CFRL News No. 56 (2004. 4. 1)
Cold Fusion Research Laboratory (Japan) Dr. Hideo Kozima, Director
E-mail address; cf-lab.kozima@nifty.ne.jp
Websites; http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/
Newsのバックナンバーは上記ウェブサイトでご覧になれます
常温核融合現象CFP(The Cold Fusion
Phenomenon) は、「背景放射線に曝された、高密度の水素同位体(H and/or D)を含む固体中で起こる、核反応とそれに付随した事象」を現す言葉です。
CFRL News No.56をお送りします。この号では､次の記事を掲載しました。
1. Report
of CFRL に2編の論文が発表されました。
2. “The Cold Fusion Report” by S.B. Krivit and N. Winocur was published.
3. U.S. Department of Energy Will Review
15-Years of "Cold Fusion" Excess Heat and Nuclear Evidence
----------A letter from: New Energy Foundation, Inc. March 20, 2004
1. Report of CFRL に2編の論文が発表されました。
次の2編の論文がReports of CFRL Vol.1-5, 2-1 として発表されました。
最初の論文(1)はNHE研究発表会（1996年）で配った資料ですが、後に「常温核融合の発見」として本にしたわれわれの研究のエッセンスを含んでおり、ここで論文として発表しておくことが資料的にも重要であると思います。第二の論文（2）は、固体−核物理学（Solid State-Nuclear Physics）の基礎的な考え方を説明しています。この論文の考え方を使うと、ICCF10で発表したcfマター（ｃｆ-matter）や核変換における安定性効果を説明する物理を解明することができます。
表題、著者とAbstractを掲載します。論文はウェブサイト
http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Papers/paperr/paperr.html
に掲示されています。
(1) “Analysis of Experimental Data in Cold Fusion Phenomenon on TNCF
Model*” Reports of CFRL, 1-5, 1 (2004)
*Paper given at The Third Symposium of Basic Research Group in NHE Project, July 3 - 4, 1996, Tokyo, Japan.
KOZIMA Hideo
The TNCF model proposed by the author three years ago was applied to analyze typical quantitative experimental data obtained in these seven years after the discovery of the cold fusion phenomenon, i.e. the generation of the excess energy and the nuclear products unable to explain by usual physical and chemical processes occurring in solids with hydrogen isotopes.
Fundamental assumptions of the model, the existence of stable thermal neutrons trapped in cold fusion materials and their fusion reaction with lattice nuclei at boundary region were verified by the success of the analyses itself. Furthermore, the success of the model has given a consistent interpretation for the wide spread spectrum and the curiosity of the phenomenon denying understanding of them in the frame of the conventional science of nuclear physics, solid state physics and electrochemistry.
Predictions for the new phenomena are given to be tested by experiments
Reports of CFRL, 2-1, 1 (2004)
H. Kozima
First of all, it should be mentioned that the term "the Cold Fusion Phenomenon" (CFP) includes nuclear reactions and accompanying events occurring in solids with high densities of hydrogen isotopes (H and/or D) in ambient radiation.
Investigation of the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) during the past 14 years revealed that CFP occurs in localized regions at boundaries (and surfaces) in solids containing a high concentration of either deuterium or protium or both. The occurrence is characterized by sporadicity and only qualitative reproducibility. The former means unpredictability and the latter different effects for the same macroscopic initial conditions.
Success of a phenomenological model (the TNCF model) assuming the existence of thermal neutrons in solids to explain CFP as a whole both in deuterium and protium systems suggests the existence of an unexplored field between nuclear physics and solid state physics related to neutrons in solids. Examining excited states of neutrons near the separation level of a nucleus and also excited states of protons (deuterons) in solids, we show the existence of new states of neutrons (the cf-matter) in transition-metal deuterides and hydrides, typical materials for CFP, which are responsible for exotic nuclear reactions in solids including CFP.
An excited state of a neutron in a lattice nucleus (nucleus at each lattice point) interacts with another in adjacent lattice nuclei mediated by protons (deuterons) at interstices. The result is a corresponding neutron band. Neutrons in this band form a high-density neutron matter (cf-matter) at boundary/surface regions with neutron drops (clusters of neutrons and protons) that makes nuclear reactions in solids so different from those in free space.
2. “The Cold Fusion Report” by S.B. Krivit and N. Winocur
was published.
