Nuclear reactions in condensed matter – basis of a new energy

This is a re-post of an article published May 19, 2019 by Vitaly Alekseevich Kirkinsky at REGNUM in honor of the 30th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion.

Details: https://regnum.ru/news/innovatio/2631134.html
Any use of materials is allowed only if there is a hyperlink to REGNUM news agency.

A remote report by the leading technologist of the Institute of Geology and Mineralogy of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, named after Academician V. S. Sobolev, Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Vitaly Alekseevich Kirkinsky presented “Cold nuclear fusion and transmutation of elements: experiments, theory, patents, natural manifestations” at the conference “Cold fusion – 30 years: results and prospects”, held in Moscow on March 23, 2019.

“Cold fusion – 30 years: results and prospects” held in Moscow on March 23, 2019.

* * *

Vitaly Alekseevich Kirkinsky

I became interested in cold fusion right after 30 years ago when the radio news of electrochemists Martin Fleishman and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah, USA, was announced on the radio. They argued that during electrolysis of lithium salt solutions in heavy water, a yield of neutrons and excess energy of about 1 watt was observed at the palladium electrode, as well as an increase

in tritium concentration in the solution, which, in their opinion, was caused by nuclear fusion of helium from deuterium. This did not fit into the existing ideas of physicists at all, since such reactions could only be carried out at enormous energies. The opinion was that this data was the result of an error or a fraud. There were very serious arguments in favor of this: no products of nuclear reactions were detected, an increase in the tritium content could be caused by its accumulation upon evaporation of heavy water, and the energy release should have been accompanied by a huge neutron flux.

According to the accepted theory, the implementation of thermonuclear fusion requires temperatures of more than 100 million degrees. The fundamental idea of ​​plasma heating and confinement in toroidal chambers placed in a magnetic field – TOKAMAKs was proposed by academicians A. D. Sakharov and I. E. Tamm 70 years ago. The practical implementation of this idea ran into extreme technical difficulties. According to Academician E.P. Velikhov, more than $ 40 billion has already been spent on these works in our country. Russia is participating in the ITER international fusion reactor development program, $20 billion is planned to be spent on the first stage only. By 2027, it is planned to build an experimental reactor and begin experiments with plasma, which can give the answer – whether it will be possible to create the necessary conditions for thermonuclear combustion. If successful, the test results will be the basis for the project even larger – a demonstration thermonuclear reactor DEMO. The DEMO experience in turn will serve as the basis for the design of the first experimental industrial station. However, even if all the scientific and technical problems in half a century can be solved, there are big doubts about the economic feasibility and safety of obtaining energy in fusion reactors.

Given the enormous cost of the project, the life of the reactors due to the strong neutron flux, judging by the experience of operating less powerful tokamaks, will be only a few months. Neutron-free reactions require even higher plasma temperatures and much more expensive reactors.

According to the technical conditions, the thermonuclear reaction can be maintained only in large-volume reactors. A single filling of the working chamber of the reactor with a volume of 830 cubic meters. meters with a mixture of deuterium and tritium will cost more than a billion dollars. Only due to the decay of radioactive tritium monthly losses amount to more than $ 160 thousand. Tritium requires atomic reactors. Diffusion of deuterium and tritium through the walls of the reactor or microcracks can lead to the formation of an explosive mixture with atmospheric oxygen and the explosion of a reactor with serious consequences.

The possibility of implementing nuclear fusion at low temperatures could open up tremendous prospects for energy.

About a hundred groups around the world tried to reproduce the experiments of Fleischmann and Pons [30]. The most convincing results were obtained in Japan [31–33]. Yoshiaki Arata and Yui-Chang Zhang found an excess heat yield of 200–500 MJ / cm3 and the formation of a significant amount of helium in a deuterated palladium black placed in a closed palladium ampoule, which served as a cathode for 5,000 hours of electrochemical experiments. It should be specially noted that the Helium-3 / Helium-4 ratio in the experimental products was 4–5 orders of magnitude higher than atmospheric. Similar experiments were replicated in the laboratory of the Electric Power Research Institute in the USA [34]. The release of excess heat and its correlation with the release of tritium and helium was confirmed. The ratio of Helium-3 / Helium-4 in the products of the experiments was 44,000 times higher than atmospheric.

These and many other results were not published in peer-reviewed journals, but mainly in the materials of international and national conferences. Official science considered them unreliable. Even 23 years after the first report of a new phenomenon in the obituary about the death of Martin Fleischman in the authoritative journal Nature, it was written:

“… cold fusion is now regarded as one of the most famous cases of what the chemist Irwin Langmuir called pathological science: science of things that aren`t so.”

The main reason for the persistence in ignoring the new scientific direction was the impossibility of a theoretical explanation of the experimental data. As the whole history of the development of science shows, new phenomena are recognized only after the conditions for their reliable reproduction are found and a theoretical explanation is given on the basis of the fundamental laws of nature. Building a theory of the phenomenon is an essential stage of a major discovery. For this reason, the development of the theoretical foundations of the mechanism and kinetics of nuclear reactions in condensed matter at low energies is no less important than the detection and confirmation of anomalous phenomena. For practical use in the energy sector, it is necessary to increase the intensity of nuclear reactions by a factor of millions in comparison with the first experiments, which is extremely difficult to implement without a theoretical understanding of the phenomenon.

Since 1989, more than a hundred works have been published in which the most diverse hypotheses have been expressed about the causes of the “Fleischmann and Pons effect.” Links and their classification is given by us in [2, 5]. Most authors were limited to assumptions made in qualitative form. In a survey [35], the theorists of the United States and Russia concluded:

“Despite considerable efforts, it was not possible to create a theory of cold nuclear fusion that quantitatively or even qualitatively describes experimental results. Models in which it is stated that they have solved this task are far from achieving the goal. ”

At many subsequent international conferences, it was noted that the creation of the theory of nuclear reactions in condensed matter is a task of paramount importance.

Experimenters carried out and still conduct experiments mostly by the inefficient trial and error method. At the 9th Beijing Cold Synthesis Conference in 2003, I asked Martin Fleishman a question; what, in his opinion, is more important for the development of this direction: experiments or theory? He answered briefly: “Both” .

* * *

From the very beginning of our research, we set as the main task the development of the theory of nuclear reactions at low energies, combining this with experiments.

The problem of overcoming the Coulomb barrier is covered in articles published in Europhysics Letters [2, 3], a monograph [5] and a number of articles in International Conference Materials [6, 7, 10–12].

Our model of the mechanism of nuclear reactions is based on taking into account the dynamic screening of proton (deuteron) charges by external electronic orbitals of metal atoms. Both semiclassical and quantum mechanical models were used. Several hundred thousand numerical experiments were carried out using molecular dynamics methods at random initial positions of deuterons during their diffusion in the crystal structures of a number of metals, which showed how close they are to each other. It turned out that, although the average distance between them is approximately the same as in the D2 molecule – 0.74 Ǻ, several percent of the pairs come closer to a distance of less than 0.1 Ǻ, up to 0.01 Ǻ. At such distances, nuclear fusion occurs due to the tunnel effect, which is calculated according to the formulas generally accepted in quantum mechanics. Calculations using these models for the first time allowed us to obtain quantitative data on the probability and rate of nuclear reactions of hydrogen isotopes in a number of metals: palladium, titanium, lanthanum, alpha- and gamma-iron [5–8, 11, 12, 14].

Together with the theoretical physicist of Altai State University, candidate of physical and mathematical sciences A. I. Goncharov, we performed a computer simulation of the behavior of hydrogen atoms in a medium of free electrons in metals [13]. A previously unknown phenomenon has been discovered: the formation of unsteady complexes of protons or deuterons with orbits of electrons rotating around them in varying size and shape. In size, they are 3–4 orders of magnitude smaller than a hydrogen atom and only one order larger than a neutron. We called them miniatoms or quasineutrons. Due to their electrically neutrality, in a short time of their existence, they can freely move in the crystalline structures of metals and approach the nuclei of hydrogen or metal isotopes at distances at which nuclear interaction occurs due to the tunnel effect. This solves the key problem of overcoming the Coulomb barrier. The calculated reaction rate between deuterons in palladium deuteride taking into account the formation of miniatoms is 6 orders of magnitude higher than previously obtained on the basis of the model of dynamic deformation of electronic orbitals.

Our calculations allowed us to find ways to intensify nuclear reactions of deuterium in the crystal structure of metal hydrides. It was possible to find a nontrivial and effective way to intensify nuclear interaction due to isostructural phase transitions, the probability of overcoming the barrier at which increases significantly, which increases the rate of nuclear fusion by several orders of magnitude.

The reasons for the extremely strong (tens of orders of magnitude) attenuation of neutron and hard gamma radiation during nuclear reactions in metal hydrides and deuterides at low temperatures are justified in comparison with thermonuclear processes in plasma. This is due to the mechanism of nuclear reactions occurring through the intermediate stage of the formation of miniatoms. The characteristic features of such reactions in metal hydrides (deuterides) and their effect on radioactive radiation are considered in [21]. It has been shown that nuclear fusion energy is released mainly in the form of softer – X-ray radiation, which, when absorbed in metals, fuel, reactor and cooling system leads to their heating. This is a very practical feature of nuclear reactions in condensed matter, since protection against x-ray radiation with the help of screens is not difficult and is well developed in scientific and medical devices.

