Re: COLD FUSION

[CSAM Montclair State University <kowalskil@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

Herbert H Gottlieb wrote:

> I thought that most scentists now agree that cold fusion
> can never be achieved.  Is there any new evidence to the
> ... or is is it like the alchemists who spent many fruitless
>  decades trying to turn lead into gold?

I think there exists new evidence for three things:

1) excess heat is now reproducible and not only via electrolytic
loading. In using electrolytic loading one must be aware
success depends on many factors not known ten years ago.

2) Unusual nuclear processes do take place in metallic crystals,
such as palladium, heavily loaded with D2.

3) These processes have nothing in common with nuclear
fusion taking place in high temperature plasma. The ratio
of tritons over neutrons is completely different and production
of He-4 is not associated with emission of 23.8 MeV photons.

For more details see my short essays posted at:

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/

and, above all, references which are quoted in my essays. I
am an outsider who tries to learn from experts. I wish a new
panel were created by our scientific establishment to evaluate
the validity of recent findings. I do not want to be like those
who refused to look at what Galileo was showing because,
according to Aristotle, "... can never be achieved. "

Yes, cold fusion announced in March of 1989 may be BS,
but I would like to hear a statement of that nature from
honest experts. The first "official" pronouncement
(November 1989) should be revised to account for
research done since 1990. That is what I think.
Ludwik Kowalski