New Energy Times のS.B. Krivit and N. Winocurが冊子The Cold Fusion Report (58 pages)を発行しました。これは多くの研究者とのインターヴューに基ずいて常温核融合現象の研究の現状を概観したものです。New Energy Timesのウェブサイトには、常温核融合現象に関する情報とならんで、このＲｅｐｏｒｔについて紹介しています：
http://www.newenergytimes.com/
このＲｅｐｏｒｔにおける常温核融合現象の評価は、評論家の書いたものとしては良く纏まっていて、妥当なものと言えます。重水素系と軽水素系を取り扱っていて、前者では過剰熱、へリウム４、トリチウム、核変換（ＮＴ）が観測されているが、後者では過剰熱とＮＴしか観測されていないことを指摘しています。これは拙著「常温核融合の発見」（大竹出版、1997）の表3、あるいは“Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon.” (Ohtake Shuppan Inc., 1998)の表11.2と11.3で既に示した結果です。次の事実は指摘しておきたいと思います：この事実を含む多くの実験事実はTNCFモデルを使って説明されており、このモデルで仮定された諸「前提」の量子力学的な説明が最近の論文1,2)で試みられています。
1) H. Kozima, “CF‑Matter
and the Cold Fusion Phenomenon” Proc. ICCF10 (to be published). (Cf. CFRL
News No.52 and CFRL website
http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/News/NewsPrefaces/cfmatter.htm
).
2) H. Kozima, “Solid State-Nuclear Physics of Cold
Fusion Phenomenon” Reports of CFRL, 2-1, 1 (2004). (Cf. the
article 1 in this News).
下に引用したS.B. Krivitからのメールは、アメリカにおける常温核融合現象をめぐる雰囲気の変化を示していて、興味があります。（なお、次項も参照してください。）.
<
-----U. S. Department OF Energy to take a Second Look at Controversial Subject------
LOS ANGELES, March 22, 2004 -- Coinciding with the U.S. Department of
Energy's decision to re-open the case on cold fusion, investigators Steven
Krivit and Nadine Winocur have released the most current work on the history
and progress of the science.
"The Cold Fusion Report" is based
on personal communication with more than 50 scientists from around the world,
28 of whom Krivit interviewed on camera at the 10th International Conference on
Cold Fusion in Cambridge, Mass. As documented in the report, prominent U.S.
scientists verify the efficacy of this controversial discovery.
The report follows confirmation by U.S. Department
of Energy spokeswoman Jacqueline Johnson, as detailed in the
"Upfront" section of the latest issue of New Scientist, that
the department has committed to a second review of cold fusion. Another story,
tentatively titled "DOE Warms to Cold Fusion," will be published in
the April 1 Web edition of Physics Today, at www.physicstoday.org .
The U.S. Department of Energy discussed a re-evaluation
of cold fusion on Nov. 6, 2003, when representatives from the Office of Science
met with a team of established scientists who have studied cold fusion for 15
years. The scientists reported that cold fusion is real, with results that are
robust, verifiable and repeatable.
This review is expected to evaluate the credibility of current claims and, assuming they are verified, decide whether government funding should be directed to cold fusion research.
Although recent experimental results are promising,
their commercial viability remains unknown. Scientists hope that new research
will provide an answer to whether cold fusion may become a future energy
source.
The 53-page report includes quotes from such
scientists as Dr. Melvin Miles, former senior electrochemist of the Naval Air
Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake, Calif., who, commenting on an
eight-year series of U.S. Navy cold fusion experiments, concluded, "In our
opinion, these [findings] provide compelling evidence that the [cold fusion effects]
are real. This research area has the potential to provide the human race with a
nearly unlimited new source of energy. It is possible that [cold fusion] will
prove to be one of the most important scientific discoveries of this
century."
It also cites a senior member of the technical staff at the U.S. government's Sandia National Laboratories, James Corey, who expressed at the September 2003 Energetic Materials Intelligence Symposium that "an overdue revolution in science will arrive, [and] the reputations of cold fusion scientists and those who revile them may be reversed."
Although 3,000 scientific papers have been written
about cold fusion, progress is underreported in the scientific and popular
media because of a rift between cold fusion researchers and the scientific
establishment, which has refused in its journals to publish articles relating
to cold fusion.
In a September 2003 article, science columnist Sharon Begley of the Wall Street Journal noted of this phenomenon, "the only thing pathological about cold fusion is the way the scientific establishment has treated it."
"The Cold Fusion Report" includes
the following findings:
o More than 150 scientists worldwide, including 60 physicists, hold
that cold fusion a verifiable, reproducible low-temperature nuclear reaction,
free of harmful radiation and nuclear waste.
◇ Evidence that
the effect is reproducible and has been demonstrated in many laboratories
around the world, through a variety of methods.
