FOREWORD
1.
The conference
The Tenth International
Conference on Cold Fusion was held at the Royal Sonesta
Hotel in
2.
Short course
George Miley proposed
that a 1-day short course be developed in order to bring people up to speed on
topics of interest to the community. On Sunday, a 1-day short course was
presented, with talks by experimentalists and theorists as can be seen in Table
1 (omitted). This was well-attended, and provided a forum for much
give-and-take between members of the community.
Table 1. ICCF10 Short course given on Sunday, August 24, 2003. (omitted)
3.
Topics
One can see from Table 2
(omitted) the range of topics discussed at ICCF10. In response to the
often-asked question, "What is cold fusion?" we might respond that
cold fusion is made up of the topics studied by people in the field, which
includes those listed in Table 2 (omitted). We will take the opportunity to
discuss some of the topics and interesting results presented at ICCF10 in what
follows here.
Table 2. ICCF10
Program (omitted)
3.1.
Excess heat
From the inception of
the field in 1989, the phenomenon of excess heat production has been central to
the field. At previous conferences, we have seen heated discussions of
calorimetric approaches and issues, which played a central role at a time when
there was some uncertainty within the field about the existence of an excess
heat effect. We have also seen a variety of advances in the area, including:
(1) codeposited Pd
(2) excess heat
in molten salt systems
(3) correlation
of heat and helium
(4) positive
feedback
(5) heat after
death
(6) excess heat
production with metals other than Pd
(7) correlation
between excess heat and deuterium flux
(8) Coehn effect stimulation
(9) improvements
in the area of technique and reproducibility
At ICCF10, there were
several papers on the response of the excess heat effect to laser stimulation,
which is new for the ICCF series. It was nice to see a new US/Israeli
enterprise contribute, and their excess heat results in glow discharge
experiments were very nice. The question of reproducibility was raised at the
conference on a number of occasions, with good reproducibility being claimed by
several experimentalists (Storms, Swartz, Case, and others). There was little
discussion of excess heat in light water systems at ICCF10, although there has
been at previous conference.
3.2.
Tritium
Tritium production was
claimed to have been observed very early on in the field, and seemed to be
related to helium production associated with excess heat. For example, the
helium appears to be born with little kinetic energy - certainly very much less
than 24 MeV. Early observations of an absence of neutron emission associated
with tritium production indicated that the kinetic energy of the triton was
limited to less than 10 keV (otherwise d + t reactions would have led to
readily observable 14 MeV neutrons). In this sense, helium production and
tritium production seem to be similar. Tritium production was studied in years
past by groups including Bockris, Srinivasan, Storms and Talcott, Cedzynska,
Gozzi, Claytor, Celani, Romodanov, Clarke/SRI and others. In this
proceedings, the paper by Romodanov on tritium production is an
important contribution in the area of experiment, and that of Afonichev is intriguing. Tritium production was also
discussed by Violante and colleagues, but this was included in the
Transmutation section since the focus of the work seemed to be on this topic.
3.3.
Transmutation
Early claims of
observations of transmutation effects were greeted within the community with
great skepticism. It was one thing to think that low-level nuclear emissions
could occur, and quite another to contemplate the existence of an excess heat
effect. But to imagine that new elements and isotopes could appear was more
than most could swallow. Several years and many more experiments later, the
case for transmutation is much stronger, and the results quite interesting. The
collection of strong papers in this volume on
transmutation that appear in this proceedings are indicative of the growing
importance of the effect within the field.
In one view of transmutation, the
different effects are divided into the following:
(1) modification
of isotopic distributions near the surface in Fleischmann-Pons cells (Passell,
others)
(2) elemental
and isotopic anomalies that appear to be connected to local hot spots (Dash,
others)
(3) massive
transmutations to both lower and higher mass nuclei commensurate with energy
production (Mizuno, Miley, others)
(4) mass
8 and charge 4 transmutation of impurities in a multilayer sample with
deuterium flow (Iwamura, others)
(5) massive
production of radioactive isotopes (Wolf)
(6) modification
of amounts of radioactive isotopes in a sample
At ICCFIO, papers on
several of these topics were presented. The Iwamura effect was introduced at
ICCF9, and is an area of much excitement at the moment, due to the hope that a
clear example of a selective transmutation effect will emerge. The appearance
of isotopic anomalies generally is attracting much interest in the field at
present.