The theoretically calculated emission of excess energy in the process of the α-β transition in palladium deuteride was verified by us together with the thermochemical measurement expert V. A. Drebushchak in experiments on the SETARAM DSK-III scanning calorimeter using a specially developed technique. The results of eight series of experiments showed that during the sorption-desorption of deuterium in a fine-crystalline palladium powder, an excess energy of more than 1 W per gram of palladium deuteride is released, while in similar experiments with a light isotope of hydrogen, no anomalous effects were observed. These results were published by us in the Europhysics letters [4] and in the materials of the international conference [9].

Based on the theoretical and experimental studies, a method and device for energy production were developed, for which two Russian patents [26, 27], Eurasian and European patents [28, 29], each of which includes more than 20 private inventions, were obtained.

Their main features are the use of nanopowders of specially selected metals and intermetallic compounds, which, when saturated with deuterium or ordinary hydrogen, undergo isostructural transformations with a change in composition with a change in temperature or pressure.

In Fig. 1 shows a diagram of the device according to patent [26] with a priority date of August 3, 1992.

The installation includes two interconnected steel vessels 1 and 2 with valves 3 and 4 and pockets in which electric heaters 5, 6 and thermocouples 9 and 10 are placed. Outside the vessels there are copper tubes 7 and 8 with cooling fluid. A fine-crystalline metal (Me) is placed inside the vessels, whose hydrides or deuterides undergo an isostructural transition with temperature. Compressed hydrogen, deuterium or their mixture is fed from the connected cylinder 16 to one of the vessels until complete saturation, then the heater is turned on and the valve opens to connect to the second vessel, outside of which cooling water is passed. After a while, the heater of the second vessel turns on, and the process goes in the opposite direction. The cycles of sorption-desorption are repeated many times.

In Fig. 2 shows a diagram of a deuterium heat generator according to patents [27, 28] together with a system for measuring energy balance.

Designations in Fig. 2: 1 – the inner cylinder of the reactor, 2 – the outer cylinder of the reactor, 3 – the cooling casing, 4 – the working volume with the working substance, 5 – shutter, 6 – pressure nut, 7 – dust filters, 8 – locking seal block, 9 – flange joints with a vacuum system and a shut-off valve, 10 – thermal insulation, 11 – heating elements, 12 – coolant, 13 – seals, 14 – pressure nut of the cooling sleeve, 15 – supply and control system for the flow of coolant, 16 – thermocouple measuring unit, 17 – thermostat combined thermocouples s, 18 – power supply, 19 – transformer, 20 – thermocouples, 21 – thermocouple temperature sensor of the liquid entering the heat exchanger, 22 – thermocouple temperature sensor of the liquid leaving the heat exchanger, 23 – Watt-hour electric meter of active energy.

A general view of the manufactured installation is shown in Fig. 3

32.7 g of specially prepared fine crystalline palladium with a particle size of 20 to 100 nm were placed in a 308 cm3 volume heat generator reactor. After evacuation to ~ 1 Pa, from 700 to 2600 ml of gaseous deuterium obtained from heavy water were introduced into the reactor. Measurements were carried out both at constant temperature and pressure, and with cyclic temperature changes from 50º to 600ºC. The energy consumed was measured by the voltage and current strength in the heater, and the released energy was calculated by the heat capacity and the mass of water heated in the heat exchanger. The results of experiments on the dependence of excess energy on temperature are presented in the graph (Fig. 4) [18].

The relative excess energy averaged ~ 23% with maximum values ​​up to 35% of the expended energy, which corresponds to the emitted power of ~ 20 Watts per gram of palladium or 1 kW per gram of deuterium. The maximum excess power was ~ 600 watts. The total amount of excess energy released is ~ 100 MJ, which is 2500 times higher than the energy of possible chemical reactions in the reactor. This proves that excess energy is due not to chemical, but to nuclear processes. The energy release, which is 25–35% higher than that consumed, was confirmed in a series of experiments with cycles of heating and cooling the reactor.

Evidence of nuclear reactions in the reactor is an increase in neutron and gamma radiation fluxes when the temperature rises to 400ºC and decreases to the background level during cooling (Fig. 5 and 6) [21].

The measured increase in radioactive radiation does not exceed variations in the natural cosmic background, but the possibility of reproducibly changing their level depending on temperature proves that nuclear reactions occur in the reactor.

The observed intensity of radioactive radiation is many orders of magnitude lower than in thermonuclear reactions in plasma for the equivalent release of total energy, which has been repeatedly noted in all studies of cold nuclear fusion. Nevertheless, it should be said that safety issues, especially when working with plasma plants for cold nuclear fusion, require further serious study.

Even more convincing evidence of nuclear reactions was obtained by examining the contents of the reactor after a series of 65 experiments.

The analysis of the initial palladium and products obtained after the whole series of experiments was carried out by two methods of atomic emission spectral analysis at the Institute of Geology and Mineralogy of the SB RAS. In the first of them, developed by VMK-Optoelectronics, the “wake-up-blowing” method at the Potok installation with electric arc excitation, the samples were mixed with especially pure graphite at a ratio of 1:50 and after grinding in a mortar they were fed into an electric arc. Five parallel samples were measured by comparing the intensities of 2–3 spectral lines with standards of known composition.

In another method, atomic emission spectral analysis with inductively coupled ISP-AES plasma, IRIS used solutions previously prepared by dissolving the test substances. We also used laser mass spectral analysis of MS-AES at the IONH RAS using an EMAL-2 instrument. The isotopic composition of palladium was also determined at the IGM SB RAS by the mass spectral method with inductively coupled ICP-MS plasma.

A comparison of the results of analyzes performed by the methods used allows us to come to the following conclusions [19].

1. During the interaction of gaseous deuterium with a number of elements – impurities in the initial palladium: Li, Be, B, C, F, Mg, Si, S, K, Ca, Ti, V, Fe, Co, Ni, Zn – their transmutations were observed that are described by generalized nuclear reactions:

with the release of significant energy w, calculated from the increase in mass defect (Table 1).

2. For 15 elements in which a similar reaction would lead to a decrease in mass defect: Ge, As, Y, Cd, Sn, Sb, La, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb , Lu, Pt, Hg, Pb, Bi, Hf, Ta, a change in the content of elements within the error of spectral analysis methods does not occur.

3. A significant (by two orders of magnitude) increase in the silver content in the product of experiments is most likely due to the reaction of palladium isotopes with high-energy protons — products of a nuclear fusion reaction from deuterons.

4. The isotopic composition of the palladium product of the experiments within the accuracy of the analysis of ICP-MS (± 1%) is identical to the original.

5. The estimate of the energy released during nuclear reactions of the synthesis of helium isotopes from deuterium and due to the transmutation of impurity elements approximately corresponds to the total energy released in the entire cycle of experiments.

The geological evidence of nuclear reactions of hydrogen in the core of the Earth are: high heat flux from a nucleus of 13 ± 3 TW recorded by geophysicists, unexplained by known causes; abnormal ratios of isotopes of He, S, Fe and others in rocks of deep origin and associated hydrothermals; high contents of heavy Fe isotopes in iron meteorites – the remnants of metal nuclei of asteroids (analogues of planetary nuclei) The energy release in nuclear reactions of hydrogen, observed in experiments, in terms of the mass of the nucleus, is much higher than the heat flux from it, and the current energy estimates of the hydrogen content in the core are sufficient to ensure the total heat flux of the Earth over many billions of years. The melting of silicate rocks caused by the heating and formation of water when hydrogen enters the mantle leads to the formation and rise of giant magmatic masses — plumes, an increase in the Earth’s radius and the breaking of its upper hard shell — the lithosphere into large plates. The arrival of hot magmas to split cracks leads to the formation of areas of elevation of the level of the asthenosphere (partially molten layer) and the sliding of plates from them under the action of gravitational forces. Chips of compression occur in the areas of plate collision and subduction zones are formed — plate immersions or mountain systems are formed during the thickening and deformation of the lithosphere. The mechanism that drives lithospheric plates is discussed in detail in my previously published article and monograph [23, 24]. At that time, the reason for the warming up and expansion of the Earth was unclear. Our subsequent work found that the reason for this is the energy released during nuclear reactions of hydrogen in the Earth’s core. The rise of large plumes in the continental regions, which originated on the border with the core, causes outpouring of basaltic magma, an example of which are gigantic Siberian traps in thickness. The processes occurring under the influence of nuclear reactions in the Earth’s core are ultimately the root cause of the origin of many magmatic and hydrothermal ore deposits, in particular nickel, platinum, palladium, gold and others. The reactions of cold nuclear fusion and transmutation of elements are the main energy source of global geological processes.

Theoretically and experimentally established, as well as confirmed by natural facts, the possibility of synthesis and transmutation of elements not only in stars, but also in terrestrial conditions, is of fundamental importance for geochemistry and cosmochemistry.

Currently, studies of nuclear reactions at low energies are intensively conducted in many countries of the world, hundreds of articles and dozens of patents have been published, and international and national scientific conferences are held annually. Unfortunately, this branch of science in our country has not yet received government support. Work on this topic is associated with risk, so it was not included in the research plans and was not funded. The publication of works that run counter to traditional ideas is extremely difficult, and in Russian magazines – until recently, it was actually banned. The lack of articles in leading journals was the reason for rejecting applications at the RFBR – an alternative source of funds for basic research. For 30 years, not a single cold fusion project has been supported.

It is also worth noting that the formation of this direction coincided with two decades of perestroika, which very seriously affected the financing of science. Private investors are not interested in investing in projects that do not guarantee quick returns. For these reasons, we conducted expensive studies at our own expense. Almost all groups working on this subject were in the same position. Many of them disbanded, and some researchers went abroad. The continuation of such a scientific and technical policy will lead to a technological lag in our country. The success of the Russian enthusiasts will not be enough for development. Russia will have to pay to foreign patent holders for each kilowatt-hour of energy produced by the new technology.

