Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: cold fusion



I am sorry for the typing error in the URL. It has been
corrected below. Please delete my previous message.
********************************************

I started composing an article and want to share the beginning
of the first draft with those who might be interested. Otherwise
simply delete this message.
Ludwik Kowalski

In revisiting the cold fusion field, after not knowing what was
happening there for about twelve years, I discovered an interesting
issue. It is connected with what is usually called the methodology
of science, the issue of reproducibility. Does it make any sense
to say "I am sure that the effect X exists and I know that it is not
reproducible?" Those who followed the so-called "cold fusion
episode" certainly remember that in 1989, when the discovery of
Fleischmann and Pons (1) was announced, the number of teams
confirming the finding was about the same as the number of teams
which could not confirm it. The claim was that a metal loaded with
deuterium ions starts generating thermal energy which can not be
attributed to chemical reactions.

The situation is much better now (2) but the irreproducibility has
not been totally eliminated. Here is how the issue was addressed
in (3): "Most scientists hold the view that anomalous effects in
deutrated metals can be explained by experimental errors. Some
scientists go so far as attributing positive results to self-deception
and even fraud and consign this phenomenon to the realms of
Langmuir's 'Pathological Science.' Do to the lack of experimental
reproducibility, this field remains practically defenseless against
such attacks. To our knowledge, no laboratory can provide detailed
experimental instructions to another laboratory and guarantee the
reproducibility of the excess heat effect. Nevertheless, considerable
knowledge has been gained concerning experimental conditions
that favor the excess heat effect. . . Our experiments indicate that
the lack of reproducibility is due largely to unknown and
uncontrolled variables contained within the palladium stock. ...

[Our results] have been used to support both sides of the scientific
controversy regarding anomalous effect in deuterated metals. Our
first set of experiments conducted over a 6-month period (25 March
- 7 September 1989) produced no significant evidence for any excess
enthalpy produced. . . [Other groups] also reported no evidence for
excess heat, thus greatly impacting the general scientific opinion
regarding this field. All three [other] groups discontinued their
experiments after only a few months of investigation.

We continued to investigate other palladium samples and eventually
observed significant evidence for excess enthalpy from the use of
Johnson-Matthey palladium rods. In retrospect, it would be
impossible for any research group to adequately investigate the
multitude of variables involved with this field in only a few months.
These variables range from the palladium metallurgy to the D2O
purity, the type of electrolyte and concentrations, the electrochemical
cell, the electrode arrangement, the type of calorimeter, proper
scaling of the experiments, the handling of metals, the current
densities used, the duration of the experiments, the loading of
deuterium into the palladium, the use of additives, and so on."

This was written in 1996, seven years after the field of cold
fusion was declared to be unscientific (4,5). I strongly recommend
(2) to those who are interested in the issue of reproducibility, the
issue of errors, etc. in the context of the "cold fusion episode."
The quotes are used because I now realize that naming the
unknown phenomenon "cold fusion" was unfortunate. The new
(awkward) name is LENR-CANR area, where LNER stands for
"low energy nuclear reactions" and CANR stands for "chemically
assisted nuclear reactions."

Yes, I know that the "canr" contradicts everything we know about
atoms and their nuclei. On the other hand I believe that those who
presented experimental evidence of nuclear processes at low
temperatures are not charlatans. In the literature I also see the
term AE (anomalous energy) being used instead of "cold fusion."
That is a good name if you do not want to deal with nuclear
aspects of the CF (cold fury) phenomenon. I am now aware
that the discovery of CF was not a passing episode. Several
hundred people have been working in the LENR-CANR areas
after the big excitement of 1989-1991. Their work means more
to me than what was done in the earlier period. I hope it will
soon be summarized and evaluated by APS or ACS or DOE.
References:
1) M. Fleischmann, B.S.Pons and M. Hawkins,
J. Electroanal. Chem., 261, 301, 1989.
2) Edmund Storms, 2001, "Cold fusion: an objective
assessment," downloaded from the Internet site
http://lenr-canr.org/Features.htm
3) M.H. Miles et al., 1996, "Anomalous effects in deuterated
systems," downloaded from the Internet site
http://lenr-canr.org/Features.htm
4) J.R. Huizenga, "Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the
Century," Oxford University Press, 2nd edittion, Oxford,
1993. (The ERAB report to the DOE was called "Cold Fusion
Research. A Report of the Energy Research Advisory Board
to the United States Department of Energy," John Huizenga
and Norman Ramsey, Co-chairman, November 1989.)
5) E.F. Mallove, "Fire from Ice: Searching for Truth Behind the
Cold Fusion Furror," John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1991.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.