3.4.
Nuclear emission
The first report of
nuclear emissions from metal deuterides was due to Jones and his colleagues at
BYU, where evidence for low-level d-d fusion was presented. Since that time,
the range of effects claimed has increased to include:
(1) low-level
deuteron-deuteron fusion products (Jones, Scaramuzzi, Menlove, others)
(2) low-level
energetic alpha ejection (Cecil, Lipson)
(3) low-level
ion emission, not due to dd-fusion (Cecil)
(4) penetrating
radiation that results in charged particles (Oriani)
We were fortunate to
have strong papers at ICCF10 on all of these topics. Observations presented at
ICCF10 by Ademenko and Vysostskii
appear to suggest that some kind of radiation is produced in the sample
undergoing irradiation, and causes massive transmutation on a remote foil. It
would be nice to determine precisely experimentally what kind of radiation is
involved.
3.5.
Beam experiments
There appear to be two
interesting areas of interest in beam experiments. Numerous experiments have
been reported over the years that show an enhancement in the deuteron-deuteron
fusion rate at low energy in metal deuterides and in other deuterated
materials. As yet, there has been no agreed upon explanation for this, other
than it seems to be due to some kind of anomalous screening effect. This effect
is illustrated in the paper by Kitamura and colleagues. Lipson and coworkers
have argued that the glow discharge can be thought of as a high-flux beam
experiment, and present some very interesting results suggesting that the
experiments demonstrating the enhancement in cross section can be extended to
much lower energy in this way.
The other interesting area that relate
to beam experiments has to do with an effect discovered some years ago by
Kasagi, in which very broad signals of fast protons and fast alphas are
observed in beam experiments where deuterons at 70-100 keV are incident on TiD
and PdD. It was proposed that these signals are due to a three-deuteron reaction, as such a reaction is the only candidate that can
match end-point energies with a very broad distribution. This was discussed
briefly by Kasagi at ICCF10 in his oral presentation. A replication effort carried
out at NRL was discussed by Hubler, but unfortunately
no proceedings paper was submitted. The paper by Takahashi and coworkers
discusses work done at
3.6.
Theory
There have been a wide
variety of theoretical approaches discussed over the years, including anomalous
screening effects, weakly-interacting massive particles, black holes, and many
other speculative mechanisms. In recent years, theory contributions have been
tending to focus on a reduced set of models, reflecting the interests of those
still active in the field. Motivated by the low-energy enhancement seen in the
deuteron-deuteron fusion yield, and by the observation of low-level fusion
products, many theorists are interested in models for screening in metal
deuterides (Luo, Frisone,
and others). Such studies tend to be more conventional, in the sense that no
additional mechanisms are required to account for other anomalies.
Theorists that focus on the more general
problem posed by the experimental observations face much more difficult
problems. The contributions at ICCF10 can largely be divided into a small
number of catagories, including:
(1) resonant
tunneling (Li)
(2) ion
band states (S. Chubb, T. Chubb)
(3) Bose-Einstein condensates
(Kim)
(4) multi-body
fusion (Takahashi)
(5) neutron
cluster (Fisher, Kozima)
(6) Preparata theory (
(7) phonon-exchange theory
(Hagelstein)
Resonant tunneling
models postulate the presence of a long-lived state roughly resonant with that
of two deuterons, and proceeds with otherwise conventional physics (which
predicts enhanced reaction rates). In ion band state models and Bose-Einstein
condensate models, the proponents argue that the effects of Coulomb repulsion
are reduced or eliminated, leading to enhancements in reaction rates. Scott
Chubb has extended his approach to begin addressing phonon coupling and energy
exchange. In Takahashi's model, several deuterons are assumed to tunnel
together at the same time. Fisher, and Kozima, have been interested in models
involving neutron clusters (neutral particles made up of several neutrons),
which have the feature that the Coulomb barrier is not present in interactions
with other nuclei. Preparata proposed Dicke-enhanced transitions from two-deuteron
states to 4He states, mediated by electromagnetic coupling to plasmons. In the phonon exchange model, a highly-excited
phonon mode is assumed, which couples to reactions at different sites, leading
to new site-other-site reactions.
