JCF-16 closes 2015 announcing ICCF-20 for 2016

The Japan Cold Fusion Research Society closed out 2015 with their 16th meeting held Dec. 11-12 in Kyoto.

The JCF-16 Program and Abstracts are archived here.

The last major conference of 2015, JCF-16 speaker Yasuhiro Iwamura announced the launch of the ICCF-20 website.

Toshiro Sengaku of Amateur LENR attended the meeting and posted photos from his @sengakut Twitter site.

The 20th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science will be held October 2-7, 2016 in Sendai Japan at Tohoku University, the home of the new laboratory where commercial and academic researchers are now collaborating on the production of excess heat and the transmutation of nuclear waste.

In addition to the scientific talks, host Professor Eiichi Yamaguchi opened the proceedings by sharing his memory of “the time he spent with Fleischmann and Pons in IMRA in Southern France in 1990’s” and “expressed his hope to bring all their efforts to fruition very soon,” said Hideki Yoshino of Clean Planet, Inc, a partner in the Tohoku project,

Meeting Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons

For more information on ICCF20, go to the conference website www.iccf20.net

If you are on Facebook, find ICCF20 at https://www.facebook.com/iccf20/

See all Upcoming Events at Cold Fusion Now.

To list an event, contact Ruby Carat at ruby@coldfusionnow.org

heart-100x93Also, please consider contributing to the fund for Bob Greenyer and family. As a member of the MFMP Open Science collective, Bob has worked strong and smart to bring cold fusion and LENR science to the public. After family tragedy, Bob needs your help to care for his family.

In this season of giving, give your thanks to this
dedicated servant of the new energy revolution.


Hagelstein and Tanzella’s Vibrating Copper Experiment

Read original article by Marianne Macy on Infinite-Energy.com.

Hagelstein and Tanzella’s Vibrating Copper Experiment
by Marianne Macy

MIT’s Prof. Peter Hagelstein, longtime contributor of cold fusion experimental and theoretical work, knows a thing or two about X-rays. In the 1980s he was a 24-year old-prodigy when he worked for hydrogen bomb creator Edward Teller at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in what became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative— Star Wars. Hagelstein had discovered a way to make a nuclear X-ray laser that would become the basis for the program, calculating that the electrons of a metallic atom, pumped repeatedly from an exploding bomb, could produce scores of X-ray photons. His work postulated that metals with a higher atomic number on the periodic table such as gold, mercury, platinum and bismuth would have shorter wavelengths and make for a more energetic laser. After successful early tests, Hagelstein became one of the chief scientists of a program that essentially was based on his idea. He was the recipient of the E.O. Lawrence Award for National Defense from the Department of Energy in 1984, and at the time was the youngest recipient of that honor.

Dr. Alexander Karabut, who passed away on March 15 and whose background is detailed in a memorial obituary, spent years studying and working on X-ray effects. David Nagel, a physicist and former Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Division head who himself has a patent on a system for studying the effects of soft X-rays for lithography, considered the work by Karabut and his colleagues at LUCH to be very important. “The center of gravity of Karabut’s work is transmutation and radiation measurements. Karabut’s X-ray measurements got attention in the U.S. because of the interest of people like myself and Peter Hagelstein, who have a background of experience in X-rays.”

Nagel credits Karabut with making a tremendous contribution to this area of research. “I found 20 papers on ISCMNS and on LENR-CANR.org [search Karabut] there are 33 papers by him covering this area. He produced a large body of information.”

Alexander Karabut’s glow discharge experiments are considered some of the most significant in the field. In 2007 he was awarded the Preparata Medal for this work. One of his longtime LUCH colleagues, Irina Savvatimova, said at his memorial that she and Karabut had published their first paper on cold fusion shortly after Fleischmann and Pons (F&P) had. She said they had observed the effect of excess heat long before F&P but had not paid attention as they’d been more focused on transmutation.

Karabut’s work in X-ray effects is significant on many fronts, including the “fastest recorded evidence from LENR experiments of any kind,” as David Nagel put it. Recent work confirms that Karabut did indeed produce soft X-rays, which is a very big deal. It’s important in terms of understanding nuclear mechanisms and making related technology work. It’s a great scientific breakthrough with significant potential for industrialization.

An update on the results of a collaborative research effort between MIT’s Prof. Peter Hagelstein and SRI International’s Dr. Fran Tanzella will be presented at ICCF19 in Padua, Italy. The experiment studies the possible up-conversion of vibrational energy in order to understand Karabut’s X-ray effects, not with glow discharge but with a vibrating copper foil. One of the most striking things about the results is that the very different thinking, backgrounds and disciplines of the participants—an unusual amalgam of disciplines—when put together have resulted in a new kind of experiment.

Tanzella explains that for starters, he and Hagelstein were looking at the problem through a different lens. “Physics and chemistry have a difference of nomenclature,” Tanzella says. “Physicists think of all low energy radiation as X-ray’s regardless of its source. To a chemist, a photon ejected from an atom with low energy is an ‘electronic X-ray,’ while a low energy particle ejected from the nucleus is a ‘nuclear X–ray’ and they are considered different phenomena. Classically excess angular momentum from a nuclear reaction expresses itself as a photon (i.e. a gamma ray). Peter’s hypothesis, the last step of which is present in some LENR theories, is that when a nuclear reaction occurs inside a lattice the excess angular momentum interacts with that lattice’s vibrations. Therefore instead of yielding photons (gammas) it leads to a vibrating lattice, which thermalizes resulting in heat with no ionizing radiation. So Peter thought of vibrations exciting nuclei to get low energy gammas, and calling them X-rays. (We don’t argue over the different nomenclature anymore). Peter’s lossy spin boson model theory deals with massive up-conversion and down-conversion. In high temperature fusion, deuterons normally fuse to make n+3He and p+t, but with low probability can make 4He plus a gamma. So in Peter’s theory for LENR to occur, that nuclear energy needs to be down-converted to phonons. If you vibrate a lattice you get heat but not ionizing radiation. The way I view our experiment is we are looking at the final step in the LENR process backwards: we’re exciting phonons mechanically, and which interact with nuclei to give off low energy gammas as X-rays. In Peter’s model the energy goes from the nuclei to the vibrations for excess heat production, where here the idea is to go the other way and start with the vibrations to produce nuclear excitation. In the models the two processes are just two sides of the same coin.”

Despite, or perhaps because of their different perspectives, they came up with an experiment both were happy with, after some rounds of refinement.

The person whose work they were springing off from, Alexander Karabut, was coming from yet another world entirely. Hagelstein, who had traveled to Russia in the 1990s to see Karabut’s work in the early stages, explains that “Karabut is an experimentalist, not a theorist or someone involved in quantum mechanics. He lived in a last century world. His world is one of power supplies, discharges, working with others on hardware to do some diagnostics on it, and generating lots of data that didn’t make any sense but that he tried to understand.”

