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



Do you remember the radio-talk file about CF that some
of us downloaded after Larry Smith posted the address?

http://audio.kuer.org:8000/file/rw112702.mp3

One of the interviewed scientists was M. McKurbe from SRI
(Stanford Research Institute). I just finished reading the
paper which he coauthored in 2000 and I am impressed.
The paper can be downloaded, as a pdf file, from

http://lenr-canr.org/Features.htm

I admit that many details were not clear to me; the paper
should be evaluated by electrochemists and material
scientists. But the overall conclusions are very impressive.
Palladium was loaded with deuterium by two methods:
electrochemically and in a heated pressurized gas
container. Control experiments were conducted using
ordinary hydrogen. The previously reported anomalies
(see below) were observed with deuterium but not with
ordinary hydrogen.

1) Generation of heat (in excess of known sources).
2) Accumulation of 4He (and some 3He) atoms.
3) The isotopic 3He/4He ratio in accumulated products is
is orders of magnitude higher than in helium from air.
4) A nearly linear relation between the rates of excess
heating and the rate of accumulation of 4He.
5) The slope of the line shows that the amount of energy
per accumulated atom is about 76% of what would be
carried away by a 23.8 MeV photon in hot d+d fusion.

Let me remind you that the absence of 23.8 MeV gamma
rays (in CF) is a well established experimental facts. One
of the authors, Peter Hagelstein from MIT, did write four
papers (back in 1990?) on how energy can possibly
appear in the form of crystal oscillations instead of photons.
But no reference to these theoretical papers was made
in his recent overview of the CF field at:

http://lenr-canr.org/index.htm

Referring to the 76% outcome the authors write: " Evidence
for near-surface retention of 4He in the lattice can be used
to accommodate the discrepancy between measured and
expected yields of 4He." In other words, a sizable fraction
of 4He was presumably not squeezed out from the material
in the process of analyzing it. Let me add that they used a
mass spectrometer capable of distinguishing 4He atoms
from D2 molecules.

My main question is why those who criticize CF refer to
what happened in 1989 and not to recent work of highly
competent scientists? I suppose that many journals still
consider CF to be pseudo-science and refuse publishing
work done in that field. And that similar attitude exists
among funding agencies. Is this a correct guess? I plan
to attend the 10th International Conference of Cold
Fusion next summer and find out. Information about the
conference can be found at:

http://lenr-canr.org/Features.htm

By the way, in another paper the CF was referred to as
the FP effect, to honor those who discovered it. Do you
think that the field will be reevaluated for us, and for
general public, by an appointed panel? They did it in
1989, why not now when so much more is known?
Who should be expected to do this?
Ludwik Kowalski