Figure 1. Dash group
demonstration at ICCF10, with Corissa Lee. Photograph
provided courtesy of Steve Krivit. (omitted)
Figure 2. Mitchell Swartz demonstrating his cell for ICCF10 attendees.
Photograph provided courtesy of Dave Nagel. (omitted)
4. Demonstrations
Two demonstrations of
excess heat production were given at MIT on Tuesday night. One was presented by
John Dash and his students Abhay Ambadkar
(graduate student); and Corrissa Lee, Shelsea Pedersen, and Ben Zimmerman (high school summer
interns). The cells are illustrated in Figure 1 (omitted). Another was
presented by Mitchell Swartz, shown in Figure 2 (omitted). Transportation from
the conference to MIT was provided, and most of the attendees were treated to a
viewing and discussions of the experiments. There had been concern about
whether the demonstrations would be working during the time allotted for
viewing, and we were fortunate in that both cells appeared to show excess heat
during this time.
There was in addition a demonstration of
excess heat and laser stimulation done remotely over the Internet by Dennis
Cravens and Dennis Letts. A photograph of their
experiment is shown in Figure 3 (omitted).
5.
The public comes to ICCF10
We invited the public to
come to the conference on Monday night to see the poster presentations, and to
meet with researchers in the field. Dave Nagel gave an overview of cold fusion
research, and delighted the audience during the question and answer period
following his talk.
Figure 3. The laser excess heat experiment used for the remote demonstration
given by Letts and Cravens during ICCF10.
Photograph provided courtesy of Dennis Letts
(omitted).
6.
A typeset conference proceedings
New for this conference
are the nice looking typeset manuscripts in the pages that follow. We have been
interested in moving toward developing an electronic journal for the field,
which would require the development of a typesetting capability. So, it seemed
perhaps to be reasonable to attempt a typesetting of the ICCF10 conference
proceedings papers.
There are many reasons why this seemed
to be a good idea. The International Conference series has provided the primary
outlet for publication for papers in the cold fusion field. These papers are
being read by an increasing audience. As it is common for scientists to judge
the quality of the science reported in a paper by how the paper looks or reads,
it seems perhaps to be important to make the papers look more professional.
After all, much work typically goes into the research, as well as into the writing.
These proceedings papers are in many cases the only publication of work that is
done in the area. So we probably should treat these papers more or less on par
with journal publications until such time as journal publications in general
are allowed.
It was found that in the process of
typesetting the papers, and in working with the authors, that the quality of
the papers in many cases tended to improve. In some cases, simply typesetting
the papers seemed to make them much more accessible and understandable. In
other cases, authors took the time to improve their papers when they saw the
effort that was going into the typesetting.
The typesetting was done initially
by Dr. Kumar's team at Elim Pre-press Services of Velachery,
7.
Language revisions
Some of the papers
submitted by authors for which English is a foreign
language were not easy to understand because of language issues. In this proceedings, a significant revision of the wording was
done in order to improve readability. The most significant revisions of this
type were done (by P. L. Hagelstein) on papers by Romodanov et al., Lipson et
al., Karabut et al., and Vysostkii et al. The English
associated with the paper by Mizuno et al. was greatly improved by Jed Rothwell
from the as-submitted version, to the LENR-CANR version that we typeset.
8.
Videotaping
The oral presentations
at ICCF10 were videotaped by Gene Mallove, and can be purchased as a collection
of DVDs through Infinite Energy magazine. The video resolution is riot great,
so in presentations where the lettering size is large the viewgraphs can be
read, but in other presentations it is difficult to see what is being
presented.
9.
