Go to original article in Norwegian

New spring for cold fusion?
By Erik Tunstad, Editor
www.forskning.no
Translated by Svein Utne

Friday, March 30, 2007

Several apparently reproducible studies give ground for new but cautious acceptance of nuclear power from the benchtop.

"Nothing would be better than if Fleischmann and Pons were right," I wrote in a commentary in December of 2004. For those who do not know: we are talking about cold fusion.

Cold fusion is the dream of an unlimited amount of almost hazard-free nuclear power at room temperature from small locally producing units. Low energy nuclear reactions is the name the supporters call it, and are selling us the idea for how to solve the human energy problem ­ for all eternity.

So far it has only been a dream, and hardly that.

Some might remember, and others might have heard the story about how the physics- and energy-environment stood on its head some hectic weeks in the spring of 1989. British scientist Martin Fleischmann and American scientist Stanley Pons came out like lions when they announced their breakthrough in nuclear power. When the fall of 1989 came they were left out in the cold, and had hardly a blanket to keep warm. And absolutely no nuclear powered heater to use…

“The most spectacular self-delusion," I wrote, when I, 12 years later, looked at the case in 2002.

But some people never gave up, and some years later I needed to look at the case with new eyes. Several reports started to indicate that the research about cold fusion had been more bad science then directly wrong.

At the 233rd national meeting of the American Chemical Society, several reports were presented where the authors claim to be able to support that low energy nuclear reactions occur, and that the field has evolved and is now studied rigorously and with repeatable experimental data.

One of the questions people in this field need to ask is if these effects are really coming from nuclear reactions.

Pamela Mosier-Boss, an analytical chemist, has been working at the Space and Naval Warfare System Center in San Diego, California. Together with her colleagues she has now published an article where she says she can prove just that, that they really are nuclear reactions.

Her team registered particle emissions by the cathode in cells not very different from what Fleischmann and Pons used in their time. The cathode itself was made of gold plated nickel. Microscopic palladium particles were added to the heavy water in the cell.

When the researchers turned on the electricity, the palladium formed a thin layer around the gold cathode. This crystal lattice of palladium was then quickly saturated with deuterium (a heavy hydrogen isotope), and after only an hour the researchers could detect that high energy particles were coming out from the palladium/deuterium-electrode.*

The researchers think there is no doubt that this is nuclear reaction.

It is a little early to open the champagne just yet, but it is worthwhile to notice that Mosier-Boss and other LENR-enthusiasts (LENR stands for Low energy Nuclear Reaction) are less marginalized then they were just a few years ago.

"I feel it is a strong renewed interest in cold fusion," says cold fusion enthusiast George Miley from the University of Illinois. He considers the fact that cold fusion is now a participant in the annual American Chemical Society meeting as an extra sign that the field is about to reclaim its lost respect.

Cold fusion is still suffering from the bad press coverage it got after the Fleischmann/Pons incidents. But as I wrote then as a commentary back in 2004, if what they did was just bad research, and not completely insane research, then it might still have hope.

* Fleischmann and Pons were working at the time also with such a palladium/deuterium-system.

(In accordance with Title 17, Section 107, of the U.S. Code, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. New Energy Times has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of the original text in this article; nor is New Energy Times endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on New Energy Times may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.