT), which can only be explained as a consequence of a nuclear reaction. The complexity of the processes that produced such various events was the reason that the advisory board to generate such a negative recommendation against the cold fusion research. 

 

If you read this book, however, the model that author proposes can explain those various experimental results consistently and this will be a firm step towards understanding cold fusion phenomenon.

 

What is the complexity of the cold fusion phenomenon? How difficult is it to comprehend this phenomenon in the framework of conventional science? The author's goal is that by answering these questions, he would like you to see the wonder of the science of cold fusion. It has been nine years since the discovery of the phenomenon, even those events in the phenomenon that were most counter intuitive and hard to comprehend with our common sense the truth arise by itself as experimental facts accumulated.

He is sure, as you read on; you will find this process of puzzle solving fun and exciting. After you have read through this book, you should have a basic understanding of the physics of cold fusion (solid state-nuclear physics). You should also realize that cold fusion is real and is the total solution for our future energy needs. 

 

The only resources you need to tap energy out of cold fusion is those abundant metals such as nickel, titanium, palladium and lithium, and unlimited supply of hydrogen isotopes (protium and deuterium), we will never have to worry about using up the resources. The energy can be obtained by a small-scale power generation facility. This will enable distributed power system and a "healthier" industrial structure. If we can obtain such a superior energy source and use it wisely, we will foresee a bright future. Fortunately, based on the DOE report, the United States government halted the national level project. Given the tiny energy reserve, Japan should take the initiative and work towards developing the energy source for the 21st century. 

In fact, Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Japan (MITI) conducted the NHE Project {New Hydrogen Energy Project) for four years with some success which were presented at ICCF7 held in Vancouver, Canada, on April, 1998. There have appeared several research kits for the excess heat and radioactivity reduction for lent or for sale by venture businesses in the USA.

 

This book is structured as follows. Nuclei and their reactions are explained in Chapters 2 to 4. Those who are familiar with these topics can skip to Chapter 5.  Chapters 5 to 10 talk about experimental facts of cold fusion known up to now. You will see how meticulously cold fusion has been studied and yielding various results by many scientists including Fleischmann. Chapters 11 and 12 show that various events in the cold fusion phenomenon can be explained by a phenomenological model (TNCF model) proposed by the author.

In Chapter 11, it will be shown that by assuming the existence of just one parameter \enuenu (the density of the trapped thermal neutron), it is possible to calculate \enuenu by the experimental data sets, and relationship between the figures that were obtained by different experiments can be explained consistently.  This kind of theory is called phenomenological (see Chapter 12, Section 1), even though it is based on an assumption it is still noteworthy that many experimental facts can be explained without contradiction. Chapter 12 shows the existence of captured neutrons, which is the fundamental premise that TNCF model is based, is consistent with the principles of physics (can be explained qualitatively).

 

Chapter 13 introduces other major theories that have been proposed.

Chapter 14 provides an overview of cold fusion research situation and energy issues of mankind in 21st century and the author's thought on science and society as a cold fusion researcher.  How is a human been in a highly industrial society building on science and technology? He or she should at least always keep in mind that science is an important factor of the society.

 

Postscript in Chapter 15 shows the social aspect of science in relation to the DOE report. This is intended to be Object Lesson for scientists and readers who has scientific mind. In Chapter 16, several essays on science and cold fusion research dedicated on 10th anniversary of this science by true scientists with spirit and heart are collected.

 

About the term cold fusion.

As we will see in Chapter 4, the term nuclear fusion, which is a kind of the nuclear reaction, has a specific definition in nuclear physics. Nuclear reaction is a phenomenon, in which the momentum or energy of nuclei or other particles change when they collide with another nucleus.  Among those nuclear reactions, when the nucleus and the colliding particle (or nucleus) becomes a new single particle, it is called nuclear fusion. As shown in this book, the phenomena termed cold fusion include various nuclear reactions and interactions between ions and electrons. The suggestion that it is not appropriate to call these phenomena cold fusion has a point. 

However, replacing it with the term "Nuclear reactions in solids", for instance, does not represent all aspects of the so-called cold fusion phenomenon. This term does not cover interaction between particles and thermal phenomena in solid, which are certainly contributing to cold fusion. For these reasons, in this book, we use the term cold fusion to refer to phenomenon that produces non-chemical (rather than rearrangement of atoms) heat and nuclear products in solid  (see Chapter 5 for more details). There should be cases where separation of chemical and non-chemical heat generation is impossible in complex events of the phenomenon. Even though, it might be possible conceptually to distinguish them.