◇ Citations from
five scientific papers which report correlation between excess energy and the
nuclear by-product helium-4, a key finding which verifies the claims of
low-temperature nuclear reactions. Historically, critics of cold fusion
erroneously assumed that "cold fusion" should emit the same nuclear
products as "hot fusion." Later research demonstrated that the hunt
for the "missing neutrons" was misdirected and that the dominant
product of cold fusion, instead, is helium-4.
"The Cold Fusion Report" also
includes evidence of the veracity of cold fusion in several previously
unreleased documents:
◇ A 1993 report to
the Pentagon by former JASONS chairman Richard Garwin and by chemistry
professor Nathan Lewis of Caltech that supports the findings of "excess
heat," providing key evidence for the cold fusion effect.
Four years earlier, Lewis tried unsuccessfully to
replicate the cold fusion effect and subsequently became one of the most
outspoken critics of cold fusion.
◇ A 1991 report by
chemistry professor Alan Bard of the University of Texas, vocal critic of cold
fusion who confirmed the presence of "excess heat" in an independent
laboratory experiment at SRI International.
◇ Two 1995 papers
by scientists from Amoco Production Co. and Shell Research reporting positive,
unambiguous evidence from their own cold fusion experiments.
Part 1 of "The Cold Fusion Report"
examines factors that led the scientific community to a premature rejection of
the validity of cold fusion and explains why developments in cold fusion have
gone virtually unreported. It reviews studies revealing that the early
experiments conducted by prominent laboratories that were presumed to have
debunked cold fusion were in fact seriously flawed.
Part 2 of the report discusses the current status of
cold fusion research. It reviews advances over the past 15 years and identifies
the major unanswered questions. The report concludes with a glimpse of possible
future applications for cold fusion technology.
"The Cold Fusion Report" was
reviewed for technical accuracy by two physicists with decades of experience in
conventional fusion, one of whom has studied cold fusion, as well. The other, a
skeptical plasma physicist who works for a major U.S. fusion research center,
described the report as "correct, readable, even and unbiased, suitable
for reaching physicists and educated people."
Steven Krivit
Nadine Winocur
(310) 721-5919 (Cell)
(310) 470-8189 (Office)
mailto:steven@newenergytimes.com
>
3. U.S. Department of Energy Will Review 15-Years of "Cold
Fusion" Excess Heat and Nuclear Evidence
----------A letter from: New Energy Foundation, Inc. March 20, 2004
(A Nonprofit, 501(c)(3) Corporation www.infinite-energy.com )-----------
次に引用するのは、Dr. David Nagelが転送してくれたもので、Ｄｒ．Ｅ．Ｍａｌｌｏｖｅ（New Energy Foundation）が不特定の読者に宛てて送ったメールです。前項の記事とも関連して、ＤＯＥの常温核融合現象再評価の可能性を報じています。
<
Exciting news that has circulated for about a month in the low-energy nuclear
reactions field (LENR, a.k.a. "cold fusion") has now been confirmed. The
DOE has agreed to perform a review of the entire "cold fusion" (LENR)
question. The U.S. Department of Energy has made a startling reversal of its
past refusal to evaluate with a fresh look the large body of experimental
evidence that now supports highly anomalous non-chemical magnitude excess heat
phenomena in some hydrogen systems, plus associated nuclear anomalies. The
details of how the review will be conducted and when it is to begin have not
yet been released formally, but it is expected to be completed by the end of
2004.
News of this major DOE reversal
comes at a time of growing concern about present and future energy resources,
as well as debate over funding for controlled thermonuclear fusion research,
that is, "hot" fusion. It also comes at a time when much discussion
of the "hydrogen economy" and fuel cells fills the media. LENR
research suggests, by contrast, that orders-of-magnitude more powerful energy
reserves are associated with hydrogen than conventionally understood chemical
energy models would allow. This ought to please open-minded environmentalists
and others concerned about the future of the energy-environment problem and
potential impacts on global climate.
Just as after the original
announcements by chemists Drs. Martin Fleischmann and B. Stanley Pons at the
University of Utah on March 23, 1989 and by physicist Steven E. Jones at
Brigham Young University subsequently, this disclosure by the U.S. DOE is
certain to prompt intense controversy and expectation. The great difference
this time, however, is that a much larger body of excellent published
experimental work now exists from researchers around the globe, which the DOE
should be compelled to examine in its review. By right, this review should have
happened a decade ago < but better late than never. In our view, the body of
supporting evidence for large magnitude excess heat and nuclear products in
"cold fusion" is so solid at this time that it would essentially be
intellectually impossible for an objective DOE panel to come to other than a
very positive conclusion about the evidence and the prospect of technological
applications. Of course, it is quite possible that bureaucratic, unethical
machinations will again occur that will preclude such a reasonable outcome. We
hope that does not happen.