IA REGNUM, providing authors with the opportunity to popularize their developments, makes an important contribution to the development of this breakthrough direction.

Details:

1. Kirkinsky V. A., Novikov Yu. A. 1997. The problem of nucleosynthesis in geological processes. In the book. “Earth sciences on the threshold of the 21st century: new ideas, approaches, solutions”, Moscow, Scientific World, p. 85.

2. Kirkinsky V. A., Novikov Yu. A. 1998. Theoretical modeling of cold nuclear fusion. Novosibirsk, 48 p.

3. Kirkinskii V. A., Novikov Yu. A. 1999. A new approach to theoretical modeling of nuclear fusion in palladium deuteride. Europhysics Letters, v. 46, No. 4, pp. 448−453.

4. Kirkinskii V. A., Drebushchak V. A., Khmelnikov A.I. 2002. Excess heat release during deuterium sorption-desorption by palladium powder palladium deuteride. Europhysics Letters, v. 58, No. 3, pp. 462−467.

5. Kirkinskii V. A., Novikov Yu. A. Theoretical modeling of cold fusion. Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk State University, 2002, 105 p.

6. Kirkinskii V. A., Novikov Yu. A. 2002, Hydrogen Isotopes of Numerical Computation. Experiment in Geosciences, v. 10, No1, pp. 51−53.

7. Kirkinskii V. A., Novikov Yu. A. 2003. Numerical calculations of cold fusion in metal deuterides. In the book: “Condensed Matter Nuclear Science” (Proceedings of the ICCF-9, ed. By Xing Z. Li), pp. 162−165

8. Kirkinskii V. A., Novikov Yu. A., 2003. Freedom of the Earth’s interior. In the book: “Condensed Matter Nuclear Science” (Proceedings of the ICCF-9, ed. By Xing Z. Li), 166−169, 2003.

9. Kirkinskii V. A., Drebushchak V. A., Khmelnikov A.I. 2003. Experimental evidence of heat output during deuterium sorption-desorption in palladium deuteride. In the book: “Condensed Matter Nuclear Science” (Proc. Of the ICCF-9, ed. By Xing Z. Li), pp. 170−173.

10. Kirkinskii, V. A., Novikov, Yu. A. 2004. Modeling of dynamic screening effects in solid state. Europhysics Letters. Vol. 67, N 3, pp 362−367.

11. Kirkinskii V. A., Novikov Yu. A., 2006. Calculation of nuclear reaction probability in a crystal lattice of lanthanum deuteride. In the book “Progress in condensed matter nuclear science.” Editor A. Takahashi, World Scientific Publ. Co., Proc. of 12th Conference on cold fusion.

12. Kirkinskii V. A., Novikov Yu. A., 2006. Calculation of nuclear reaction probabilities in a crystal lattice of titanium deuteride. In the book “Condensed Matter Nuclear Science”. Editors: P. Hagelstein and S. Chubb. World Scientific, Proc. of the ICCF-10, pp. 681–685.

13. Goncharov A I., Kirkinskii.V. A., 2006. Theoretical modeling of electron flow action on probability of nuclear fusion of deuterons. In the book “Progress in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science”, Editor A. Takahashi. World Scientific Proceedings of 12th conference on cold fusion.

14. Kirkinskii V. A., 2008. Estimation of geofusion probability. In the book: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ICCF 13), Moscow, pp. 674−678.

15. Kirkinskii V. A., Khmelnikov A. I., 2008. Setup for measuring of energy balance at interaction of metals and hydrogen isotopes gas at high temperatures and pressures Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ICCF-13), Moscow, p. 43–46.

16. Kirkinsky V. A., 2015. Experimental evidence of nuclear reactions in the Earth’s core. Proceedings of VESEMPG-2015. P.270-275.

17. Kirkinsky V. A., 2015. Nuclear hydrogen reactions as a source of energy for the Earth’s core. Proceedings of VESEMPG-2015. P.276−281.

18. Kirkinsky V. A., Khmelnikov A. I., 2016. Results of measurement of excess energy in a deuterium heat generator. Materials of the 22nd Russian Conference on Cold Transmutation of Cores of Chemical Elements and Ball Lightning, p. 105−115, Moscow.

19. Kirkinsky V. A., Khmelnikov A. I., 2016. Transmutation of elements in a deuterium telogenerator: preliminary results. Materials of the 22nd Russian Conference on Cold Transmutation of Cores of Chemical Elements and Ball Lightning, p. 116−123. Moscow.

20. Kirkinsky, VA, 2016. Nuclear reactions of the synthesis and transmutation of elements in the Earth’s core, Proceedings of the 22nd Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation of Chemical Elements and Ball Lightning, p. 125−135, Moscow.

21. Kirkinsky V. A., 2016. Neutron and gamma radiation in a deuterium heat generator in connection with the problem of the mechanism of nuclear reactions at low energies Materials of the 24th Russian Conference on Cold Transmutation of Nuclei of Chemical Elements and Ball Lightning, p. 91−100, Moscow.

22. Kirkinsky V. A., Natural evidence of nuclear reactions of synthesis and transmutation of chemical elements in the Earth’s core. Materials of the 25th Russian Conference on Cold Transmutation of Cores of Chemical Elements and Ball Lightning, 2019 (in press), Moscow.

23. Kirkinsky V. А., On the physicochemical mechanism of global tectonic processes. Geology and Geophysics, 1985, No. 4, p.3−14.

24. Kirkinsky V. A., The Mechanism and Cyclicity of Global Tectogenesis. 1987, Novosibirsk, Science, 71 p.

25. Kirkinskii V. A., 1994. Tritium, helium and free neutrons. (The method of obtaining energy, as well as helium, tritium and free neutrons and devices for its implementation). International application published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). PCT / RU93 / 00174 International Application Number. MKI G21 B1 / 00 G21 G4 / 02. International publication number WO 94/03902. 17.02.94, 30 s.

26. Kirkinsky V. A., 1996. Patent of the Russian Federation No. 2 056 656 for the invention “Method for producing free neutrons”. Priority date August 3, 1992 Published in the bulletin “Inventions, Trademarks” March 20, 1996, No. 8, part II, p. 267-268.

27. Kirkinsky V. A., Khmelnikov A. I., 2002, Device for generating energy. The patent of the Russian Federation № 2 195 717. The bulletin “Inventions, trademarks”, № 26.

28. Kirkinsky VA, Khmelnikov AI, 2006. Device for generating energy. Eurasian Patent No. 006525 In 1, Int. Class. G21B / 00, date posted 2006.02.24.

29. Kirkinskii V. A., Khmelnikov A. I., 2009. Energieеrzeugungseinrichtung (Power Producing Deviсe) Europaische Patentschrift 1 426 976 B1, Int. Cl. G21B 1/00 ​​Publikation Date 12/23/2009, Patentblatt 2009/52.

* * *

References

30. Fleishman M., Pons S., J. Electroanal. Chemistry, 1989, vol. 261, p. 301-308.

31. Arata Y. and Zhang Y. Ch., Proc. Japan Academ., 1996, vol. 72, ser. B, p. 179−184.

32. Arata Y. and Zhang Y. Ch., Proc. Japan Academ., 1997, vol. 72, ser B, p. 1-6.

33. Arata Y. and Zhang Y. Ch., Proc. Japan Academ., 1999, vol. 75, ser B, p. 76, p. 281.

34. McCubre M., Crouch-Baker S, Hauser A. K. et al. In Proc. ICFF-8, 2000, Lerichi, Itali, 2001.

35. Chechin V. A., Tsarev V. A., Rabinovitz M., Kim G.E., Int. J. Theor. Phys., 1994, v. 33, p. 617−670.

36. Rossi A., US Patent 2014/0326711 A1.

37. Levi G., Foschi E., Hoistad B., Pettersson R., Tegner L. and Essen H. Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel.

38. Parkhomov A. G. The journal of emerging fields of science, 2015, v.3, no. 7, p. 68−72.


This is a re-post of an article published May 19, 2019 by Vitaly Alekseevich Kirkinsky at REGNUM and presented the 30th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion.



Cold fusion reactor heats room in Sapporo

Modifications to the cold fusion energy reactor designed by Tadahiko Mizuno have dramatically increased excess heat production. Thermal power output of the cell is now able to exceed the air-flow calorimeter’s heat removal capacity of 1 kilowatt.

This is reported in the paper Increased Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel [.pdf]. Co-author Jed Rothwell will describe the spectacular results at the 22nd International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science ICCF-22 this September 2019 in Assisi, Italy.

When the input is 300 Watts heat, thermal power output is estimated to be between 1 – 3 kilowatts. This is based on the fact that Prof. Mizuno heated his room in Sapporo last winter with the cold fusion reactor, and he felt the room’s temperature to be as warm as when using a 3 kilowatt electric heater.

Tadahiko Mizuno’s R20 reactor heats a room in Sapporo. Graphic from Increased Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel.

The jump in power occurred after he placed the heater that regulates the reaction at a new location inside of the cell, as well as new and different applications of pressure to the reactor.

But he also changed the way he made the active cathode material.

Nickel-mesh physically rubbed with palladium rod provides the reactant

Previously, to produce active nickel-mesh cathodes Prof. Mizuno, lead researcher at Hydrogen Engineering Application & Development HEAD, had been using glow discharge to “erode the center of the palladium electrode and sputter palladium on the nickel mesh”. This method could reliably generate 232 Watts excess heat with 248 Watts input, but it took months of applying the discharge to complete an active cathode. He needed a new method of applying palladium to the nickel-mesh.

