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 United States the situation of government
support has been made impossible because of the ridicule heaped on the field by
those people who would like to protect themselves from onslaught of a much
cheaper technology onto well-funded field (hot fusion). There is also a question of embarrassment
among the Great Scientists and famous names, who have ridiculed the phenomenon
as not existing. All that would
have to be overcome were proper funding to be obtained from the United States
Government.
There
is one possibility in America which might be available and this is a class
action against the Patent Office.
The United States Patent Office has constantly refused the granting of
patents to cold fusion phenomena.
There are probably hundreds of people who have patent worthy material
and who have been refused "in principle" because of the subject. The American way is the legal way
through suits and if 100 people could be gathered together, the cost of such a
suit for one person would be acceptable.
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 United States is extreme and there
are many billionaires. What should
people do with their money? The
yearly income on a billion dollars at 10% is one hundred million dollars{*}
*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 United States is a reasonable path. Again, choice of whom to approach would
depend on a careful reading of the list and finding out through it what kind of
person each millionaire is. One
should select the likely ones, - those you see to support far-out scientific
endeavors, and then again, the lawyer approach is
needed. It is never permissible or
useful to approach the billionaire himself. Of course, the initial one page should
be accompanied by the name of at least three referees with high sounding
positions.
In
other countries, for example Japan, it is probably less necessary to go this
private route, but in the United States, and probably also in Europe, the
approach to the Foundations and to the rich people may be the best way to make
progress.
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 Washington
to come
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 Washington to be regarded as a failure independently of
successful demonstrations.