Hagelstein mused that he tried repeatedly to tell Alexander Karabut how influential the Russian’s work had been on his thinking and the very direction of Hagelstein’s work. Karabut had asked Hagelstein to collaborate with him on a book, a book that Hagelstein would still like to complete if Karabut was able to make enough progress to leave a manuscript. Hagelstein hopes his appreciation of Karabut had came through to him. This was not just a matter of their method of communication with each other. Neither spoke the other’s language so they were using Google Translate on emails, with linguistic idiosyncrasies indubiously causing major pieces of communication to fall between the cracks. Both men were very busy, Hagelstein reporting that his last term’s work at MIT was “the worst I’ve had in twenty years” and Karabut was working in a new space in Moscow he had put together. Hagelstein also attributed any glitches to their very different life views.

“I think the ideas I’m pursuing are not the most obvious ideas. To think what I am suggesting is plausible requires suspension of disbelief, or someone understanding how coherent processes in quantum mechanics works,” Hagelstein says. “I am going to imagine from his point of view that he would think I’ve lost my mind—which would be a natural reaction of an experimentalist interacting with a theorist like me!” Hagelstein laughs. “He wouldn’t appreciate the amount of ongoing effort to untangle what he did. But Karabut’s work has provided the foundation of pretty much most of the major issues I’ve been working on since 2011. I’ve come to view his experiment as seminal. If you say the Fleischmann-Pons experiment is Number 1 in all this business, I’m of the opinion that his collimated X-rays, if it is not Number 2 then it is in the top five.”

Hagelstein and Tanzella set out to reproduce the Karabut effect. . .not with a glow discharge, as Karabut did, but with vibrating foils and resonators. Would it be possible to produce soft X-rays that were collimated? The distinction being that “soft” here means X-rays in a region of the electromagnetic spectrum. In the X-ray region, the radiation ranges from hard and energetic which will penetrate surfaces (like your broken arm) all the way down to a region—soft—that will not penetrate much material. It has to do with wavelength. The collimated part is more like a laser than a light bulb. If an electric bulb scatters light in all directions, a collimated beam is in a narrow format like a laser. Ordinary X-rays are usually born going in all directions but Karabut found the X-rays from his source were more like a laser, directional.

Hagelstein takes this as extremely significant. If the X-rays are directional, then there has to be a pretty fundamental reason for it. Phase coherence among the emitters could result in collimation, but then how could this phase coherence come about? Hagelstein’s conclusion was that the most likely way it could happen would be through up-conversion of vibrational energy to produce phase coherent nuclear excitation. If so, this would bring Karabut’s experiment into alignment with mechanisms Hagelstein thinks are involved in producing excess heat in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment.

So Hagelstein and Tanzella set out to reproduce the collimated X-ray effect that Alexander Karabut first saw back in 2002. Hagelstein says, “Even before 2002 there were precursors to the effect. Karabut saw X-ray beamlets at higher energy. Karabut was convinced he had made an X-ray laser back in those days.”

Peter Hagelstein visited Russia’s LUCH Institute in 1995. In the late 1980s to early 1990s, physicist Yan Kucherov was the head of a group at LUCH that included Alexander Karabut and Irina Savvatimova. Kucherov had already emigrated to the United States but stayed in touch with his colleagues. David Nagel, then at NRL, said he wished for a more comprehensive understanding of what LUCH was like. He believed the institute functions like the United States’ Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories. “You can see they did lab work on materials and systems that have to do with nuclear power and propulsion,” Nagel says.

Hagelstein relates that at MIT they tried to replicate the Karabut, Kucherov and colleague’s experiments. A version of their experiment was constructed and shipped to MIT, where Lou Smullin and Peter Hagelstein worked on it for four years altogether. During this effort, travel was arranged for Hagelstein to go to Moscow to visit the LUCH Institute. “I got to see Karabut there. I witnessed the discharge,” he says. “I asked him a lot of questions. We worked to understand the large voltage spikes in their system better, and for me to get better acquainted with the experiment.”

Hagelstein notes, “In those days we focused on the claim of gamma emission. Kucherov and colleagues had claimed to see gamma emission around 129 keV. The goal of the experiment was to set things out, put a gamma detector on it and see if we could see the same thing. After a very long time and a huge amount of work we saw exactly what they saw. The headache was that the gammas at 129 keV were statistical noise.”

One researcher Hagelstein knew had experimented with glow discharges and tried to do an experiment related to Karabut’s collimated X-rays. “That researcher, someone with an awful lot of experience with glow discharge experiments, failed,” says Hagelstein. “I scratched my head thinking, why? And then I thought, well, obviously Karabut had these sharp voltage spikes, sub-nanoseconds 50 kV or higher in sub-nanoseconds. When I say 50 kV or higher, he was claiming up to a megavolt. That was one of the reasons why I went to Russia, to see these voltage spikes with my own eyes.”

In Moscow, Hagelstein found the ingenious nuts and bolts experimenter at work. “Karabut set up this insane resistance ladder voltage divider. He had like 100 resistors stacked up! So he was able to get a sufficiently low voltage across one of the resistors and so he could measure it without frying the electronics. He claimed his measurements were consistent with getting well over 100 kV out of his voltage spikes. They were shorter than he was able to measure with the scope. He was of the opinion they were sub-nanosecond. We looked for them in our system, which was supposed to be a copy of his. The discharge hardware was an exact copy of Karabut’s system.”

“Although,” Hagelstein continues, “what we had at MIT was a twin to their system. . . except for the electronics. We built our own electronics, different from Karabut’s electronics. We saw voltage spikes but 10, 15, 20 kV also shorter than we could measure, they were under a nanosecond but not of the amplitude that the Russians were getting. I am of the opinion that these voltage spikes are connected with the collimated X-ray emission and electron emission effects. The voltage spikes would only be present if you do something interesting in your drive electronics—for example, he had inductors. When I went to Moscow he said at the time he was using an inductive ballast…but I think to understand his experiments you have to understand the electronics and that is going to play a key role in the effort of sorting out what it is he did.”

So it was that Peter Hagelstein, upon learning of Karabut’s death, sent word to his Russian colleagues that it could be important for Karabut’s electronics to be preserved. “I am of the opinion that the key to Karabut’s experiment glow discharge experiments was in his electronics. He had a report where he documented some aspect of his electronics for a system that was similar to his glow discharge which had some inductors on the other side of power transistors, which is an unusual thing to do. His glow discharge showed very short, high amplitude voltage spikes, which is very unusual for glow discharge. In my view it would be connected to his electronics. If his electronics or notes exist it would be a tremendous loss for them to be to discarded so we don’t figure out his electronics.”

Hagelstein notes, “One thing I had hoped to do in connection with writing the book, was that I was going to twist his arm to write out a circuit describing his driving electronics so it would be there in black and white for the world. I think someone technical who knows about circuits should make an effort to look through his notes and electronics to make a diagram of his driving circuit. If that is done then it would be possible to pursue his life research. If it gets lost then no one will ever be able to go back to what he was doing.”

Hagelstein offered that he would host the experiment at MIT in the future when he could raise the resources and manpower to do it. “It would be nice if his experiment were preserved because it’s such an important and fundamental experiment, but what’s important would be if someone could recover the circuit diagram in as much detail as physically possible; that’s what would make a giant difference to me. There are two separate issues. One is the circuit diagram, the other is the preservation of the experiment. That should be talked about, to make a home for it, possibly in this country—at the University of Missouri Kimmel Institute or LENR research director Rob Duncan’s center at Texas Tech. Our place in MIT is a possibility. In Russia, one question is if Roussetski and company could take it over. In France, researcher Jean Paul Biberian might be a candidate.”