Old cruciform design used glow discharge to prepare the cathode for reaction. Excess heat was reliable, but the whole process took months. Graphic from Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel.

Electroless deposition gave good results, but the chemical solution was expensive. So, Prof. Mizuno started physical rubbing a palladium rod on the nickel-mesh to save money.

Three separate nickel mesh pieces are prepared by rubbing “vigorously” with a palladium rod. A careful WARNING is included: the procedure should take place in a glove box or appropriate facility as the fine particles of nickel dust are toxic and pose a health danger. Only those “skilled in the art” should attempt reproduction.

Using a glove box for safety, a palladium rod is rubbed one way, and then, 90 degrees the other way until 15-20 milligrams of palladium is deposited. Graphic from Increased Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel.

The three mesh are carefully weighed during rubbing until 15-20 milligrams of palladium is deposited on each mesh. Then, the three mesh are stacked and rolled up. Inserted into the steel cylindrical reactor, they are unrolled inside, and spring-out against the cylinder walls.

Three palladium-rubbed nickel mesh against the interior walls of the reactor. Graphic from Increased Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel.

This new method of cathode preparation is faster than glow discharge, however, first attempts to activate the mesh saw excess power results dropping to 12 Watts, about 12% excess heat, a marginal result.

Heat regulates the reaction

Then, in this last year, Prof. Mizuno changed the design. A sheath heater was installed inside the center of the cylindrical reactor R20.

Sheath heater now sits symmetrically in the center of the cylinder of the R20 design, heating the unit internally. Graphic from Increased Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel.

That design change, along with “changes in the methods and pressures”, has “apparently enhanced the reaction, producing the results shown in Fig. 6.”

The R20 power results raw (in gray), and adjusted for heat loss through the walls of the calorimeter (in orange). Graphic from Increased Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel.

Jed Rothwell was surprised at the result of moving the heater. He says, “I might have moved it inside just to reduce overall input power, but I had no idea that might increase output.”

Observations on this system has led to some important conclusions.

“First, the excess heat should be an exponential function of absolute temperature,” says Mizuno. “Second, the deuterium concentration in nickel affects the amount of excess heat. Third, the influence of deuterium pressure is small. Also, excessive heat generation requires treatment of the nickel surface. Also, there is a need for dissimilar metal layers. That’s all.”

The R20 is described as the “latest and most effective reactor”. After two hours of operation, it provides a stable ~250 Watts thermal excess power output when the input is a 50 Watt heater, and power generation can continue indefinitely.

However, an input of 300 Watts thermal will produce heat overwhelming the lab’s air-flow calorimeter heat removal capacity. There is an effort to test the R20 reactor in a bigger calorimeter in time to report definitive power output levels at ICCF-22 in September.

Air-flow calorimeter withstands scrutiny

The air flow calorimetry Prof. Mizuno used to measure the heat from the R20 has not changed since the report last year. Calorimeter specifications are described in detail in the previous paper Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel [.pdf], which was presented at the ICCF-21 conference. Jed Rothwell, who has worked with Mizuno for over 30 years, invited the CMNS community to help find weak spots, and he has investigated every critique. So far, the calorimetry appears tight.

“Jed’s contribution is huge,” says Prof. Mizuno. “He looked at and analyzed my experimental results in detail, and gave me appropriate advice. He also corrected my dissertation, corrected my analysis errors and corrected sentences. I think Jed is a collaborator.”

Tadahiko Mizuno has shared specific details of these successful experiments in his papers and he is encouraging those “skilled in the art” – and with the proper equipment and protection from toxic nickel dust – to replicate the results. He promises to help replicators, too.

Jed Rothwell has heard from several people planning or starting replications. “Some of them seem to be trying new approaches,” he says. “I am following Dennis Cravens and one other closely. I think they are sticking to the protocol, except that one of the reactors is considerably smaller, so the mesh is only 2″ wide. I hope that has no effect on the results. We’ll see.”

Dr. Dennis Cravens, LENR researcher from New Mexico, is one of those who plans to replicate the active nickel-mesh cathode material process, though he’ll use a different calorimeter.

“Yes, I will be trying a replication in a general way,” he says. “But I have no real support in that effort so it may take some time. I have built an air-flow system using controlled temperature intake. But I have never been comfortable with air-flow systems after using one for checks of molten salt systems. They provide many “targets” for others to “throw darts at” and the questions and “advice” never ends. I am presently assembling a 1 meter long Seebeck for a future attempt.”

Hope is regulated with reality, and Jed Rothwell sums up the feeling of someone who has seen great news come and go, without a technology materializing.

“Once again, cold fusion barely survived. If this cannot be replicated, it may not survive. I do not know of any other approaches that could be widely replicated,” he says. “Without widespread replication, the field will surely die.”

“I hope this can be replicated.”

Says Prof. Mizuno, “I think the most important thing is to know how to generate the excess heat. In addition, it is important that there is a control factor.”

Earthquake almost ended research

Less than one year ago, Tadahiko Mizuno almost quit research after 29 years when a damaging earthquake hit the lab, destroying sensitive equipment.

“The earthquake in the early morning of September 6 was awful”, recalls Tadahiko Mizuno. “The damage was severe; the central part of the SEM is not usually fixed in order to not sway around from earthquakes. This caused a disaster, and the central electron tube hit the surrounding stand and broke. Repair cost is a lot of money. Other than that, machinery was broken. I was unable to work for several months.”

Dennis Cravens started a GoFundMe page and brought the CMNS community together to fundraise just enough cash to clean-up a bit, and continue operations.

“It was an outpouring of help by many in the field,” says Dr. Cravens. “We all have had set backs and often feel alone, alienated, ridiculed and sometimes think of giving up. If we can help each other, we just may have a chance to change the world in a good way.”

As a thank-you, Prof. Mizuno gave small reactor to the community, though not the new nickel-mesh version. Sindre Zeiner-Gundersen, who has been getting his PhD while working with Drs. Leif Holmlid and Sveinn Ólafsson on ultra-dense hydrogen, is now in preparation to test the reactor.

Says Zeiner-Gundersen, “Mizuno is one of the leading scientists in this area and brings great research, results and provides data to the field. He is a true pioneer. The reactor I have is a closed system and should produce excess heat just by applying deuterium and heat to the materials inside. ”

“I’m finishing the last programming on calorimetry and construction of the calorimetry system now, so I will be testing this fall.”

Of course, the small funding from the CMNS community has ran out this past February and Mizuno says, “Now I am testing with debt. The amount is 30 million yen. If this remains the case, I have to leave the company in a couple of months.”

But if replications confirm the kilowatt effect, funding won’t be a problem, and Prof. Mizuno isn’t waiting around. He’s put reactors that he calls HIKOBOSHI in the hands of users, for other labs to independently test.

“I rented and sold 12 CF furnaces to Japan and overseas. They are collecting data and having a lot of data, I am going to announce the data.”

“I have named these reactors as HIKOBOSHI. This means the star Altair. I also like that I feel the meaning in Japanese, which is to “flood the lights”. Hiko is also the last kanji notation of my name.”

Had Tadahiko Mizuno not continued research, this breakthrough bump in kilowatt power would have been unrealized. Now when the world needs a zero-carbon option, the HIKOBOSHI reactor is a step closer to fulfilling that mission.

Dennis Cravens says, “You are guided by your experience and your gut and I only hope that others follow their dreams and come to a greater understanding of the process and possibly, just possibly, find the key to a reliable working system. “

The 22nd International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science on the 30th Anniversary of the Announcement of Cold Fusion in Assisi, Italy. To register, go to https://iscmns.org/iccf22/

Irina Savvatimova on LENR transmutations

Dr. Irina Savvatimova is one of the giants of Russian LENR research able to attend the 30-year celebration organized by the Coordination Council on the Cold Nuclear Transmutation Problem of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS).


See Russian Academy Marks Pioneering Discovery


Dr. Savvatimova is a pioneer of the glow discharge method to generate LENR and her group was one of the first to report transmutation elements from this type of experiment. She is also a research scientist at the Scientific Industrial Association LUCH working to generate isotopes for nuclear medicine.

Participants in the conference of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences “Cold fusion – 30 years: results and prospects” on March 23, 2019 in Moscow. From left to right: A.S. Sverchkov, L.V. Ivanitskaya, A.V. Nikolaev, A.A. Kornilov, A.I. Klimov, I.B. Savvatimova, A.G. Parkhomov, A.A. Prosvirnov, V.I. Grachev, S.N. Gaydamak, S.A. Flower.

She had already been working with glow discharge experiments and had defended a thesis on changing the structure and physico-mechanical properties of materials irradiated with hydrogen and helium ions when she heard about the announcement of Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons.

She quickly switched gears and began researching cold fusion, along with two new collaborative partners.

In this exclusive interview, Ruby asks Dr. Irina Savvatimova about her first experiments and the early history of CMNS research she experienced.


IS At this time, I was investigating the behavior of materials under irradiation with hydrogen and helium ions with an energy of less than 1 Kev as applied to the first wall of a fusion reactor.

The anomalous effects of changing of the density of various types of defects by optical, electron transmission and auto-ion microscopy were detected. The formation of irregular clusters of vacancies and interstitial atoms, an increase in the dislocation density by orders of magnitude, the formation of pores in the volume and blisters on the surface were founded. An increase in the diffusion rate by a factor 4–5 diffusion coefficients was discovered.