Absence of skeptics
Researchers in cold
fusion have not had very good luck interacting with skeptics over the years.
This has been true of the ICCF conference series. Douglas Morrison attended
many of the ICCF conferences before he passed away. While he did provide some
input as a skeptic, many found his questions and comments to be uninteresting
(the answers usually had been discussed previously, or else concerned points
that seemed more political than scientific). It is not clear flow many in the
field saw the reviews of the conferences that he distributed widely. For
example, at ICCF3 the SRI team discussed observations of excess heat from
electrochemical cells in a flow calorimeter, where the associated experimental
errors were quite small and well-studied. The results were very impressive, and
answered basic questions about the magnitude of the effect, signal to noise,
dynamics, reproducibility, and dependence on loading and current density.
Morrison's discussion in his review left out nearly all technical details of
the presentation, but did broadcast his nearly universal view that the results
were not convincing. What the physics community learned of research in the cold
fusion field in general came through Morrison's filter.
Skeptics have often said that negative
papers are not allowed at the conference. At ICCF10, some effort was made to
encourage skeptics to attend. Gene Mallove posted more than 100 conference
posters around MIT several months prior to the conference (some of which remain
posted two years later), in the hope that people from MIT would come to the
conference and see what was happening. No MIT students or faculty attended,
outside of those presenting at the conference. The cold fusion demonstrations
presented at MIT were likewise ignored by the MIT community.
Figure 4. US oil
production and petroleum consumption (omitted).
To encourage skeptics to attend,
invitations were issued to Robert Park, Peter Zimmermann, Frank Close, Steve
Koonin, John Holzrichter, and others. All declined,
or else did not respond. In the case of Peter Zimmermann, financial issues
initially prevented his acceptance, following which full support (travel,
lodging, and registration) was offered. Unfortunately his schedule then did not
permit his participation. Henceforth, let it be known that it was the policy at
ICCF10 to actively encourage the participation of skeptics, and that many such
skeptics chose not to participate.
10.
Energy issues
There has been concern
about the world-wide energy supply for some time, specifically in the area of
oil production. It was suggested in the 1950s by M. King Hubbert
that oil production in the
It is expected that oil production
world-wide will peak once the available oil is depleted by half, and there is
considerable discussion at present as to precisely when this will occur. From
the data shown in Figure 5 (omitted), it appears that this had not happened as
of 2004. There exist projections as to when this will occur which range between
2005 and 2020. When world-wide oil production falls short of world-wide demand,
then the laws of economics dictate that the price will begin to rise.
Figure 5. World oil
production (omitted).
As the demand for oil
internationally continues to increase at the rate of a few per cent per year,
it is only a matter of time before the price begins to rise. The recent price
history is shown in Figure 6 (omitted). For many before 1970, the price in
constant value dollars was relatively constant. In the 1970s and 1980s, prices
rose due to artificial constraints put on the supply by oil producers. There is
concern that the most recent price increases may be due to an inability of
production to keep up with demand.
Figure 6. Oil price per barrel. Price in US dollars
(bottom); price in constant value dollars referenced to 2005 (top). Prices
are given yearly up to 2003, and monthly starting in 2004. (omitted)
From this discussion it is apparent that
the world faces tough problems in the area of energy supply, specifically in
the area of oil. Some of those working on excess heat production have wondered
why there is not more interest in cold fusion research, especially since
laboratory results appear to indicate that energy is being produced, that it
has a nuclear origin, and that it is clean.
11.
DoE review
One of the reasons that
research in the cold fusion field does not attract more interest is because of
the events of 1989. Following the initial announcements in March 1989, there
was great interest for a while. However, initial efforts to replicate the
experiments were generally not successful, and no one had a good explanation
why there should be any effects at all.
The Department of Energy conducted a
review of cold fusion in 1989. There were five conclusions of this review: that
the claims of excess heat were not convincing; that the excess heat was not
shown to be associated with a nuclear process; that the neutron emission
reported was not persuasive; that there was no reason based on what was known
about nuclear and solid-state physics to expect such effects; and that the
effects claimed would require the invention of a new physical process different
from what had been studied in nuclear physics. Many in the scientific community
came away with the opinion that the DoE review had
shown conclusively that there was nothing to any of the claims, hence nothing to have any interest in. Huizenga, a co-chair of the
review panel, discussed the review and his perspective on it in Cold fusion,
the scientific fiasco of the century.
