1) The commonly used name, "cold fusion," was unfortunate.  But that is how the field is often called. I would be happy to elaborate on this, if asked. Most researchers refer to this field as CMNS (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science) or as LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). Use these acronyms to google.

2) The two flowcharts, illustrating evolution from protoscience to science is at the link shown below. In my opinion, CMNS is still protoscience. Will it become science at ICCF15 (next International Conference on Cold Fusion in Rome)? This is possible but not certain. 

3) I hope the link will display the content of a jpg file saved at Montclair State University web server. I do not know how to include a picture into a comment. Does the OpEdNews software allow for this? 

<  click here >

by Ludwik Kowalski (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 133 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:59:22 PM

  (0+)

I do nto know why my list of references was trucated. Let me post it again, slightly modified.

References
1) Click the “library” at

by Ludwik Kowalski (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 133 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:52:53 PM

  (0+)

List of references looked Ok in the preview. Why is it trucated in the comment.

Where is the tutorial for users? Let me try again (inserting spaces in URLs)

References
1) Click the “library” at h t t p ://www.lenr-canr.org
2) h t t p ://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Cfcom/Histry/ICCF/iccf15his.htm
3) h t t p ://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/354dash_little.html
4) h t t p://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/336cat.html
5) http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm#aps  (Scroll down to “Analysis and Perspectives” at the end of this publication. Also see
h t t p ://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET22.htm
6) Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al. “Use of CR-39 in Pd/D copdeposition experiments,” Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 40, 293 (2007)
7) Ludwik Kowalski, “Interpreting SPAWAR-type Pits: Comments,”  Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., November, 2008
8) h t t p://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/352iccf14.html

 

by Ludwik Kowalski (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 133 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:57:13 PM

  (0+)

I wish I had a pedagogically written tutorial for new subscribers. Am I the only one who is frustrated ? 

I suspect that the above list of references will look better if the <P> tag inserted, to impose blank lines. Let me try this below. Also <B> and </B> to make "References" bold. Also < > around each URL.

<P><B>References</B></P>

<P> 1) Click the “library” at < h t t p ://www.lenr-canr.org > </P>
<P> 2) < h t t p ://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Cfcom/Histry/ICCF/iccf15his.htm > </P>
<P> 3) < h t t p ://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/354dash_little.html > </P>
<P> 4) < h t t p://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/336cat.html ></P>
<P> 5) < http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm#aps  </P> (Scroll down to “Analysis and Perspectives” at the end of this publication. Also see
<P>h t t p ://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET22.htm</P>
<P> 6) Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al. “Use of CR-39 in Pd/D copdeposition experiments,” Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 40, 293 (2007) </P>
<P> 7) Ludwik Kowalski, “Interpreting SPAWAR-type Pits: Comments,”  Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., November, 2008 </P>
<P> 8) h t t p://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/352iccf14.html ></P>

by Ludwik Kowalski (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 133 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:07:56 PM

  (0+)

Muon-catalyzed Fusion.

Check out www.blacklightpower.com, particularly Mills' explanation of electrons as 2-d "orbitspheres," as opposed to semi-discrete quanta.  Interesting stuff, but the math could just be a bunch of smoke...I would appreciate a pair of eyes that could examine his equations and render them sane, or nuts.

Mills explains CF as a hybrid reaction, somewhere between nuclear and chemical -- but he had to invent harmonic orbits BELOW the H 1 orbit.

His HQ is just right over the border and down the road near Princeton.

by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 151 diaries, 478 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:15:40 AM

  (0+)

(This was sent as a provate email to the author.  The author suggested posting it as a comment here.)

This is in regards to the spotty reproduceability in the field of CF research.  I may be able to shine some light on that.

At the time the CF debate began, back in 1989, I was working as a mechanical design engineer at an R&D facility for American Can Company, which had a VERY good and extensive technical library and several metallurgists on staff.  I was fascinated by the possibility and began a discussion of it one day at lunch with my boss.  I had intended when entering college years and years before to become a nuclear physicist and may have at some time, if I had followed that path, have done some work on hot fusion.  But my life's path went in other directions.  Such a possibility as cold fusion seemed intriguing to me that day in the cafeteria, listening to what he had to say.

My boss said he had had a discussion about it with some of the metallurgists.  He said the metallurgists said that the physicists would not find what they were looking for, because of something the physicists were ignorant of and blind to.  They said that they knew quite a bit about Palladium and the very interesting qualities it had, especially in regards to a phenomenon known as "hydrogen in metals".  He said that they were more or less laughing at physicists, saying they didn't know that different ISOTOPES and different crystalline structures of the Palladium would yield completely different results, and that the physicists wouldn't have a clue about this.  They predicted that the physicists would flounder because of not being aware of all the work the metallurgists had done in studies on hydrogen in metals.