TRYING TO UNDERSTAND KARABUT: THE SRI/MIT Experiment by Hagelstein and Tanzella (The “Hellish Beast”)
Tanzella and Hagelstein agreed on the importance of Karabut’s X-ray effects and the great scientific and practical industrial potential. “We all agreed it was not an X-ray laser,” Tanzella states. “An X-ray laser needed a population inversion, which was thought impossible under the conditions of the experiment.”

At SRI, Hagelstein and Tanzella were faced with the need to make an experiment that was inspired by Karabut’s experiment but would be executed in a way that was completely different. They recognized that Karabut’s glow discharge was sufficiently complex that it was unlikely they would be able to build something to replicate what he had done because they would need his circuits. “In my view, his glow discharge is a hellish beast,” Hagelstein says. “Karabut and the LUCH Institute had a lifetime of experience with glow discharges before he built and worked on it. There was no way I wanted to get into a program where we’d have to basically become experts like Karabut. The idea was that if Karabut’s ideas worked it would work in a certain way. I have models and the models say that the only way Karabut’s model would really work would be if one of these voltage spikes on the cathode produced vibrations. The only way it would work would be, if there was mercury on the surface would we get the X rays.” Hagelstein had noted earlier that 201Hg is special among nuclear because it has the lowest energy transition (at 1565 eV) from the ground state of the stable isotopes.

Hagelstein suggested that instead of building Karabut’s glow discharge system, which looked like a real beast of a problem, they should attack the interpretation and build something simpler that would just vibrates some cathodes. It would be easier to explain to colleagues later on.

Tanzella suggested making them out of copper because mercury sticks to copper very well. Hagelstein explains, “If we got it to work we could put mercury on the surface and just watch for X-rays. That’s what we did. We got charge emission signals. We also got X-ray signals, which we initially thought were Karabut’s X-rays. When we went back to try to understand the data, it was clear. . .We had been fooled. Karabut didn’t get fooled because his diagnostics were very good and redundant, and he had taken the time to study the effect for many years. He had four different ways to test for his X-rays. But we were only using one X-ray detector. I am of the opinion our X-ray detector got fooled because of the large amount of noise present in the system. If real X-rays had been there we couldn’t tell the difference between it and the noise. We would like to follow up and try again either at SRI or MIT. At MIT we haven’t gotten that far yet but we are definitely interested in the X-rays.”

In that Hagelstein has been following the Karabut effect since the 1990s, his appreciation for SRI and Fran Tanzella is great. “Let me honor my friend Fran just a bit here,” he says. “When I approached Fran and SRI and said I’d like to set up a controlled Karabut experiment it was such a contrast to what would happen if I’d tried to do it here at MIT, where if I said, ‘I want to vibrate copper and see if X-rays come out,’ the door would immediately slam shut! But at SRI they said, ‘let’s just go do it and set it up!’”

“We talked about what we needed to do,” Tanzella says. “We need to excite a thin piece of metal. I got copper foils and cleaned them up. We made a simple apparatus. You can find details of this in our recent paper with figures and pictures. We put things together with steel washers. We spent months trying to make it work. The project proceeded in three phases. Peter wanted to find resonance by performing AC impedance experiments. We started that path but found that the noise was large and the signals too small to see in the presence of so much noise.”

Tanzella explains, “We then decided to make a solid cell that would hold the foil tightly, and resonate with the foil. We did that and got a large driver, which was a copper block, large so the acoustic energy wouldn’t go there. We brought in a collector plate in the back side of the resonator foil. You have a driver close to the foil so that it can drive it, and waves from the foil couple to the resonator. You have a collector plate to be able to measure electrons or any current. We were hoping they were electrons. The signals corresponded to negative charges, so we assumed they were electrons or negatively charged air molecules. We had an oscillator and linear amplifier so I could drive oscillations with high voltage and MHz frequencies. There were resonances in the signals. Peter thinks that the X-ray emission in the Karabut experiment is due to the 1565 eV transition in a mercury isotope, 201Hg. He recalled during his visit that they had at one time been using an old mercury-based diffusion pump. The amount of mercury needed on the surface to produce the emission was very small, and probably consistent with normal levels of ubiquitous mercury contamination. So we wanted to get copper vibrating so it could excite the mercury on the surface. Copper amalgamates with mercury so my colleague, Jianer Bao, deposited a thin layer of mercury on our copper foil. And we looked to see X-rays when we excited this coated foil. We saw charge emission signals that seemed to be correlated with the vibrational resonances. (If we let the foil sit for some time the mercury diffuses into the copper—it amalgamates—and the signals on the X-ray detector diminish, which we had attributed to the mercury atoms no longer being on the surface.)”

Tanzella notes, “Peter pulled out his credit card and bought a $7500 X-ray spectrometer. It fit in our resonator. We performed the excitation experiments with and without mercury. We saw something (a stronger signal in the X-ray detector) with mercury present. Because these results were potentially so important, the issue as to whether the signals were real or not came to be an issue. Peter decided to go through every scrap of data that had been taken, and we had to re-run all of the X-ray calibrations since there seemed to be some uncertainty in the calibration that had been used. Peter ended up not being convinced that the signals on the X-ray detector were not real because they didn’t seem to be absorbed by the Be window at the front of the detector. The X-ray detector was responding to something, but not to X-rays.”

Tanzella continues, “We needed to make a decision about presenting the charge emission results at ICCF19, since a charge emission effect correlated with acoustic vibrations would be big news and important to the community. At MIT some experiments had been started, and large amounts of RF noise was found in all of the detectors. So Peter wanted to see the charge emission experiment pass a ‘gold standard’ test to be sure that the charge was real, and not electrical noise. The idea was that RF noise might confuse some electronics, but Peter felt that a simple capacitor couldn’t be fooled. If the current was real, then it would charge a capacitor, and we would have much more confidence in the current measurements.”

So, Tanzella set up the “gold standard” capacitor measurement and took data. He found that the capacitor charged up when the driver was on, at a rate consistent with the earlier measurements. Also, the rate of charging was low off of resonance, and high on resonance, backing up the earlier electrometer measurements. With a successful “gold standard” test in hand, the abstract was e-mailed off.

Continued discussions about the severe noise problems in the experiments at MIT prompted Tanzella to repeat the “gold standard” capacitor test. This time, there would be no real-time monitoring of the capacitor. It would remain unconnected from the rest of the world (other than the collector and ground), and sampled only when the big high frequency and high voltage drive was off. This time no voltage could be seen on the big microfarad capacitor. The measurement was repeated with a small picofarad capacitor, and a signal could be seen. This signal was seen to grow roughly linearly with more running and subsequent interruption type measurements.

Hagelstein notes, “A conclusion from this test is that all of the earlier charge emission measurements were called into question as most likely being due to noise. Critics of the field have speculated that all positive measurements of excess heat and other anomalies are nothing but artifacts, so doing more tests to be sure of a result is always important.” Hagelstein has observed that if the charge in this new test were real, it would be very important. He says, “Unfortunately, we don’t know very much about this new version of the experiment, whether the result is an artifact or not, or whether the charge has anything to do with the vibrations.”