Studies of changes in the creep rate of metals and alloys under irradiation with hydrogen and helium ions were also of interest, since these changes in ion irradiation conditions correlated with available creep data under the conditions of reactor irradiation of these materials.

I talk about this in such detail, because I immediately thought that an interesting result, what Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons performed as Cold Fusion, could be obtained in a gas discharge – but not in electrolysis. I was ready to conduct experiments, because there was the real gas discharge installation in working condition, the palladium and other materials, as well as the hydrogen and deuterium gases. The parameters of the gas discharge to give the maximum anomalous effects of changes in the structure and properties were also determined.

Then I got a telephone call from Jan Kucherov on March 24, at the same time of discussion with my colleague V. Romodanov, about the possibility of working on Cold Fusion at our institute. He believed that no one would be interested.

Jan Kucherov asked permission to see the installation of the gas discharge, which I used at the time.

Fig 14 The glow discharge schematic, a double-walled quartz vacuum chamber with Mo anode and a cathode. Graphic LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS:TRANSMUTATIONS by M. Srinivasan, G. Miley and E. Storms

I asked him: “Will we do Cold Fusion?”. After a pause, he replied: “Yes.”

The next day, Jan Kucherov and Alexander Karabut came to see the installation.

By this time, all three of us had already defended dissertations and had some experimental experience.

Yan Kucherov and Alexander Karabut worked with high-power plasma installations, but their wish to conduct experiments on that equipment was not supported by the head of the laboratory, who feared an accident. So I was lucky to start working with such team of like-minded people.

We agreed that we would begin work with the existing gas discharge installation which I had already worked with. Devices for measuring radiation were found in other laboratories of the institute. A week later, we had measurement systems with gas-discharge – helium-3 sensors for neutrons detecting, radiometers with ZnS scintillators calibrated using a Pu-Be neutron source, and recording devices and oscilloscopes that made it possible to distinguish neutron signals from other pulses.

The first series of experiments on palladium was successful. We registered neutrons. It was very exciting. We could not sleep at night. Experiments on other materials (Mo, stainless steel ..) gave the smaller quantitative effect. It was understandable, because a smaller amount of deuterium could be absorbed under the same conditions. The qualitative picture was repeated when we changed the material of sample – the object of irradiation by deuterium.

Graphic: Hal Fox’s news service Fusion Facts named Yan Kucherov, Alexander Karabu and Irina Savvatimova Fusion Scientists of the Year 1992.

The head of my laboratory, Babad-Zakhryapin, reported on the first positive results of the experiments at the scientific council of the Institute a couple of weeks after the start of the experiments. A couple of months later, we tried to publish an article in the journal Successes of Physical Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Further experiments have deepened research on the measurement of radiation by all methods available to us.

Later we learned that many groups in Russia began trying to conduct experiments on Cold Fusion, using their own techniques and/or improving electrolysis, for example, and subsequently applying plasma electrolysis.

For example, a group led by Academician B.B. Deryagin recorded neutrons during the splitting of heavy water ice back in 1986. Andrey Lipson worked with B.B. Deryagin, and later, he continued this research in CF field.

Another very vivid example is Academician A.N. Baraboshkin. Official science took a very wary direction of Cold Fusion, but A.N. Baraboshkin ventured to fund a Cold Fusion project from the funds of the Electrochemistry Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences and tried to unite several groups of researchers from different institutions, among them was our group. Funding was very modest, but the fact that the Academy of Sciences supported our research helped us.

Baraboshkin organized a section on cold fusion at the all-Union seminar “Chemistry and Hydrogen Technology” (Hydrogen-91, Zarechny) in 1991, which was attended by representatives of the Ural Polytechnic Institute, Institute of High-Temperature Electrochemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), Ekaterinburg, Institute of Physics- Tsarev V.A. Lugansk Machine-Building Institute – PI Golubnichy and B.I. Guzhovsky from VNIIEF Sarov, and A. Lipson of the Institute of Physics and Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

V.F. Zelensky, Director of Kharkov Physico-Technical Ukrain, Ukrain, also actively supported this area and he himself participated in experiments.

Yuri Bazhytov founded the firm “Erzion”. He experimented with plasma electrolysis in confirmation of his Erzion theory. Yuri Bazhutov was the main organizer of the 24 Russian conferences and this is his great merit.

Since 1990, seminars have begun to be held in academic and industry institutes. And since 1991, a seminar has already operated at the Peoples’ Friendship University under the guidance of N.V. Samsonenko (now passed the 90th seminar). Activity in this area has increased.

The All-Union seminar “Hydrogen-91”, where there were more than half of the works devoted to studies on cold fusion, most of the participants had worked in this direction a long time.

The first All-Russian Conference was held in 1993. The proceedings of this conference were held under the name Cold Nuclear Fusion, and later the conference was called Cold Fusion and Nuclear Transmutation. Before the first Russian conference, a conference was held in Belarus, where we had an opportunity to report the results of work.

I want to tell about many groups which conducted own successful investigation in this area. I am not sure that it is possible at this time.

Now a lot of research groups work in LENR direction.

RUBY    What have been some of the transmutation products you’ve discovered?

IS I had experience with a glow discharge for more than 10 years before the CF, work has already been done on studying changes in structure and properties, so for me the study of transmutation was just a more in-depth comprehensive study of the process. The study of the elemental and isotopic composition showed the appearance of elements – that were absent before the experiments – in the sample material and the structural parts of the discharge chamber.

Changes in the elemental and isotopic composition were also tested in different laboratories and institutes by all possible methods. Analysis of the elemental composition on an electron microscope (EDS) revealed the preferential location along the boundaries and sub-boundaries of the grains, where additional impurity elements that were not present in the sample – and elements in the discharge chamber that weren’t there before the experiment. This effect was discovered by our colleague Alexei Senchukov when analyzing samples using a Hitachi electron microscope. He significantly increased the duration of the recording of the spectra, which had not been done before by anyone. Tuning the device to identify specific elements, it was found that various impurity elements can be localized in different places (Transaction of Fusion Technology –ICCF-4,1993// ANS, December 1994// Savvatimova et al, Cathode change after Glow Discharge, 389-394).

The such elements as Sc, V, Cd, In, P, Cl, Br, Ge, As, Kr, Sr, Y, Ru are never present in the discharge chamber, but these elements were found in the Pd foils after experiments with different ions (H, D, Ar) almost always.

Changes in the isotopic composition of samples irradiated with hydrogen and deuterium were studied by mass spectrometry, Secondary Ions Mass-spectrometry, Spark Mass-spectrometry, Thermoionisation Mass-spectrometry. Several elements were observed using SMS with an isotope ratio deviating from the natural isotope abundance by a factor of two or three, such as   6Li/7Li;10B/11B; 12C/13C; 60Ni/61Ni/62Ni; 40Ca/44Ca; and 90Zr/91Zr.  Deviation from the natural ratio of Ag isotopes 109/107 as 3/1 to 9/1, natural composition is 1/1) in palladium cathode. The significant change of the Pd isotopic composition was observed using SIMS also.

So, the elemental and isotopic structure of the cathode materials before and after Glow Discharge (GD) experiments were analyzed by EDS, SNMS and SMS. The isotope shift tendency in Pd and Pd alloys and Ag was observed. The comparison of the quantity of impurity elements change and generation was made.

The four same groups of certain impurities were repeatedly formed after Deuteron irradiation in similar conditions: light – with masses of 6, 7 10, 11 19, 20, 22; of middle masses near 0,5 matrix element; (± 10) of matrix element – Cd, Sn, Ag and of heavy masses (120 -140)  Sn, Te, Ba).

The quantity of additional impurities, which was found after ion irradiation in Pd and Pd alloys, can to show in the following row with decreasing: Pd, alloys PdPTW, PdNi, PdRu, PdCu.

The qualitative correlation of the maximum increase of impurities in the cathodes with the minimum heat output during GD experiment was noticed for temperature interval less 200oC (ICCF-7).

Later, similar studies on changes in the elemental and isotopic composition were carried out on titanium (ICCF-10).

However, all the effects of transmutation with an increase in the content of individual elements up to 100 times or more, with a change in the isotopic composition, could not convince critics that such changes were a reality.

Only an experiment with radioactive material could convince these people, so it was another happy occasion when John Dash invited me to Portland State University to conduct research with uranium.

As a result of this work, we were able to show the presence of alpha, beta and gammas. The alpha activity of Uranium increased after irradiation with hydrogen and deuterium ions about 2-4 times, and beta and gamma emission increased from 10 to 60%.


Emission registration on films during glow discharge experiments ICCF-9 [.pdf]


Along with the fascinating increase of alpha activity, an increase in the amount of thorium (EDS) and a decrease in uranium is observed by chemical analysis (MIT) and by observing the intensity of peaks in the spectra of characteristic radiation of uranium (x-ray data) decrease.

The first publications of these results were reported to ICCF-3 (1992), ICCF-4(1993) and Russian Conferences and Seminars, Russian “Letters in Journal of Technical physics” 1990


Possible Nuclear Reactions Mechanisms at Glow Discharge in Deuterium ICCF-3 [.pdf]

Cathode Material Change after Deuterium Glow Discharge Experiments ICCF-4 [.pdf]


Photo from Proceedings of ICCF-3 Frontiers of Cold Fusion. ICCF-3 Group photo, 1992.

The presence of low-energy nuclear reactions was confirmed by the GD low-energy influence. Some observations were:

– Significant increase in additional elements ranging 10 -1000 times was found.