Now, it is one thing for the 1989 work
to appear to a hard-nosed review panel to be less than convincing, and quite
another for there to be no new effects. For example, a perusal of the pages
that follow stand witness to some of what people in the field have done and
seen recently.
ICCF10 was considered to be very strong
scientifically by many who attended. Following this, there was much discussion
about re-engaging the scientific community, since it was felt that the results
were strong enough so that the field should rejoin with mainstream science. One
of the suggestions that was made concerned requesting
a new review of cold fusion from the Department of Energy, in the hope that
some of the damage done in 1989 might be rectified. In the Fall,
2003, following ICCF10, we requested a new review of cold fusion. Discussions
were held at DoE, during which it was proposed that
members of the cold fusion community might work with DoE
to assist in a review of the field, with the focus on excess energy production.
Some months later, it was announced that DoE would
conduct a new review of cold fusion.
We proposed a review that would focus on
energy production, as this had been most studied within the field, and as
discussed above is potentially important given the tough energy problems that
the
The DoE charge
to the reviewers included three tasks:
(1) Examine and evaluate
the experimental evidences for the occurrences of nuclear reactions in
condensed matter at low energies (less than a few electron volts).
(2) Determine whether
the evidence is sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that such nuclear
reactions occur.
(3) Determine whether
there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies and, if so,
identify the most promising areas to be pursued.
In essence, we had
proposed to make the case that the experimental evidence supported the
existence of an excess heat effect that merited further study. DoE seemed more interested in a demonstration of new
nuclear reactions. The existence of an excess heat effect at levels far
exceeding any available chemical energy is thought by many to imply the
existence of new nuclear reactions, and this is supported by observations of 4He
that correlated with energy production. However, the charge to the reviewers
implies a focus on specific new nuclear reactions, for which there is not
consensus among the different groups in the field at present, and hence was not
part of the primary review. Particle emission was discussed as a secondary
topic in the review. Although the evidence seemed strong, there was much
criticism of the measurements, interpretation, and the results in general.
DoE
requested a 15 page summary, and proposed that a few oral presentations be
given during a one day session (which was held in August, 2004). The review
document that we submitted will appear in the ICCF11 proceedings. The
conclusions of the DoE review were posted by DoE, and the specific comments of the reviewers were made
available.
Given the very skeptical attitude
that prevails among the scientific community, and that also was reflected
initially among the majority of the reviewers, it would have been an easy
matter for them to conclude simply that: "the evidence does not
demonstrate that a new effect is occurring," and that they "do not
see a scientific case for continuing these studies under federal
sponsorship," as was written by one of the referees. However, this was not
what happened. Instead, the DoE summary tells us:
"The nearly unanimous
opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual,
well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues
relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production
in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on
the order of a few eV."
The reviewers also
indicated two areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the
controversies in the field:
(1) materials
science aspects of deuterated materials using modern characterization
techniques;
(2) the
study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using
state-of-the-art apparatus and methods.
Many more issues were
discussed by the reviewers, and in the review summary, which are posted on the
LENR-CANRR website, and readers are encouraged to look them over.
In regard to the question of whether
there is an excess heat effect, which was a major point under discussion, the
summary document provided by DoE said:
"The excess power
observed in some experiments is reported to be beyond that attributable to
ordinary chemical or solid state source; this excess power is attributed by
proponents to nuclear fusion reactions. Evaluations by the reviewers ranged
from: 1) the evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no
convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life
of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic.
The reviewers who accepted the production of excess power typically suggest
that this effect is seen often, and under some understood conditions, is compelling.