So, the question could be asked, after going through all of this, how do the results connect with Karabut’s experiment, based on all that has been learned?

Tanzella says, “I view the importance here is that you can excite phonons and show nuclear excitation as a way to prove LENR nuclear excitation relates to phonons to get heat without gammas.” Tanzella said that if successful, this research “could validate the concept that you can have nuclear reactions without ionizing radiation.”

Hagelstein has observed philosophically that knowing what doesn’t work is important, because it allows you to focus on things that have a better chance of working. However, he says that the results so far have been extremely valuable to him in his interpretation of the Karabut experiment, and of the models he has been working on. He explains that one of the big headaches in the theory end of things has been to find a regime in the models that might allow for an X-ray emission effect that involves a small sample. For years the numbers just wouldn’t work, even after repeated tries. Last year he found an obscure regime of the model where it was possible to have the numbers work, but this corresponded to a very strong coupling regime of the model only available if coupling to transitions with negative energy states of the nucleus were responsible for the fractionation. Not a regime that he was happy with, and one that would not go over well with colleagues. But a regime that the model would be forced into if one concluded that a small foil had the power to up-convert lots of small quanta to make 1.5 keV X-rays.

According to Hagelstein, they “did drive small samples pretty hard, and when driven hard they didn’t seem to do very much (although with so much noise present it has been hard to be sure).” Tentatively the conclusion he is coming to is that a revision in his interpretation of the Karabut experiment is needed. In experiments by Kornilova and Vysotskii and coworkers, a 3 mm thick steel plate near a high pressure water jet has been seen to produce X-ray signals on film under conditions where the X-rays are collimated. Peter thinks that this effect is closely related to Karabut’s collimated X-rays. He says, “Steel is interesting in that it contains 57Fe, and there is a nuclear transition at 14.4 keV in 57Fe that is like the 1565 eV transition in 201Hg. The cathode holder in the version of the glow discharge experiment that we worked with at MIT had a very heavy steel holder that could be interpreted as an acoustic resonator. Strong acoustic excitation of this resonator, resulting from the very short and very high voltage spikes that occur in Karabut’s discharge, might be responsible for the up-conversion of the vibrational energy. If so, the model would probably be much happier with it in the normal regime of the model. And if so, we could test it, by working with a big steel resonator instead of a copper resonator.”

So, a work in progress. Hagelstein and Tanzella are advancing their ideas about Karabut’s collimated X-rays by investigating a physics experiment which they think is closely related.

Peter Hagelstein and his collaborator Irfan Chaudhary produced a paper last year that focused on generic issues of the Karabut experiment and Hagelstein’s model. This paper discusses the model in the different regimes, trying heroically to connect the model to experiment under the assumption that the small cathode is up-converting the vibrational quanta. Hagelstein notes, “The ultimate conclusion is that a connection is made only if the system operates in an anomalous regime, which is interesting but not appealing. These days I am moving to a different interpretation that says the large steel cathode holder plays a major roll. The thought is that the model will be much happier connecting with experiment in the normal regime. This will make life much simpler, as the normal regime is much better understood, much easier to analyze, and behaves qualitatively much more like the experiments. One possibility is that the Fe-57 transition and the few other long-lived low energy nuclear transitions might be important for up-conversion in the eV-keV range, while more common long-lived transitions at higher energy are important for the down-conversion in the MeV regime.” In all of this the Karabut experiments, Hagelstein claims, “Have been key in my thinking and that of some of my associates as well.”

What is the potential of a working technology coming out of the Karabut-inspired experiments Hagelstein and Tanzella are doing?

“Let me back up a bit,” Hagelstein responds. “Some years ago, when Karabut first found this he wondered how efficient it could be. So he tinkered with it, trying to make it as efficient as possible. He had conversion efficiency of 20% from input electrical energy to output collimated X-rays. That is wild. It is amazing. Some of my colleagues have explained to me that this would be a candidate for commercialization. I don’t think you’d like to do it with glow discharge. Nothing wrong with it. If you debug it that would be useful. But I was thinking if we could get surfaces to be vibrated and give out collimated X-rays if this happened efficiently that would be a ridiculously useful technology. One of my friends who is involved with X-ray lithography said that would be the cat’s meow for a source for lithography for the semiconductor industry. Whether or not it turns out to be true, it conveys how important X-ray sources are in this day and age.”

—Marianne Macy and Infinite Energy will continue with this reporting, with interviews from Alexander Karabut’s colleagues from LUCH detailing the history and future of related work there.

Read original article here.

Fusion in All Its Forms Cold Fusion, ITER, Alchemy, Biological Transmutations now in English

La Fusion dans Tous ses États: Fusion Froide, ITER, Alchimie, Transmutations Biologiques by Jean-Paul Biberian has been translated into English.

Fusion-in-all-its-forms-EnglishFusion in All Its Forms Cold Fusion, ITER, Alchemy, Biological Transmutations is now available on Infinite Energy Press.

From the website:

In 1989, when the announcement of the discovery of cold fusion was made, Jean-Paul Biberian embarked on an extraordinary, promising adventure. Would it be possible to produce unlimited energy at low cost?

Many laboratories and scientists throughout the world tried to reproduce the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. But cold fusion did not happen in one day. This is Biberian’s personal story working in the cold fusion field, set in the context of the greater human and scientific story of cold fusion.

Dr. Jean-Paul Biberian is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. He worked as a Physics Professor at the University of Marseilles Luminy and organized ICCF-11 in Marseilles, France. Biberian began to work seriously on cold fusion in 1993 and became a friend and colleague of Stanley Pons after Dr. Pons left the United States in 1991 to work in the IMRA lab in France.

Dr. Stanley Pons wrote the Preface to the book originally published in French and Infinite Energy Magazine obtained an exclusive English translation of that Preface still available here [.pdf].

Get a copy of this new English-version Fusion in All Its Forms by Jean-Paul Biberian from Infinite Energy Press.

Cold Fusion Research Laboratory Newsletter #90

Kozima-HideoThe Cold Fusion Research Laboratory, Japan has published Newsletter #90.

The newsletter is written by Dr. Hideo Kozima, Director of the Cold Fusion Research Laboratory and author of The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon.

Find all issues of the Cold Fusion Research Laboratory Newsletter Archive

CFRL English News No. 90 (2015. 2. 10)

Published by Dr. Hideo Kozima, Director of the Cold Fusion Research Laboratory (Japan),
E-mail address; hjrfq930@ybb.ne.jp, cf-lab.kozima@pdx.edu
Websites; http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/, http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/
(Back numbers of this News are posted on the above geocities and/or PSU sites of the CFRL Websites)

CFP (Cold Fusion Phenomenon) stands for “Nuclear reactions and accompanying events occurring in open (with external particle and energy supply), non-equilibrium system composed of solids with high densities of hydrogen isotopes (H and/or D) in ambient radiation” belonging to Solid-State Nuclear Physics (SSNP) or Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS).