– Isotopic deviation in materials (Pd, Ti, W, and U) and the increase in the additional impurity elements from 2 up to 100 times was discovered.

– The majority of the newly formed elements, found after the GD switch off were found in certain local zones (“hot” spots, micro melting points) on the cathode material surface.

– Post-experimental isotopes with masses of 169, 170, 171, 178, and 181 (less than W and Ta isotopes) were found with the help of TIMS.

– The isotopic changes continue to occur for at least 3–5 months after the GD exposure. Separate isotopes with masses less than W and Ta isotopes have grown by factors ranging 5–1000 times.

– The change in alpha, beta, gamma radioactivity caused by the GD was observed in Uranium.

.The correlation between X-ray emission data and the thermal ionization mass-spectrometry. Data for the same isotopes is shown in the W foils. The comparison of the mass spectra and the gamma spectra shown to the existence of Yb and Hf, isotopes in W after experiments in Deuterium.

Graphic REPRODUCIBILITY OF EXPERIMENTS IN GLOW DISCHARGE AND PROCESSES ACCOMPANYING DEUTERIUM IONS BOMBARDMENT (ICCF-8) by I.B. Savvatimova, 2000.

The collection of effects confirms availability of nuclear transmutations under exposure to GD (Glow Discharge) low-energy ions bombardment in materials and in other processes.

The GD low-energy influence can be used in new power engineering and new technologies (e.g., isotope production). The described effects should be paid more attention to.

I studied structural changes and the physico-mechanical properties of materials under irradiation with hydrogen, deuterium and helium ions in a plasma discharge with hydrogen ion energies of less than 1 keV deuterium as applied to the first wall of a thermonuclear reactor. These studies were carried out at a gas discharge installation.

I studied these changes because presumably 95% of the ions bombarding the first wall of a thermonuclear reactor should have had H and D ions with energies of less than 1 keV.

Anomalous effects have been observed. Including, there was a blackening of the X-ray film located outside the discharge chamber. However, everyone said that this was not possible with ion energies of less than 1 KeV.

Graphic from REPRODUCIBILITY OF EXPERIMENTS IN GLOW DISCHARGE AND PROCESSES ACCOMPANYING DEUTERIUM IONS BOMBARDMENT by I.B. Savvatimova ICCF-8 2000

RUBY Could you describe the design of the experiments you performed, what metals you’ve used for cathodes, and how you’ve measured?

The greatest number of experiments was carried out on palladium. After the first experiments the studies were conducted on an EDS electron microscope.

The presence of low-energy nuclear reactions in Glow discharge was confirmed by formation in W (tungsten) of isotopes with mass less than matrix mass (ytterbium and hafnium with 169 -178 masses)

– Significant increase in additional elements ranging 10 -1000 times was found (– Isotopic deviation in materials (Pd, Ti, W, and U) and the increase in the additional impurity elements from 2 up to 100 times was discovered.

– The majority of the newly formed elements, found after the GD switch off were found in certain local zones (“hot” spots, micro melting points, microexplosions) on the cathode material surface.

Graphic from Nuclear Reaction Products Registration on the Cathode after Glow Discharge ICCF-5 by I.B. Savvatimova and A.B. Karabut 1995

– Post-experimental isotopes with masses of 169, 170, 171, 178, and 181 (less than W and Ta isotopes) were found with the help of TIMS.

– The isotopic changes continue to occur for at least 3–5 months after the GD exposure.

Separate isotopes with masses less than W and Ta isotopes have grown by factors ranging 5–1000 times.

– The same energy peaks in gamma-spectra occur during and after the GD current switch-off.

– The Significant change in alpha, beta, gamma radioactivity in uranium after GD in Deuterium and Hydrogen was observed. The increase of alpha, beta, gamma-emission are kept without change during of the duration of measurement – 1 year (after 2, 4, 5, 12 months)

– Post experiments weak gamma, X-ray and beta- emissions were detected.

(2) The correlation between the gamma and X-ray emission data and the thermal ionization mass-spectrometry data for the same isotopes is shown in the W foils.

The comparison of the mass spectra and the gamma spectra points to the existence of the following isotopes Ytterbium and Hafnium: 169, 170, 171m, 172, 178

 (3) The collection of effects confirms availability of nuclear transformations under exposure to GD low-energy ions bombardment in materials and in other processes.

(4) The GD low-energy influence can be used in new power engineering and new technologies (e.g., isotope production). The described effects should be paid more attention to.

RUBY    It’s been speculated that some of the transmutation elements found are from a fusion – and then fission – reaction.  Is that probable in your mind?

IS Yes, of course.  Some variants of possible reactions are in our articles.

1D2 74W186    ®    72Hf178  + 3Li10*

(1+)(+13 MeV) + (0+)(-45.7 MeV)® (0+)(-52.4 MeV) + (2+)(+20.9 MeV) +1.2 MeV  [∆1+]

3Li10* ® n + 3Li9*

(1-, 2-) (1.2MeV) (+33.05 MeV) ® (1/2+)(+7.3 MeV) + (3/2-)(+24.95 MeV) +2 MeV [∆ 1-]

  3Li9*® 178ms: b ®4Be9+ 13.61MeV

(3/2-)(+24.95) ®(3/2-)(+11.34)+ 13.61MeV ;

RUBY   You have found transmutations of elements in localized spots, and also at grain boundaries.  What does this experimental evidence tell you in regards to a theory of this reaction?

IS Yes, it is true. The majority of the newly formed elements, found after the GD switch off were found in certain local zones (“hot” spots, micro melting points, micro-explosions) on the cathode material surface.

It is clear that low-energy plasma initiates the processes of nuclear transmutations.

There are many theories and hypotheses, with the help of some of which, one can explain a part of the observed anomalies. But in the real material there are a lot of processes being performed, and it is very difficult to take into account all of them. Therefore, a single theory or hypothesis cannot explain the whole set of processes.

So in places where defects and inhomogeneities accumulate, there can be a change in the density of the of bombarding ions and a change in the electric field strength to high voltages leading to a microexplosion. In the resulting pores in the process of ion bombardment, the pressure can increase to hundreds of atmospheres. Grain boundaries can trigger an acceleration effect. This is if you approach the explanation from the standpoint of interactions at the macro level.

RUBY   Why is this research so important for the world?

IS These studies in the field of “subliminal (as my colleague Rodionov Boris says) energies” could help to understand many natural phenomena and solve the problems of contamination of the planet with radioactive waste, as well as help in the intensification of many technological processes. It is also possible to use this knowledge to expressly predict the behavior of materials under irradiation conditions.

Apparently, the society is not yet ready to use LENR processes for solving energy problems. The society, or those who rule it, does not need a success in solving the energy problem on the planet.

For a while I did not have the opportunity to work in the direction of Cold Fusion. I was engaged in a project to develop targets for the generation of isotopes for nuclear medicine.

If the situation allows, then I would like to apply the Cold Fusion tricks to solve real-world projects that could be useful now.

RUBY   Could you say a bit what it was like to work with Drs. Karabut and Kucharov?  Describe their contribution to condensed matter nuclear science.

IS I thank fate that it developed so that we began to work together and everyone was able to do something that was not able or did not know another. Result – the general inventions and patents, good publications. Jean-Pierre Vejie after our reports at a conference in Donetsk visited our laboratory. He was present at an experiment. After the visit to laboratory He suggested to publish our article in Physics Letters. At that time He was some of their editors of this magazine. We well supplemented each other at the initial stage of work.

If collaboration was continued slightly longer, perhaps progress would be more considerable.

Alexander Karabut (right), then the interpreter Natalia Famina (center right), Ludwik Kowalski (center left), and Irina Savvatimova (left) in Japan, December 2006.

Yan Kucherov knew better than others nuclear physics and was an arbitrator in these questions. Its first hypotheses of simultaneous course of processes of synthesis and disintegration are reflected in the publication at a conference in Nagoya. A.Karabut modernized the glow discharge installation for estimation of thermal effect. They competently gathered a measuring chain for registration of neutrons and gamma. Later Karabut could decipher possible decay chains in gamma spectra. This results was confirmed also by mass spectrometry.

RUBY   Dr. Savvatimova, can you tell us what you are working on now?

IS For a while I did not have the opportunity to work in the direction of Cold Fusion. I was engaged in a project to develop targets for the generation of isotopes for nuclear medicine.

If the situation allows, then I would like to apply the Cold Fusion tricks to solve real-world projects that could be useful now.

RUBY   Why is this research so important for the world?

-The collection of effects (alpha, beta, gamma-emission on the uranium) confirms availability of nuclear transformations under exposure to GD low-energy ions bombardment in materials.

The low energy nuclear reactions (subthreshold nuclear reaction) are exist. These process can be used in the different fields of science and technology. Glow discharge low-energy impact can be used in new power engineering and new technologies (e.g., isotopes production, creating special alloys with improved properties, which cannot be create by other method).

The described effects should be paid more attention to. Unfortunately, the society doesn’t think it needs these achievements now (or part of society).

Understandably, for improvement success and great achievements, the good group of researchers and modern equipment and financial support are necessary.

The great Russian poet written ” It is pity to live in this beautiful time there will be neither you nor me”.

