John O'M. Bockris (
Cold fusion should, of course, be named low temperature nuclear reactions as only few of the reactions examined involve fusion.
The major difficulty of the field at present is that the results are irreproducible, even though one carries out procedures which seem to be the same every time. Whether one sees nuclear phenomena or not is unrelated to the variables examined.
In the experience of the author, a result of one experiment in five is the downside of this phenomenon and the result of two experiments out of three is the upside. However, there is a variable, as with so many other points in cold fusion, - which has not yet been investigated, - and that is the question of time. Thus, in using a wire of about 1 mm in diameter in experiments with LiOD in D2O, the times necessary for electrolysis before the phenomena switches on are between 100 and 500 hours! This, of course, is very much more than the time it takes for the deuterium to diffuse throughout the wire and the reason for this discrepancy is not yet established although it has been suggested that it may be due to creation of "just sufficient" damage inside the material.
Thus, when one wishes to declare a null result (no nuclear phenomena) it is vital to state the time at which one stopped the experiment. It may well be that experiments which are stopped at 500 hrs would indeed show nuclear phenomena were they continued to higher times. Thus, there is no doubt about the irreproducibility of the time at which the phenomena switched on, but it is not yet clearly established that there are placed where no nuclear phenomena occurs. One of the most interesting features is the mechanism of the extremely long switch-on times.
These matters of irreproducibility are not met by any existing theory of nuclear phenomena in palladium. Any such theory must meet not only the well attested phenomenon but also the many other phenomena (particularly in biological systems) in which there is evidence for nuclear reactions in the cold. Investigation of the time dependency of reproducibility is vital, not only for practical reasons, that one cannot guarantee to make a demonstration, but particularly because the investigation of this curious phenomenon of irreproducibility of switch on time may well be a very important clue to the mechanism by which the nuclear reactions occur{*}
*A much more far out idea is that the phenomena are affected by a consciousness of the experimenter. This kind of thinking was introduced into quantum mechanics by Wigner who suggested that the choice of a single wave function from among the many which are used to express the behavior of a particle before measurement is made, are affected by the observer, i.e., the result is, in a sense, created by the observer. However, these concepts are probably restricted only to the quantum realm. Could they be applied to happenings between deuterons in Pd?
Nuclear reactions in the cold seem to occur in many situations, not only that of metals which contain high concentrations of hydrogen. For example, it has been well known for at least a century that the calcium available to chickens depends on the potassium they eat, i.e., the reaction K → Ca is accomplished in the chicken. Complete removal of the potassium from the chicken results in very poor and thin eggs due to lack of calcium. This startling result reflects many others and the most recent (and perhaps most astounding) is the report that carbonaceous rubbish, when confined in the absence of oxygen in a pressure vessel, and heated, produce nuclear products, radioactivity, and excess heat.
The other thing which can be mentioned in this short note is that the continued opposition of the official bodies charged with nuclear work in the leading countries of the world to nuclear phenomena in the cold. At first, this was understandable because the reactions concerned are indeed entirely anomalous to the reigning theory. But the continuation of this opposition over 10 years and 2,000 publications is a phenomenon in itself and should be more and more examined in this light.
Let us consider now what the important matters are which stand directly before us in this subject.
A. The obtaining of money for research (see below)
B. The performance of critical experiments.
There has been far too much of the repetition of the old original Fleischmann-Pons experiment. It must be realized that the phenomenon is a broad one and it is clear that thought can give rise to critical experiments which would lead to understanding the mechanism. At present, no group is doing such experiments.
From where should support for development of this New Field in
science come? This varies, of
course, with the different countries, but in the
There is one possibility in
Another approach towards obtaining money for the subject among the
wealthy is to ask for it. This is a
more hopeful route than people often think. Thus, the wealth distribution in the
*I knew a person who was in the hundred million dollar class. He told me that he was literally embarrassed about what to do with his money. He gave it away in all directions and one had only to ask him for it, and he took out a checkbook and wrote a check! For him, disgrace was allowing the United States Government to tax him and therefore wanted to have as much tax deductible "gifts" as he could possibly have. His children being married, and plentifully provided for via Foundations, he lived in a very large and adequate apartment, but one which could be serviced by one maid. His only extravagance was the possession of four Jaguar cars (he hired a man to drive them round every week and keep them running).
The first way whereby one should approach the question of money is through the Foundations. Again, Foundations in the United States vary enormously in their wealth, but if one should make a goal of, say, $ 1M per year for 10 years for funding, and then, write Proposals to Foundations who seem to have the kind of wealth from which such a grant could be made. Thus, one would not expect to give more than 1/10th of their yearly income to one project, and so one has to have a Foundation which is giving out at least ten million dollars per year. One can thus choose Foundations which are worth approaching.
The letter to the Foundation should certainly be written by a lawyer and be restricted to one page in the first instance.
Then, approaching individuals in the Forbes 400 list of
multimillionaires published every year in the
In other countries, for example
In spite of all this, the repeatable experiment would solve everything. If it were possible to have an experiment which had a 99.9% chance of being switched on and performing at a given time, this would surely bring government funding{*}
*On the other hand, in one case of which I
know, involving the extinction of radioactivity by so-called flame from Brown's
gas, two DOE engineers were called from
to the laboratory and witness an experiment (the sponsor was a man who
had good political contacts). After
seeing the experiment and performing some test results to see it is real, the
engineers announced they would have to report a failure!!! When asked why this would be, they said
that, "if they reported a success, their jobs would be
endangered." The subject had
been classified in