This is the CFRL News (in English) No.90 for Cold Fusion researchers published by Dr. H. Kozima, now at the Cold Fusion Research Laboratory, Shizuoka, Japan.

This issue contains the following items:
1. From the History of CF Research (4) ― The First Measurement of the Energy Spectrum of Neutrons emitted in the CFP by S.E. Jones et al. (1989)
2. Papers published in Cold Fusion and Elemental Energy (Cold Fusion) are uploaded into the CFRL Website
3. On the Dignity of Scientists (4) – The End of the STAP Cell Scandal

1. From the History of CF Research (4) ― The First Measurement of the Energy Spectrum of Neutrons emitted in the CFP by S.E. Jones et al. (1989)
It is well known that the first observation of the energy spectrum of neutrons emitted from cold fusion materials (CF materials) was performed by Jones et al. [Jones 1989] in BYU in the State of Utah. And it is also known an episode of the competition between Fleischmann-Pons and Jones as minutely described by G. Taubes [Taubes 1993]. In this article, we examine the work by Jones et al. in relation to the physics of the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) and finally mention a brief personal comment on the competition.

1-1 Measurement of the Energy Spectrum of Neutrons from CF Materials by Jones et al. [Jones 1989]

The experimental result of the neutron energy spectrum from a CF material TiDx was published in the April issue of the Nature in 1989 just after the work by Fleischmann, Pons and Hawkins appeared in the April issue of the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. For the readers’ convenience, we posted the paper by Jones et al. at this Website just after this News.

According to G. Taubes [Taubes 1993, Chapter 2], Bart Czirr in the Jones group was an expert of radiation detection and this fact is reflected in the measurement showing clear evidence of ̴ 2.5 MeV neutrons (at around the channel 100 in their Fig. 2) in the vast background due to the environmental neutrons. From this data, they concluded that the d – d fusion reaction (2) in the following reactions (in free space) is realized in the CF material NiDx:

d + d → 42He* → t (1.01) + p (3.02), Q = 4.03 (1)
→ 32He (0.82) + n (2.45), Q = 3.27 (2)
→ 42He (0.07) + γ (23.66). Q = 23.73 (3)

This experimental result stimulated the researches in the CFP in several ways. First, there have been trials to observe the energy spectrum of neutrons as precisely as possible to confirm the possibility of d – d fusion reactions (1) – (3) in CF materials to check its characteristics different from those in free space (cf. Sec.1-2). Second, there are several trials to explain the result obtained by Jones et al. by the effect of thermal neutrons abundant in environment (cf. Sec.1.3). Third, there are several works to check the effect of thermal neutrons by intentional irradiation (cf. Sec.1.4). We give a brief survey of these works below.

1-2. Precise Observation of the Energy Spectrum of Neutrons in CF materials
Many nuclear physicists are questionable to the realization of the above mentioned reactions (1) – (3) in solids where are no acceleration mechanisms, they supposed possible influence of the ubiquitous environmental neutron on the observed result. Jones et al. themselves tried to check the effect in extremely low background laboratory.

One of these trials was performed in the Kamioka Laboratory deep at 1000 m in the Kamioka mine, Gifu, Japan in collaboration with Tokyo University [Ishida 1992]. In this experiment, they could not obtain decisive confirmation of the neutron emission.

The second trial was done in the deep-underground neutron detection facility in Provo Canyon with state-of the-art detectors [Jones 1994]. In this experiment, they concluded a “null result” with the state-of the-art detector they were very proud of.

Despite their conclusion, we find uncertainty in their logic from the experimental data to the conclusion. In short, they had committed the same mistake as S. Pons did comparing the “control experiment” in protium system with the “real experiment” in deuterium system assuming there should not be occurred the seeking event.

In the case of S. Pons as cited by G. Taubes the situation was as follows:
“When Pons was asked why he had not reported results of control experiments with light water substituted for heavy water, he replied ‘A baseline reaction run with light water is not necessarily a good baseline reaction.’ When asked to elaborate, Pons intimated he had performed the experiment with light water and had seen fusion, saying ‘We do not get the expected baseline experiment. . . We do not get the total blank experiment we expected’ ” (CFRL News No. 89 http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/News/news.html/ )

In the case of Jones et al., they observed ”neutron bursts” and “singles” both in the control and real experiments by their state-of-the-art detector [Jones 1994] (underlined at citation):
“The Pd/LiOD cells described above were polarized for 708.8 hours. During this time, 24 neutron-like burst events were seen, all having multiplicity 2. (This represents approximately one burst candidate per 30 hours, a very low rate indeed.) Thus, the neutron-like rate for these events was 48/708.8h = (0.07 ~ 0.01) n/hr. These numbers are in complete agreement with those found with hydrogen controls discussed above. There was no significant change in rate for neutron-like burst events between background and runs with electrical currents in the Pd/LiOD cells. There is no indication of a neutron burst signal above a very low background.”(Jones et al. [Jones 1994, p. 145])

“Even though there is no neutron-burst signal, there may still be neutron counts above background which we consider ‘singles.” The background rate for such events has been established as (0.65 ± 0.1) counts/hour using Pd loaded with hydrogen. Figure 3 displays results from each run of the electrolytic cells, showing 1-sigma error bars (statistical only). All of the observed rates are entirely consistent with background levels of 0.65 h–1. This exercise has as its conclusion that no neutrons were seen above very low background levels, in a high-efficiency detector. The most important observation may be that state-of-the-art neutron detectors are now available for studies requiring high-sensitivity instruments.” (Jones et al. [Jones 1994, p. 145])

They continued their effort to confirm nuclear reactions in CF materials and finally obtained positive results both in neutron [Keeney 2003] and charged particles [Jones 2003] in TiDx as published in ICCF10 (2003).

1-3 Detection of Higher Energy Neutrons
Stimulated by the work by Jones et al. [Jones 1989], many experimentalists in nuclear physics tried to detect 2.45 MeV neutrons to confirm the reaction (1) – (3) in CF materials and reveal characteristics of deuterated solids in the d – d fusion reactions. Typical data had been obtained by Takahashi et al. [Takahashi 1990] and Bressani et al. [Bressani1991, Botta 1992, 1999] with astonishing bi-products of higher energy neutrons with energies up to more than 10 MeV. Takahashi et al. observed neutrons up to 7 MeV, and Botta et al. up to 10 MeV. The number of neutrons with more than ̴ 3 MeV exceeds that of with ̴ 2.45 MeV.
This result has shown again a turning point to seek other possible mechanisms of nuclear reactions in CF materials other than the d – d fusion reactions (1) – (3) [Kozima 2010] (cf. also CFRL News No. 89).