It seems hydrogen in metals causes embrittlement in the metals and therefore was of great interest, since failing embrittled metals is something that needed to be understood and prevented and/or dealt with.  Hydrogen is basically sucked up into the crystalline lattices of metals in HUGE amounts. much much more than anyone would conceive.  Evidently the pressures created by the hydrogen causes cracking at the molecular level, weakening the metals and causing failures that needed to be understood. Metallurgists had focused on determining just how this is done.  It is important to note that they were only studying this to learn out how to deal with it as a problem to be solved, not for reasons of physics experiments or fusion.

Shortly thereafter I checked out some reference books on hydrogen in metals from the company technical library.  Most of the articles were technical/scientific papers that had been presented at conferences in years past.  In reading the papers, I was struck by how much hydrogen was able to be absorbed into the metals.  And Palladium and Platinum were the two metals that were able to absorb the most hydrogen.  It has been far too long for me to recall which books I read, and the R&D center is long since closed down.  But in one paper, there was reference to the amount of pressure was being produced inside the crystalline lattice of the metal in question, which I cannot remember for certain, but I do have the recollection that it was Palladium.  The pressure was stated in kPa, which I was not really conversant with.  When I converted the pressure to psi, I was startled to see that it amounted to 1x107 psi.  After all this time, I now wonder if I was correct in my calculations.  But that is what the conversion came out then.  And I DID double-check my figures then - but not being familiar with kPa, I have never been comfortable that I did the conversion correctly.  I remember asking myself if the presenter even realized what he had found.

That value really raised my eyebrows.  I knew from reading years before on hot fusion that 10 million psi was the pressure the hot fusion experiments were designed to achieve and sustain.  I remember thinking that it would have definitely been sufficient to cause fusion within the lattice structure.  I do believe that this pressure would cause the effects seen in cold fusion - but NOT if the wrong isotope was used.

In all the years since then, I have expected someone to come out with something about this, that some researchers would find out that they HAD to have certain isotopes and no others, and certain crystalline structures and no others.  I figured that once known, processes would be developed to produce sufficient quantities of the correct material.  Evidently that has not happened.  Your article in OpEd News brought this to mind again, and I am presenting it to you in the hopes it is helpful.

I thought at the time that Fleischman and Pons got a raw deal, especially since SOME other researchers were able to see similar results.  I have been aware that the research since then has more or less been undertaken overseas, and I know that none of those rational scientists would not be pursuing this if there weren't some positive results cropping up now and again.

But maybe this clue is what can allow researchers to get reproduceable results.  Maybe this is the one important variable no one has considered critical.  The metallurgists certainly seemed to think so.

I myself have no idea about what isotope of Palladium might be best, but if you and others are getting results that are not reproducible, this metallurgical phenomenon might shed some light on your work.  To this day, I wonder if those metallurgists are still laughing under their breath at physicists.  I am sure most of them are now retired or dead, as most were in their 40s and 50s at that time.

(The author's response:

"Thank you for the interesting message, Steve. I suggest you publish it as an OpEdNews comment, next to what I posted. This might generate an interesting discussion. Yes, irreproducibility seems to depend of the metal, some batches are good and others are not, even from the same supplier.")

by SteveGinIL (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:02:29 AM

  (0+)

Correction: The value of the pressure was supposed to read 1 times ten to the 7th power.  It showed as 1x107 somehow.

by SteveGinIL (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM

  (0+)

Hi Steve,

this was very valuable input for me. I had practically forgotten about it, but back in the early 90s - I think 1992 - when I was still a Physics Student, I attended a lecture at our University (Muenster, Germany) on Cold Fusion. The presenter was a Physics Ph.D., and it seemed all very plausible. Now in that particular institution there was a metallurgy section within the Physics dept., and I do seem to recall that research results relating to hydrogen induced corrosion of pipelines were a topic. These effects are the main reason why despite perfect natural conditions a joint European-African hydrogene economy is so difficult to achieve. I really have to look up my old notes and see if I can still find that video. The pressure indeed would be sufficient. Whether that could ever lead to any sort of energy providing application is a different issue, of course. I would much appreciate if you could point out some relevant metallurgic literature.

by Stefan Thiesen (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:49:59 AM

  (0+)