Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
  1
Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 Shares     
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats
8 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Cold Fusion: 20 years later

Become a Fan
  (1 fan)
By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H2 12/1/08

opednews.com

How many are aware that "nuclear cold fusion"- is still an active research field? The initial 1989 claim, made by Fleischmann and Pons, was that a new kind of nuclear reactions can result from a chemical process, such as electrolysis. This claim has been rejected by most scientists but a group of over 100 researchers, from several countries, continues to report puzzling effects (1). They meet each year and share results of ongoing investigations. The next International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF15) will be in Rome (2). A small sample of a current debate (among CF researchers) can be seen at my own website devoted to cold fusion (3). As a nuclear physicist, I was highly excited by CF reports in 1989 and 1990.

Several years later I accepted the prevailing view that the field was pseudo-science. That was a mistake; more recent experiments seem to confirm the reality of new nuclear effects. I came to this conclusion after meeting some CF researchers and hearing their reports (at a mainstream 2002 nuclear physics conference). One experiment, described in an ICCF10 report (2003), fascinated me and I decided to replicate it, first working with Richard Oriani (in Minneapolis) and then at Montclair State University. Like Oriani, I observed tracks of nuclear particles in CR-39 detectors.  Results, however, were not reproducible (4). That is typical in the CF field.

What the field needs is a protocol for at least one simple, reproducible-on-demand, experiment yielding undeniable evidence of a nuclear effect due to a chemical process. Such a protocol has recently been offered by SPAWAR scientists (5). I was  one of several researchers who successfully replicated the SPAWAR experiment and observed similar results. This line of investigations is in progress (6). For the time being I do not agree with a tentative interpretation of SPAWAR results (7). Hopefully, the situation will become clear after ICCF15.

In my opinion, a field in which experiments conducted by competent scientists are not reproducible belongs to protoscience, not to science. My ICCF14 report (8) contains two flowcharts. Flowchart 1 shows what is needed to turn protoscience into science. But that is not sufficient to convince mainstream scientists that observed effects are real. What is needed is shown in Flowchart 2. The total cost of activities represented by this flowchart could be less than two or three million dollars. That is negligible in comparison with money already invested in hot fusion. It is probably too early to speculate about practical applications of CF. But it is not too early to organize a coordinated governmental effort for finding a clear yes-or-no answer about validity of at least one or two claims made by highly qualified researchers.

References
1) Click the "library"- at

 

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.htm

Ludwik Kowalski is a retired physics teacher (Professor emeritus, Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA). He is the author of two recently-published FREE books:

1) "Hell on Earth: Brutality and violence under the Stalinist regime" (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

What makes economics so difficult to learn?

Simplified macroeconomics

Stalin and Russian Orthodox Church

Supply and demand

Socialism Is Not Marxism: Extracts From a Website

Red Army During World War II

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 8 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

1) The commonly used name, "cold fusion,"... by Ludwik Kowalski on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:59:22 PM
I do nto know why my list of references was trucat... by Ludwik Kowalski on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:52:53 PM
List of references looked Ok in the preview. Why i... by Ludwik Kowalski on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:57:13 PM
I wish I had a pedagogically written tutorial for ... by Ludwik Kowalski on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:07:56 PM
Muon-catalyzed Fusion.Check out www.blacklightpowe... by Richard Volaar on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:15:40 AM
(This was sent as a provate email to the author.&n... by SteveGinIL on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:02:29 AM
Correction: The value of the pressure was supposed... by SteveGinIL on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM
Hi Steve,this was very valuable input for me. I ha... by Stefan Thiesen on Sunday, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:49:59 AM