1-4 Effect of Environmental Neutrons
The fact that the lattice constants of CF materials (solids used in the CFP experiments) are around a few Å (= a few ×105 fm) while the range of the nuclear force is a few fm has given a hint to nuclear physicists if the ubiquitous thermal neutron induces the nuclear reactions resulting in the neutron with 2.45 MeV observed by Jones et al. The earliest result on this line was published by Shani et al. in 1989 [Shani 1989].
Their result of the effect of thermal neutrons on the nuclear reactions in solids has generally been taken as negative evidence against the CFP, it should, in reality, be considered to show a characteristic of CF materials as we have already pointed out [Kozima 1998 (Sec. 8.2)]:
“The first experimental evidence of an effect of the thermal neutron on the nuclear reactions in solids was obtained by G. Shani et al. in Jerusalem, Israel. They measured neutron emission from targets irradiated with thermal neutrons from an artificial source where the targets were (1) palladium metal occluding deuterium (PdDx) and (2) gaseous deuterium (D2). The measured neutron in the case (2) was explained by the conventional nuclear physics very well but that in the case (1) was inconsistent with the conventional prediction.
The number of the observed neutron in the case (1) was more than three orders of magnitude larger than the prediction.

From their result, Shani et al. deduced a conclusion that the cold fusion phenomenon observed in solids is a result induced by the background neutron with a negative nuance against its revolutionary character.” ([Kozima 1998, Sec. 8.2a] Underline is at citation.)

1-5 Effect of Thermal Neutron Irradiation
The result obtained by Shani et al. has induced efforts to determine the effect of thermal neutrons as precisely as possible by artificial irradiation. Typical data were obtained by Celani et al. [Celani 1992], Stella et al. [Stella 1993] and Lipson et al. [Lipson 1996] showing enhancement of nuclear reactions by thermal neutron irradiation. Other data have been explained in my book [Kozima 1998 (Sec. 8.2)].

Thus, it has been shown with precision experiments on the neutron emission, that the CFP is closely related to the environmental neutrons ubiquitous on the earth: the CFP rarely occurs in a situation where are extremely low density of thermal neutrons and is enhanced by thermal neutron irradiation depending non-linearly on its density. The energy of neutrons emitted from the CF materials reaches up to 10 MeV and the number of neutrons with energies more than 3 MeV exceeds that of with ̴ 2.45 MeV.

1-6 Explanation of the Experimental Result on the Neutron Measurements
The experimental data on the neutrons emitted from CF materials explained above have shown another evidence of complex mechanisms in the CFP where occur nuclear reactions in solids including a lot of hydrogen isotopes than the CFP observed in protium systems explained in the article “From the History of CF Research (3) ― The First Observation of Nuclear Transmutation in a Protium System by R.T. Bush and R.D. Eagleton (1993, 1994)” in the previous News No. 89; http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/News/news.html

We have used the TNCF model to explain successfully the data introduced above; The reactions of trapped neutrons with such nuclei in the CF materials as 21H (d) and 63Li induce succeeding reactions resulting in neutrons with higher energies than 2.45 MeV [Kozima 1997, 1998a (Section 11.4), 1998b, 1999].

1-7 The Competition for Financial Funds – an Episode
There is a full report on the relation between the paper by Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins [Fleischmann 1989] and that of Jones et al. [Jones 1989] in the book by G. Taubes [Taubes1993]. By the way the scientific explanation of the paper by Jones et al. [Jones 1989], we give a brief personal comment on the relation here according to the description written in the book.

As cited below, S.E. Jones had worked on the muon-catalyzed fusion and the piezo-nuclear fusion for several years until 1988 and fully equipped with apparatus in measuring nuclear products from solids while he did not realize possible application of electrolysis to obtain CF materials. The Pons-Fleischmann proposal sent him to evaluate its value had given the idea of the electrolysis for the CF materials (PdDx and TiDx). He succeeded to measure the neutron spectrum from TiDx as written in their paper [Jones 1989] almost simultaneously with (but perhaps a little later than) the excess heat data by Fleischmann et al. [Fleischmann 1989]. As G. Taubes describes in his book, “he should have noted that he had assigned a student to do electrolysis experiments only after reading the Utah proposal.”
Paragraphs from G. Taubes [Taubes 1993] (Underlines are at citation).

Chapter 2 The Competition
“A few weeks after Palmer broached his theory to Jones, they came upon a paper by Boris Mamyrin, a Soviet researcher, who found excessive amounts of helium 3 in nickel foils. Fusion? Why not? In a memo dated April 1, 1986, Jones wrote, “Could it be that metal hydrides provide an environment conducive to confinement and fusion of hydro-gen isotopes?”
On April 7, Jones met at BYU with Palmer, Bart Czirr, the resident radiation detection expert, and Johann Rafelski., a theorist who was now collaborating with Jones on the muon-catalyzed fusion work. The four scientists discussed various strategies for catalyzing fusion at room temperature. Later Jones liked to call this meeting “the brainstorming session.” The scientists discussed using diamond anvil presses to condense deuterium, or even electric charges or lasers to shock deuterium atoms into fusing.

Jones’s notes for the day, as was his style, were cryptic. His handwriting bordered on the illegible. And, if he was then planning to use electrolysis to condense deuterium in a metal and induce fusion, as he would claim later, he never actually wrote down the word electrolysis. What is indisputable is that he scribbled a list of elements: “Al, Cu, Ni, Pt, Pd, Li. . .“ And next to Pd, palladium, and Pt, platinum, were the portentous words “dissolves much hydrogen.” And Jones did, at Rafelski’s suggestion, take the lab book to the BYU patent attorney, Lee Phillips, and ask that the page be notarized.

Three years later, and several weeks after the March 23 announcement of the discovery of cold fusion, the BYU press office released an official history of ”piezonuclear” fusion, which was now simply Jones’s term for cold fusion. This documented the progress of the BYU cold fusion research program, with the aim of dispelling Pons and Fleischmann’s accusations that Jones had somehow pirated the idea from them. The account described this April 7 meeting as the beginning of “Brigham Young University’s experimental program.” This made the BYU effort sound like a concerted three-year program, which is how Jones described it later to Pons and Fleischmann, and later still to reporters. Such was not the case.” (pp.. 26 – 29)

Chapter 3 Autumn 1988
“Shortly after March 23, 1989, the BYU public relations office distributed an official history of piezonuclear fusion research at BYU. Its purpose was to protect Steve Jones from any possible allegations of conflict of interest or worse—scientific piracy.
This account, which was compiled predominantly by Jones, cited a fusion group meeting on August 24, 1988, during which Jones and his colleagues discussed their piezonuclear fusion program. (This was approximately one month before Jones received the Pons-Fleischmann proposal (on September 20)). The account asserts that from August 24 onward the fusion group’s program was “vigorously” pursued. Jones told reporters, “From that day [August 24] we were essentially 100 percent working on this other piezonuclear fusion.”

However, when presented with the facts that nothing was done on the subject for twenty-nine days after the meeting and that he had reviewed the Pons-Fleischmann proposal by then, Jones insisted that this level of activity still legitimately meets the definition of “vigorous pursuit.” He did not deny that he may have had “impetus” from the Pons-Fleischmann proposal but argued that Pons and Fleischmann had not accused him of “impetus”—they had accused him of stealing ideas wholesale. Jones conceded that perhaps in drafting BYU’s official account he should have noted that he had assigned a student to do electrolysis experiments (of the kind Paul Palmer had pursued two years earlier and Pons and Fleischmann were now proposing) only after reading the Utah proposal.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
To this Gajewski* added his own quasi-rhetorical question: would he be surprised to discover that Jones, consciously or subconsciously, intensified the pace of his cold fusion research because of what he saw in the Pons-Fleischmann proposal? He said he would be unable to answer definitively. “Maybe he did or maybe he didn’t, but I would not be surprised if he did. I have no evidence to that effect. It’s just human nature.”