Another difference between now and
1989: there are now operational experimental electrolytic and other excess
energy cells in various laboratories in the US and abroad; these are producing
repeatable, verifiable excess energy that cannot possibly be explained by
ordinary chemical reactions. In some cases, for example, one watt of electrical
input power goes into a closed cell and an output power of 3 to 4 watts of heat
occurs for a prolonged time. Much more powerful cells have also been operated.
There is evidence of helium-4 and helium-3 production, tritium production,
low-level neutron emissions, charged particles, light emission spectral
anomalies, the formation of unusual chemical compounds, and even the transmutation
of heavy elements in what seems to be a mix of fusion- and fission-like
reactions. Laser radiation, ultrasonic activation, and magnetic fields, among a
variety of other stimuli, have been found to enhance LENR reactions. It appears
that an entirely new realm of physics and chemistry is suggested by the
expanding body of experimental evidence. There are almost certainly
implications for biology and medicine too. Many of the scientific papers from
the LENR field and other historical materials can now be freely downloaded from
the websites: www.lenr-canr.org and from
www.infinite-energy.com.
The confirmation of the DOE review
came first in a draft article by Physics Today science journalist Toni
Feder. This draft was circulated to several
LENR scientists, critics, and others who gave input to Ms. Feder. New Energy Foundation
provided input to Ms. Feder and welcomed receipt of the draft article from her.
The article is to appear in Physics Today's April 2004 issue, which should be
out by the first week of April. Physics Today is published by the
American Physical Society, an organization which by-and-large has not been open
to the study of LENR phenomena, though it has allowed small sessions on the
subject to be organized at its national meetings. In fact, the late LENR
theorist, Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger, resigned from the APS in the early
1990s because the APS journals refused to publish his theories about the
possible mechanisms of cold fusion.
The first popular journal to
publish the news of the impending DOE review is, however, the UK-based New
Scientist. In its March 20, 2004 issue, which was received in the mail today
(3/20) at New Energy Foundation here in Concord, New Hampshire, freelance
journalist Ben Daviss reports in a short article in the "Upfront: News in
perspective" section (p.6), that James Decker, deputy director of the
DOE's Office of Science, "has pledged to review evidence from the past 15
years of research in the controversial field." Daviss also writes,
"The study could be completed by January 2005 and might open up the
possibility of funding for cold fusion research projects."
There is additional high-level
scientific support for the DOE review: Former DOE Office of Science Director,
Dr. Mildred Dresselhaus (an MIT Professor of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science) is quoted in the Physics Today article: "I think
scientists should be open-minded. Historically, many things get overturned with
time." Prof. Dresselhaus was on the original ERAB (Energy Research
Advisory Board) Cold Fusion Panel in 1989, which rendered a highly negative and
very premature report on November 1, 1989. Though over the years she has not
been one of the highly antagonistic critics of LENR with which that panel was
packed, she did not assist approaches to the DOE for LENR reconsideration,
during her brief position at DOE in the Clinton Administration years. This is a
welcome turn-around for MIT Prof. Dresselhaus, for which we commend her.
The initiative that helped launch
the impending review was a letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham from
MIT Professor Peter Hagelstein, a cold fusion theorist since 1989. Prof.
Hagelstein chaired ICCF10, The Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion,
which was held in Cambridge, MA and in part at MIT, August 24-29, 2003. Solid
demonstrations of excess power in electrolytic cells were exhibited on the MIT
campus by two scientific groups. It was shortly after ICCF10 that Prof.
Hagelstein wrote to Spencer Abraham. New Energy Foundation's journal, Infinite
Energy Magazine, decided to published Hagelstein's letter in its
November/December 2003 issue (Vol.9, No.52, p.46).
Prof. Hagelstein told the U.S.
Secretary of Energy that Wall Street Journal reporter Sharon Begley, who had
attended ICCF10 for a few days, concluded in her "Science Journal"
column of September 5, 2005, "that perhaps most problematic about the
conference was not what was presented and discussed at the conference, but the
lack of interest on the part of the scientific community." The
Begley column was titled: "Cold Fusion Isn't Dead, It's Just Withering
from Scientific Neglect." The door to DOE was evidently further opened by
Randall Hekman, who is an MIT graduate (1969), a former judge, and an energy
entrepreneur (Hekman Industries). Hekman knows Spencer Abraham and Republican
Congressman Vern Ehlers from Michigan, who is a physicist. Ehlers is quoted in
the Physics Today article that it is time for a new review "because there
is enough work going on and some of the scientists in the area are from
respected institutions."