Early papers:

1. Karabut A. B., Kucherov Ya. R., Savvatimova I.B. Physics Letters A, 170, 265-272 (1992).

2. Karabut A.B., Kucherov Ya.R., Savvatimova I.B. Proc. ICCF-3, 1992, Nagoya, p.165. Possible Nuclear Reactions Mechanisms at Glow Discharge in Deuterium [.pdf]

3. Karabut A. B., Kucherov Ya. R., Savvatimova I.B.  Fus.Tech., Dec. 1991, v. 20(4.), part 2, p.294.

4. Savvatimova I., Kucherov Ya. and Karabut A., Trans. of Fus. Tech.: v.26, 4T (1994), pp. 389-394

5. Savvatimova I.B, Karabut A. B. Proc., ICCF5, Monte-Carlo, 1995, p.209-212; p.213-222 Radioactivity of the Cathode Samples after Glow Discharge [.pdf]

6. Karabut A.B, Kucherov Ya. R., Savvatimova I.B ICCF5, Monte-Carlo, 1995, p.223-226; p.241 Nuclear Reaction Products Registration on the Cathode after Glow Discharge [.pdf]

7. Savvatimova I.B, Karabut A. B. Poverhnost (Surface), V. 1, Moscow: RAN, 1996, p.63-75;.76-81

8. Savvatimova I.B Proc.of 3 Rus.Con­f. Cold Fus. & Nuc.Transm., Sochy-95, Moscow, 1996, p.20-49

9.  Savvatimova I.B, Karabut A. B. Mat. 2 Russia Conf. On Cold Nucl. Fus. and Nuclear Transmutation. -Sochy, Sep. 19-23 1994, Moscow, 1995, page 184.

For more on the work of Dr. Irina Savvatimova, go to this list of papers, or, search the LENR Library Archive at lenr.org.



The 22nd International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science ICCF22 convenes September 8-13, 2019 in Assisi, Italy. To Regsiter, go to the International Society of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science website at iscmns.org.

Today is F-Day!

On May 8, 1989, the Electrochemical Society held their spring meeting in Los Angeles amid the frenzied controversy of the cold fusion announcement, and declared it F-Day!

This was on the heels of the 1989 American Physical Society meeting that began May 1 in Baltimore, where disgruntled physicists who failed to replicate the findings gathered together to congratulate each other for saving science from amateurs. After all, they knew nuclear theory, and chemists did not. Some of the biggest insults hurled by the mainstream physicists came from scientists with the MIT Plasma Fusion Laboratory and Caltech.

Electrochemist Nathan Lewis was from Caltech and claimed to have seen no effect. As it turned out, his experiment was woefully marred. [See Examples of Isoperibolic Calorimetry in the Cold Fusion Controversy by Melvin H. Miles J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 13 (2014) 392–400] Still, Dr. Lewis showed solidarity with physicists by claiming “that their device “violates the first law of thermodynamics,” that is, the conservation of energy or, as is often said, “the universe offers no free lunch”.

That’s how Eugene Mallove tells it in his Pulitzer Prize-nominated book Fire from Ice Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor.

I’ve seen Youtube video of him frothing at the mouth while angrily asserting that Drs. Fleischmann and Pons had not “stirred their cells” properly.

Physicist Steve Koonin, a colleague of Nathan Lewis’s at Caltech, as well as future BP Oil exec and Department of Energy Secretary, said, “If fusion were taking place, we would see radiation in one form or another, and you would simply not be able to hide that radiation.”

Of course, this is what makes cold fusion/LENR so attractive. Not only do we get fusion-sized energy from tiny table-top cells that use a fuel of water, the heat energy is derived from a new type of reaction that generates no deadly radiation, as well as no CO2! Oh, Steve.

Eugene Mallove writes in his book Fire From Ice:

“…that Dr. Koonin also told New York Times reporter Malcolm Browne at the time of the meeting, “It’s all very well to theorize about how cold fusion in a palladium cathode might take place … one could also theorize about how pigs would behave if they had wings. But pigs don’t have wings.”

Nathan Lewis (L), Steve Koonin (Middle), and Charles Barnes (R) of Caltech. Usurping the scientific process, and believing a 100-year-old theory over the experimental facts, these three men helped to close down research on what could have been clean fusion energy technology. Photo: Interview with Charles Barnes Caltech Oral Histories

Dr. Steve Koonin further disgraced himself for all historical time by saying “My conclusion is that the experiments are just wrong and that we are suffering from the incompetence and delusion of Doctors Pons and Fleischmann.”

While the Baltimore meeting allowed physicists to vent their failures with misery as company, the lowest point for the American Physical Society was reached when Dr. Steve Jones from Brigham-Young University led a panel at a news conference. Steve Jones, of course, the very reason why the March 23, 1989 news conference was held in the first place.

It was after five years of research that Drs. Fleischmann and Pons decided to get funding for their experiments. The US Department of Energy gave their proposal to Dr. Steve Jones for review. Dr. Jones had been previously working on a different kind of muon-catalyzed fusion, but had given it up for lack of results. (He claimed to get neutrons, though no one has ever reproduced his results.)

When Jones saw what the pair from University of Utah were up to, he was excited enough to jump back in, and he contacted Drs. Fleischmann and Pons – not a normal procedure in the application process – to invite them down for a visit to see his neutron detector. In the end of February 1989, while they visited, Steve Jones told Drs. Fleischmann and Pons that he would be announcing his own form of “cold fusion” in May, but, if they wanted to publish papers at the same time, he would be willing to do that.

Huh? Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons wanted nothing more than to get their funding and keep working, but upon arriving back at the University of Utah, administrators and lawyers were fearful of losing the “first place” of announcing this new kind of energy-producing experiment. The two electrochemists were prodded into making the news conference announcement anyway, beating Jones’ own announcement.

At the Baltimore meeting of physicists, Dr. Jones, perhaps still sore from being one-upped on his one-up, made poor scientific judgement by polling with a show of hands in order to determine whether cold fusion was dead, as documented by Steven Krivit on his website.

Eugene Mallove wrote in Fire From Ice:

Finally, “science by press conference” occurred again, degenerating even further into “science by poll.” At a news conference on the second day of the Baltimore cold fusion fest, Steve Jones asked for an impromptu “straw poll.” He asked nine of the session’s leading speakers whether they were at least 95 percent confident that the University of Utah claim to have generated heat by fusion could be ruled out. Eight answered “yes” and one, Rafelski, Jones’s colleague, wisely withheld judgment. Rafelski commented, “This should not be taken as the matter is settled.” However, Yale physicist Moshe Gai said of his group’s work, “Our results exclude without any doubt the Pons and Fleischmann results.” The panel voted more favorably on whether the claim that neutrons were being seen in a number of cold fusion experiments could be ruled out—three of nine kept an open mind.”

May 2, 1989 Physicist Steve Jones takes a vote on whether or cold fusion is “dead”. Photo: New Energy Times if you can’t tell.

To have the top physicists in the country ridiculing the scientific process with such ugly outrage showed weak stature in scientific thinking, but these physicists were successful in having the tide turn against Drs. Fleischmann and Pons’ work. Their excess heat effects were now completely suspect.

Thus, when the May 8 meeting of the Electrochemical Society began, electrochemist Dr. Nathan Lewis of Caltech was confident in his superior knowledge. Nevertheless, there were 1600 attendees who were less assured.

From Fire and Ice, we get a list of positive results being reported from very competent and open-minded scientists. Eugene Mallove writes:

Everyone was awaiting May 8, when at the special cold fusion session of the Electrochemical Society spring meeting in Los Angeles, Fleischmann and Pons were supposed to present a “thorough, clean analysis” of the thermal aspects of their experiment. Pons told Jacobsen- Wells of the Deseret News, “We are going to supply all the information that we can. People evidently are misunderstanding a lot about calorimetry. A lot of people are making calorimetric measurements with instruments that may not be suitable for these experiments.”

The meeting began with controversy over the relative absence of critical scientists; had it been arranged to be a celebration of only positive results? Lewis of Caltech was present at least as a token skeptic. As he had done in Baltimore, he proclaimed his numerous permutations and combinations of materials and conditions, all of which had failed to show excess power or nuclear products. “I’d be happy to say this is fusion as soon as somebody shows that it is,” a self-assured Lewis told the 1,600 assembled. Fleischmann and Pons were having no trouble. Now they were claiming to get bursts of heat lasting a few days up to 50 times the power input to their cell—the claim was even more extreme than before! Was this a tip-off that they were really onto something, or that they had completely gone off the deep end? To rebut Lewis, they showed a brief film clip of a bubbling cell in which they had injected red dye. Within 20 seconds the dye had spread uniformly through the cell, intuitively giving the lie to Lewis’s accusation about improper stirring.

Concerning their neutron results, Fleischmann and Pons backed off a bit, acknowledging reluctantly that their measurements were deficient and were the “least satisfactory” part of their research. They said that they would rerun their experiment with a new detector. More disturbing was their withholding of the long-awaited and promised 4He measurements. There was an emerging feeling (not necessarily a correct one) that if there were no copious neutrons, there had to be helium-4 to make the claim for a nuclear process. The Fleischmann-Pons rods were being analyzed for helium by Johnson-Matthey Corporation, the 170-year-old British precious metals supplier, under an agreement of exclusivity with the company. This was the presumed reason for the turning down of many other offers to do the rod “autopsy.” Fleischmann had admitted at the meeting that if no helium were to turn up, “it would eliminate a very strong part of our understanding of the experiment.”

Bockris from Texas A&M, Huggins from Stanford, and Uziel Landau from Case Western all backed up the Utah duo with positive heat measurements. At a press conference Huggins said, “… It’s fair to say that something very unusual and large is happening. There is conclusive evidence there is a lot of heat generated here—much larger than the proposed chemical reactions that people suggest might be happening.” A thinly veiled criticism of physicists by a Society official, Dr. Bruce Deal, drew applause: “Unlike other societies, we do not attempt to solve complex technical problems by a show of hands.” But not every electrochemist left the meeting convinced. The experiments were subtle, apparently difficult to reproduce consistently, and of course totally unexplained. Steve Jones again reiterated his faith in his neutrons and disbelief on the question of heat—at least in cold fusion cells. Cold fusion might still be partly responsible, he thought, for the hellish conditions inside the planet.