The reviewers who did not find the production of excess power convincing cite a
number of issues including: excess power in the short term is not the same as
net energy production over the entire time of the experiment; all possible
chemical and solid state causes of excess heat have not been investigated and
eliminated as an explanation; and the production of power over a period of time
is a few per cent of the external power applied and hence calibration and
systematic effects could account for the purported net effect. Most reviewers,
including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that
the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased
in over a decade, and that many of the experiments are not well documented.”
Many of these issues
were stated clearly in the review document, and discussed at length in the oral
presentations, and it is hard to understand why they are even issues any
longer. The amount of energy under consideration is so great that even if it
were somehow stored, the resulting energy storage density greatly exceeds any
chemical or solid state capability. Power excesses well in excess of a few per
cent were presented and discussed. With respect to the last point about
reproducibility and magnitude, these conclusions are not consistent with what
was presented. Reproducibility has improved, and the ratio of output power to
input power has been increasing over the years, as we presented. We continue to
be haunted by the ghosts of 1989.
The 2004 DoE
review did not produce the definitive vindication that some had hoped for. But
there have been a number of tangible results:
(1) In the review
process, we met a harsh panel of reviewers, who expected to make short work of poor
science. Instead, when they were presented with research results, attitudes began
to change in several cases.
(2) It is now possible
to get cold fusion research funded in the
(3) There are cold
fusion papers that are being considered for publication in more mainstream
journals, and some have now appeared in print.
(4) There is increased
interest in the area on the part of the scientific community, as measured by
the large number of papers being downloaded from the LENR-CANR website, and by
the larger audiences that attend presentations in the field.
(5) Commercial
opportunities have increased, as measured by the number of new commercial
ventures that are working in the area.
After many years, the
situation is beginning to improve. With our continued efforts, we can and we
will accomplish more.
12.
Gene Mallove
We note with great
regret the passing of our friend Gene Mallove on May 14, 2004. Gene (shown in
Figure 7 (omitted)) was an early enthusiast and advocate of all things cold
fusion from the beginning of the field, and subsequently became an advocate for
many people and causes who had been cast out of the mainstream of the
scientific community. He wrote Fire from
Ice, which provided a clear account of the events surrounding and following
the 1989 announcements of Jones, and of Fleischmann and Pons. He started
Infinite Energy magazine, which provided a forum in which those with
nontraditional ideas and opinions could have their say. Although we have often
not agreed with Gene's views and opinions, to honor Gene we have provided a
place for his contribution so that he may have his say.
Figure 7. Gene
Mallove. Photograph provided courtesy of JET Thermal Products. (omitted)
Acknowledgments
This conference would
not have been possible without financial support from the New York Community
Trust, from P. L. Hagelstein and Associates, and from the New Energy
Foundation. Scott Chubb's personal efforts, and
efforts as conference technical co-chair, in helping to make the conference
happen in so many ways is acknowledged and greatly appreciated. Also greatly
appreciated were the contributions of the local organizing committee, who
provided input on all decisions, from where to hold the conference, to which
papers should be presented in what order, and many other matters. Larissa Winey deserves special recognition for her outstanding
contributions during the conference, including the many runs to Kinko's and
other efforts. Jessica Hagelstein and Diego Diaz also helped in the running of
the conference, and their efforts were much appreciated. Many thanks for the
very capable contributions of the good people at MIT Conference services, who
handled registration and manned the desk during the conference. Gene Mallove
and staff at Infinite Energy magazine assisted with the preparation of posters,
and artwork for the painting Bravery Misplaced was approved by Ed Beard, Jr.
Jed Rothwell developed the ICCF10 website. He also worked with the authors to
collect most of the manuscripts included in this proceedings.
We appreciated Susan Chafe's efforts typing up the Author Index. Thanks to Tim
Morse who took a picture of the conference participants. The assistance of the
wonderful people at RLE Headquarters, without whom the conference simply never would have happened at all. We commend the staff of
the Royal Sonesta Hotel for their constant help over
the course of the year with preparations, and their competent assistance with
the conference itself. Most importantly, we are indebted to those in the cold
fusion community who came and participated in the conference.
Peter L. Hagelstein
Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
September, 2005