Whether he did or not was important merely because Pons and Fleischmann believed that Jones only “vigorously” began his research after reading their proposal, and that the fate of billions of dollars, among other things, hinged on whether he did or not. And what Pons and Fleischmann believed, rightly or wrongly, was what led them publicly and emphatically to disclose their invention on March 23, which is to say well before they had gathered sufficient data to support their claim.” (pp. 36 – 37)

*Ryszard Gajewski was an administrator of Office Advanced Energy Projects (OAEP) at DOE, to whom Pons submited his proposal in September 1988.”

[Botta 1992] E. Botta, T. Bressani, D. Calvo, A. Feliciello, P. Gianotti, C. Lamberti, M. Angello, F. Iazzi, B. Minetti and A. Zecchino, “Measurement of 2.5 MeV Neutron Emission from Ti/D and Pd/D Systems,” Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 105A, 1663 – 1471 (1992).
[Botta 1999] E. Botta, T. Bressani, D. Calvo, C. Fanara and F. Iazzi, “On the Neutron Emission from the Ti/D System,” Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 112A, 607 – 617 (1999).
[Bressani 1991] T. Bressani, D. Calvo, A. Feliciello, C. Lamberti, F. Iazzi, B. Minetti, R. Cherubini, A.M.I. Haque and R.A. Ricci, “Observation of 2.5 MeV Neutrons emitted from a Titanium- Deuterium Systems,” Nuovo Cimento 104A, 1413 – 1416 (1991).
[Celani 1992] Celani et al., “Search for Enhancement of Neutron Emission from Neutron-Irradiated, Deuterated High-Temperature Superconductors in a Very Low Background Environment,” Fusion Technol. 22, 181 (1992).
[Fleischmann 1989] M, Fleischmann, S. Pons and M. Hawkins, “Electrochemically induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium,” J. Electroanal. Chem., 261, 301 – 308 (1989)
[Ishida 1992] T. Ishida, “Study of the Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Solid-Deuterium Systems,” Master Degree Thesis, Tokyo University, February 1992. ICRR – Report – 277 – 92 – 15.
[Jones 1989] S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L. Jensen, J.M. Thorne, S.F. Tayler and J. Rafelski, “Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter,” Nature, 338, 737 – 740 (1989).
[Jones 1994] S.E. Jones, D.E. Jones, S.S. Shelton and S.E. Tayler, “Search for Neutron, Gamma and X-Ray Emission from Pd/LiOD Electrolytic Cells; A Null Results,” Trans. Fusion Technol., 26, 143 – 148 (1994). ISSN 0748-1896
[Jones 2003] S.E. Jones, F.W. Keeney, A.C. Johnson, D.B. Buehler, F.E. Cecil, G. Hubler, P.L. Hagelstein, J.E. Ellsworth and M.R. Scott, “Charged-particle Emissions from Metal Deuterides,” Proc. ICCF10, pp. 509 – 523 (2003). ISBN 981-256-564-7
[Keeney 2003] F.W. Keeney, S.E. Jones, A.C. Johnson, P.L. Hagelstein, G. Hubler, D.B. Buehler, F.E. Cecil, M.R. Scott and J.E. Ellsworth, “Neutron Emission from Deuterided Metals,” Proc. ICCF10, pp. 525 – 533 (2003). ISBN 981-256-564-7
[Kozima 1997] H. Kozima, M. Fujii, M. Ohta and K. Kaki, “Jones’ Neutron Data
Explained Using the TNCF Model,” Cold Fusion 24, 60 – 64 (1997), ISSN 1074-5610.

Also Reports of CFRL 15-2, 1 – 7 (2015) posted at the CFRL Website:
[Kozima 1998a] H. Kozima, Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon (Ohtake Shuppan Inc., 1998). ISBN 4-87186-044-2. The “References” in this book is posted at the Cold Fusion Research Laboratory (CFRL) Website;
[Kozima 1998b] H. Kozima, M. Fujii, K. Kaki and M. Ohta, “Precise Neutron Measurements Revealed Nuclear Reactions in Solids,” Elemental Energy (Cold Fusion) 28, 4 – 15 (1998) , ISSN 1074-5610.
[Kozima 1999] H. Kozima, M. Ohta, M. Fujii, K. Arai, H. Kudoh and K. Kaki, “Analysis of Energy Spectrum of Neutrons in Cold-fusion Experiments by the TNCF Model,” Il Nuovo Cimento 112A, 1431 – 1438 (1999)
[Kozima 2006] H. Kozima, The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon, Elsevier Science, 2006. ISBN-10: 0-08-045110-1.
[Kozima 2010] H. Kozima, “Neutron Emission in the Cold Fusion Phenomenon,” Proc. JCF11, pp. 76 – 82 (2010) ISSN 2187-2260. And also Reports of CFRL (Cold Fusion Research Laboratory) 11-3, 1 – 12 (January, 2011):
[Lipson 1996] A.G. Lipson, D.M. Sakov and E.I. Saunin, “Change in the Intensity of a Neutron Flux as It Interaction with a K(SxD1-x)2PO4 Crystal in the Vicinity of Tc,” J. Tech. Phys. Lett. (in Russian), 22, 8 ((1996). And also V.A. Filimonov, “A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon?” Cold fusion 7, 24 (1995).
[Takahashi 1990] A. Takahashi, T. Takeuchi and T. Iida, “Emission of 2.45 MeV and Higher Energy Neutrons from D2O-Pd Cell under Biased-Pulse Electrolysis,” J. Nuclear Science and Technology, 27, pp. 663 – 666 (1990).
[Shani 1989] G. Shani, G., C. Cohen, A. Grayevsky and S. Brokman, “Evidence for a Background Neutron Enhanced Fusion in Deuterium Absorbed Palladium,” Solid State Comm. 72, 53 (1989).
[Celani 1992] Celani et al., “Search for Enhancement of Neutron Emission from Neutron-Irradiated, Deuterated High-Temperature Superconductors in a Very Low Background Environment,” Fusion Technol. 22, 181 (1992).
[Stella 1993] Stella et al. “Evidence for Stimulated Emission of Neutrons in Deuterated Palladium, “Frontiers of Cold Fusion (Proc. ICCF3) (1992, Nagoya, Japan), p. 437 (1993).

2. Papers published in Cold Fusion and Elemental Energy ( Cold Fusion) are uploaded into the CFRL Website
The journal Cold Fusion and the succeeding Elemental Energy (Cold Fusion ) had been published in 1994 – 1998 by Wayne Green after the ICCF4 (December, 1993) in Hawaii, USA. We had benefit to publish papers in the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) when there were few journals opening their gates for us. Now, it is very difficult to read papers published in them at present.

We decided to upload our papers published in the Cold Fusion and Elemental Energy (Cold Fusion) into the CFRL website:
http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Papers/paperc/paperc.html http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Papers/paperc/paperc.html

We hope the old papers published more than 15 years ago keep their life and are useful for the development of science of the CFP.