Soon cold fusion would face increasingly acid opposition. Martin Deutsch, professor of physics emeritus at MIT had told Science News, “In one word, it’s garbage.” (Science News, Vol. 135, May 6, 1989.) Some media had essentially written it off. Scientists who had genuinely tried to make cold fusion happen, but who for reasons still not clear could not coax their cells into working, would be joining the ranks of the opposition. They were frustrated and mad. They had wasted precious research time chasing rainbows. Enough was enough! Time to move on.

But those who believed in the tantalizing results of some experiments would not be stilled. Others who were bold enough to theorize about fantastic mechanisms to explain cold fusion did not give up either. They persevered, egged on by the serious critics.

If people were having trouble finding neutrons, perhaps the mysterious “cold fusion” was a kind of nuclear reaction that was largely neutronless—as the MIT analysis seemed to suggest. As skeptic Petrasso himself would say in January 1990 at a lecture at the PFC, “We may turn out to be the big allies of Fleischmann and Pons if they can now prove that they have fusion, because what we’ve demonstrated now is that they basically didn’t have any neutrons at all coming from their heat-producing cell….So now they can claim that they are having neutronless heat generation.” If this turns out to be true, a mind-boggling technological revolution may be in store for us.

The cover of Time magazine on May 8, 1989. Fusion or Illusion? Two obscure chemists stir up a fascinating controversy in the lab, but new tests challenge their hopes of creating limitless energy By Michael D. Lemonick.

So it was that cold fusion became the “pariah science” despite so many positive results, and the Electrochemical Society proclaimed May 8 to be F-day. While I imagine that means Fusion Day, one could fill in F-day with other words, for though the ugly attitudes have stopped spraying spittle as they emote, the lasting effects of these lost years have yet to be measured.

What would have been different if these physicists had only kept to their scientific oath, to follow a method “consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Lucky for us, Caltech, MIT, the Department of Energy, the USPTO – it’s a long list – were not able to stop the research. Today, we are nearing commercially-available technology using condensed matter nuclear science, the field which Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons discovered. It’s 30-years late, but after rolling that long, we can expect an avalanche of announcements that will flip the narrative of failure that mainstream physicists have perpetrated. The failure is their own.

These men who de-railed our future should apologize to Dr. Martin Fleischmann (posthumously) and Dr. Stanley Pons (still underground), and us. The best way would be to urge their colleagues at the current Department of Energy to recognize CMNS science and start funding science research so we can get a technology fast. Or, we can just let them fade away, on the wrong side of history forever.

Get Eugene Mallove’s Fire From Ice from the New Energy Foundation online store here!

The 22 International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science on September 8-13, 2019. Registration now open!

Dimiter Alexandrov on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast

Listen to episode #23 of the Cold Fusion Now! podcast with Ruby Carat and Special Guest Dr. Dimiter Alexandrov, a Professor of Electrical Engineering and Head of the Semiconductor Research Center at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay , Canada.

He talks with Ruby about his transition to LENR research.

Go to the Cold Fusion Now! podcast page to listen to Dr. Dimiter Alexandrov.

“It was exactly 30 years ago when I read about the first cold fusion experiments. My current involvement in the LENR research is based on experimental research outcomes got accidentally two years ago,” says Dr. Alexandrov.

His materials and electronics research led him to investigate deuterium and hydrogen plasma for the purpose of manufacturing semiconductors.

“The palladium specimen was placed on the sample holder and deuterium nitrogen gas mixture was directed to the specimen in the environment of inflated hydrogen.”

Slide from Dimiter Alexandrov presentation at the LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT March 23, 2019.

“During the experiments, I found the release of helium, especially the lighter stable isotope helium-3, and another stable isotope helium-4. I also found there is a correlation between the heat release and the release of helium.”

“For me, it was apparent that I was observing low energy nuclear reaction. I would like to determine if it was cold nuclear fusion because, in fact, the initial products were deuterium, and hydrogen – hydrogen was actually coming from the environment – and their interactions with the metals. Generally speaking the end products were helium. There is no other way other than to conclude that cold fusion has occurred.”

Two different methods to determine helium production at the sample were used.

“One way was mass spectroscopy. It was clear we had a release of helium-3. However, mass spectroscopy cannot distinguish helium-4 from molecular deuterium.”

Semiconductor Research Center laboratory equipment from Dimiter Alexandrov’s presentation at 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT.

“That’s why additional experiments were done, and I was lucky I found there was a release of helium-hydride, that is helium-4-hydride, and, the mass spectroscopy showed clearly that helium-hydride had been released”, explains Dr. Alexandrov.

Helium-hydride is a positively-charged ion, a helium atom bonded to a hydrogen atom, with one electron removed. He reasons that the helium-hydride could not occur unless helium was produced in the main chamber.

“I did additional experiments in order to confirm we are talking exactly about helium gas, and these experiments were connected with optical spectroscopy of the excited gasses immediately above the sample holder. This optical spectroscopy shows very clear peaks about helium, which means we have optical radiation from the excited helium, and actually, it shows a typical peak for helium-4 and one peak pertaining to helium-3.”

He also finds a temperature change that cycles up and down, correlating with the cycles of helium-4 concentration. The temperature of the sample holder, begins at room temperature, but after interacting with the deuterium gasses in the hydrogen environment, the temperature increases about 3 degrees Centrigrade for approximately 15 minutes or so, and then drops back down to initial temperature, and then increasing again, etc.

Sample temperature (Red) and Helium-3 (Blue) concentration in the sample main chamber.

“I observed several cycles, and several times this happened, and the cycles of the temperature change correlate with the cycles of concentration of helium-3 in the main chamber. The heat release happens because of the creation of helium-3, and helium-4 as well”, he says.

Dr. Alexandrov recently presented at the 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT with Synthesis of Helium Isotopes in Interaction of Deuterium Nuclei with Metals [.pdf]

What’s next for this repeatable experimental effect?

Go to the podcast page to listen to Dr. Dimiter Alexandrov discuss his LENR research with Ruby Carat on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast.


The 22nd International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science ICCF-22 in Assisi, Italy on September 8-13, 2019.

President Bush “briefed” on cold fusion

In 1989, Dr. Glenn Seaborg was asked to brief President George H. W. Bush on the “cold fusion” phenomenon. On April 14 of that year he did so.

April 14, 1989 Nobel Laureate Glenn Seaborg talks to President Bush about cold fusion. Photo from Reflections on the Legacy of a Legend Glenn T. Seaborg 1912–1999 by David L. Clark and David E. Hobart

Eugene F. Mallove wrote in Intimations of Disaster: Glenn Seaborg, the Scientific Process, and the Origin of the “Cold Fusion War” [.pdf]:

Even though the jury was certainly still out on the evidence for
or against “cold fusion,” Seaborg, through some as-yet-to-be-revealed process (though he certainly had conducted no experiments), had determined that cold fusion was not what it was claimed to be. On April 14, 1989 Seaborg told President Bush that “it is not due to nuclear fusion.”

We discovered this extremely revealing account of Glenn Seaborg’s actions in the spring of 1989, which appeared in an issue of Skeptical Inquirer, November/December 1997, as part of “The Elemental Man: An Interview with Glenn T. Seaborg”.

SI: During the early stages of the cold fusion furor, President Bush asked you to come to the White House and give him your views on the matter. What happened? What did you tell him?

Seaborg: In April 1989, I was called back to Washington to brief George Bush on “cold fusion,” the totally unexpected phenomenon that University of Utah scientists announced they had discovered by the simple process of electrolysis of heavy water. A couple of days earlier, the purported co-discoverer of “cold fusion,” University of Utah electrochemist Stanley Pons, spoke to an enthusiastic standingroom-only audience of chemists at the semi-annual meeting of the American Chemical Society in Dallas. His talk had attracted so much attention that, apparently, the news had reached the White House. After briefing White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, I went into the Oval Office to brief President Bush on April 14, 1989. I told him about my role in the discovery of the radioactive iodine that had been used a couple of days earlier to treat his wife, Barbara, and said that a similar treatment with radioactive iodine had effected a miraculous cure for my mother, who was suffering from the same condition as Barbara. The president facetiously said that Barbara is now radioactive and she is not allowed to kiss their dog as long as this condition prevails, but he implied that it didn’t seem that this prohibition included himself—the president. I then went on and described briefly the situation with respect to cold fusion. I indicated that this is not a valid observation—that is, that it is not due to nuclear fusion—but, on the other hand, it must be investigated. The president seemed very interested and convinced by my assessment, and encouraged us very much to go ahead with an investigation. [Infinite Energy’s emphasis]

I might add that the panel I recommended to study the purported “cold fusion” process was created and about six months later came out with a report disputing the validity of the observation, pretty much in line with the view I adopted in my briefing of the president. Also it is interesting to note that President Bush himself, two years later, in May 1991, benefitted from treatment with the same radioactive iodine (iodine-131).
—(End of the Skeptical Inquirer interview section)—

–From Eugene Mallove’s Intimations of Disaster: Glenn Seaborg, the Scientific Process, and the Origin of the “Cold Fusion War” [.pdf]:

Dr. Seaborg received the Presidential National Medal of Science from President Bush in 1991.