One potential minefield for an
honest review of the LENR evidence, apart from the bias and well known
hostility of the pathological skeptics, is the raising of the straw man of the
alleged "requirement" for comprehensive microphysical explanation of
LENR phenomena before the experimental data can be accepted. That is a
well-known anti-scientific tactic that the pathological skeptics have employed
for years. There have been many proposed theories to explain the evidence <
both the excess heat and the nuclear products - but no single theory appears
yet to encompass ALL the evidence. That is not an unusual condition on the
frontiers of physics and science in general, which the critics pretend to
forget. So, our strongest advice for a fundamental ground rule for the DOE
review is that the review should focus primarily on determining this key
finding: the validity of the evidence for non-chemical magnitude excess heat
and nuclear anomalies < as well as any other physical anomalies associated
with the systems, such as anomalies in light emission. Involved judgments about
how the verified phenomena operate should be reserved for the future.
In May 1991, this author (Eugene
Mallove) wrote in Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion
Furor (John Wiley & Sons):
³After reviewing mounting evidence from cold fusion experiments, I am persuaded
that it provides a compelling indication that a new kind of nuclear process is
at work. I would say that the evidence is *overwhelmingly compelling* that cold
fusion is a real, new nuclear process capable of significant excess power
generation...There is yet no proved nuclear explanation for the excess heat.
That excess heat exists is amply proved.² (From the Preface, p. xv)
This conclusion of 1991, in the
first book in the world which presented a positive evaluation of the discovery,
was based on already very, very solid evidence. Now the DOE review panel has
much more evidence to back up that same conclusion. It remains valid in 2004 as
it was in 1991. Another excellent book, which reviews the entire cold
fusion saga, is by MIT-trained engineer Charles Beaudette (MIT '52), Excess
Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2002 edition, available at www.infinite-energy.com)
Furthermore, it is the view of
this author (perhaps not shared by many in the LENR field) that the DOE review
as part of its task should examine other significant New Energy-related
research that has been published, beyond what is ordinarily confined within the
LENR field (www.lenr-canr.org). This research
is almost certain to shed significant light on what has been found within LENR
proper. In particular, there are three primary websites where such
closely-related technical information and can be obtained:
www.infinite-energy.com
(New Energy Foundation, Inc.)
www.blacklightpower.com
(BlackLight Power Corporation)
www.aetherometry.com (Labofex and
Aurora Biophysics Research Inst.)
As an additional assist to the
prospective DOE review, a Memorandum to the White House from this author
(requested by President Clinton's staff in February 2000, following the urging
of our supporter Sir Arthur C. Clarke) has been posted at www.infinite-energy.com. Review
panelists and concerned citizens should examine this document. It provides a
concise historical and technical overview of the scientific problem of energy
from water, titled "The Strange Birth of the Water Fuel Age."
Unfortunately, neither the Clinton Administration nor the present Bush
Administration acted on the suggestions of this Memorandum, until the present
impending review, which was separately prompted by Professor Hagelstein's
letter. We sincerely praise U.S. Secretary of Energy Spenser Abraham for
facilitating this landmark decision to launch a review.
Concerned citizens (and especially
MIT graduates) should also examine the 55-page report about the events at MIT
in the early days of the cold fusion controversy < a free downloadable
pdf-file at www.infinite-energy.com
As a final note: Though we very
much appreciate that DOE will be carrying out a review of the LENR evidence, we
do not need DOE's imprint and approval to realize that we are dealing with a
critical frontier of scientific and technological research that has been
validated long ago. Funding for New Energy research is needed NOW, not in 9 or
10 months! The DOE review is in some sense at best a corrective to a severe
"political problem" that has occurred within the house of official
science and in mainstream scientific publication. Therefore, we urge readers of
this message to consider charitable contributions to the New Energy Foundation
(a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation). These contributions already have made
possible scientific research grants to New Energy investigators < especially
within LENR, as well as on-going scientific publication efforts: books,
magazines, video tapes, DVD's, etc. For example, New Energy Foundation helped
fund the ICCF10 conference in Cambridge, MA last August, which helped lead to
the DOE review breakthrough. ICCF11, which will be in Marseilles, France
October 31-November 5, 2004 (www.iccf11.org)
is also in need of financial support from New Energy Foundation.
Sincerely,
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove (MIT SB'69, SM'70; Harvard Sc.D. 1975)
President, New Energy Foundation, Inc.
(A Non-profit, 501(c)(3) Corporation)
Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine
PO Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816
www.infinite-energy.com, editor@infinite-energy.com
Tel: 603-485-4700, Fax: 603-485-4710
>