At the same time, we posted a list of the contents of Journal Cold Fusion and the Elemental Energy (Cold Fusion) at at the site for convenience of readers.

3. On the Dignity of Scientists (4) – The End of the STAP Cell Case–
We have cited the old saying in Japan, “Lying is a first step to thieving” or “Lying is the beginning of stealing,” to be prudent in our activity in the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) (CFRL News No.84). By the way, we had cited the STAP cell case, just then been frequently reported in mass media as a bad example (CFRL News Nos. 85 and 87).

Last December, the Investigation Committee in Riken (the Chief of the Committee is Dr. Isao Katsura, the Director of the National Genetics Research Laboratory) issued the Final Report of the Committee in which they reported that Riken and Dr. Obokata have failed to recreate STAP cells after months of experiments. They had shut down the probe, which was originally scheduled to last until March. The cells used to show the realization of the STAP cell were in reality the ES cells known already to be a stem cell (The Mainichi, Dec. 26, 2014). However, they could not confirm when and who replaced the ES cell for the so-called STAP cell.

Astonishing enough, it was reported that Dr. T. Ishikawa, a former Senior Researcher in the Riken and the Director of a NPO corporation, charged Ms. Haruko Obokata of theft as the article of the Nikkei cited below shows. The fact of this charge itself, even if it is real or not, is a tragic affair in the world of science going as is alleged in the saying “Lying is the beginning of stealing.”

“Riken OB charged Miss. Obokata by suspect of ES cell theft
2015/1/26 22:52
The former Senior Researcher Dr. Tomihisa Ishikawa, now the Director of a NPO organization, laid an information of the theft of the BS cell from Prof. Teruhiko Wakayama’s Laboratory against Ms. Haruko Obokata to the Kobe police station. By the bill of indictment, Miss. Obokata had stolen ES cell from Wakayama Laboratory at around years of 2011 ~2013. She used the ES cell to the stem cell experiment with Prof. T. Wakayama and wrote papers on the STAP cell which were published in the Nature. Around the STAP cell, the Investigation Committee of Riken published a Final Report in which they concluded that the so-called STAP cell discovered by Obokata et al. is probably a ES cell with certainty.” (Nikkei, 2015. 1.16, Translated into English by H.K. Original article (in Japanese) is cited in the Japanese version of this News )

For the complete list of CFRL Newsletters, go to the CFRL Newsletter Archive.

Chase Peterson, Former President of University of Utah, Dies

This article was originally published in Infinite Energy Magazine here.


by Marianne Macy

Chase Nebeker Peterson, former President of University of Utah, died on September 14, 2014 from complications of pneumonia. His life story was traced in his 2012 autobiography, The Guardian Poplar: A Memoir of Deep Roots, Journey, and Rediscovery. The concept of roots were important to Chase Peterson. He never forgot his own from a family of Mormon pioneers, despite a life that would take him from his birthplace of Logan, Utah to elite eastern prep schools and Harvard University, from which he was an undergraduate and graduate of the medical school. In 2006, Peterson received the Harvard Medal, awarded at commencement by the Alumni Association for a “lifetime contribution to Harvard.” He had three official careers—Vice President of Harvard University, Vice President for Health Services at the University of Utah, and President of the University of Utah. He also practiced medicine and taught his last class in July of 2014. He was a public spokesperson for innovation at the institutions he was associated with, an innovator, administrator who instituted an open door policy with students, doctor, writer, and visionary.

Cornel West, philosopher, best-selling author, civil rights activist, saluted Chase Peterson for “his prophetic witness at Harvard in the turbulent 60s and 70s, his promotion of black priesthood in the Mormon church, his support of anti-apartheid protest in the 1980s, and his steadfast defense of academic freedom during the cold fusion controversy in the early 90s—all expressed his quiet and humble effort to be true to himself.”

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, Jr. heard that Dr. Chase Peterson had died and put a moving tribute on air that saluted Peterson for his historically important actions at Harvard which included hiring the first African-American admissions staff member, instituting an enrollment strategy to embrace students less privileged than the typical Ivy League undergraduate—which, as it turned out, included O’Donnell himself, whose admissions entry interview was with Chase Peterson. The United States Supreme Court cited the measures Chase Peterson instituted as exemplary.

In 1978 Peterson had returned from Harvard to the University of Utah as Vice President in charge of health sciences and the university hospital program. There he found “a unique culture.” The University of Utah, he wrote, offered “an unfettered opportunity to restless young faculty members” who would not face the restraints imposed by more settled places. “Ambitious people—often mavericks held back by practices at other institutions—found comfort and support at the University of Utah.” In his book, Peterson mentioned Max Wintrobe, who in the 1940s was the leading hemotologist, texbook author and junior professor at John Hopkins, where he felt at the time he hit a glass ceiling of anti-Semitism at the otherwise excellent institution. Wintrobe, Peterson wrote, felt Utah, while lacking the research budgets of the institutions in the east, “nevertheless presented unlimited opportunity—a new Zion as it were—open to a Jew or anyone else smart and hard-working enough to take advantage of possibilities. As chief of the Department of Internal Medicine, he brought with him a critical mass of respected young medical investigators. Even more importantly, he brought a personal level of excellence that was infectious and launched Utah toward the upper ranks of medical schools and centers.” Peterson also pointed out that this receptive climate was historically illustrated in 1916, when Utah elected the second Jewish governor in the United States, Simon Bamberger, who was widely admired. He added that Bamberger had called the Utah Legislature into special session to ratify the national woman’s suffrage amendment.

Salt Lake City’s University of Utah is the “economic engine for the state,” a phrase coined by former University President David Gardner. Chase Peterson throughout his career valued his home state for its pioneering spirit and what to him was the epitome of American opportunity. Peterson worked to establish a nationally recognized center of medical research, with special contributions in genetic research and the high profile recognition for being the site of the first human heart implant based on research done by Dr. Willem Kolff. In 1982 Kolff’s results were approved by the FDA. In December 1982 the chief surgeon, Dr. William DeVries, operated on Barney Clark and implanted the artificial heart. Chase Peterson was the face of the University, giving twice a day reports to the assembled international media. In his memoir, Dr. Chase Peterson discussed the extraordinary events, but in a narrative twist completely his own finished his in-depth account of the medical breakthrough with the sort of question that Peterson attributed to the extraordinary world fascination with the story. Chase Peterson wrote that Barney Clark’s wife had told Chase right before surgery Barney had asked, “I wonder if I will still love you when I lose my heart?” Peterson wrote, “He answered that question a few days post-op when—still reduced whispering around a tracheotomy tube—he gestured to his wife and mouthed the words, ‘I love you.’ The scalpel had met its match. Love required a functional pump, but its home was elsewhere.”

Chase Peterson’s tenure and tributes are marked with mentions of his leadership, enthusiasm and generosity. Others remarked on his courage and support of academic freedom, freedom of inquiry and pursuit of ideas. To Peterson, this was a sacred trust he felt was his mission to uphold. His obituaries mentioned controversies of his tenure as University President, what he wrote of as the “perfect storm” on conflicting interests and opinions over Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons’ discovery and work on cold fusion at the University of Utah. The variety of descriptions reflected on the field now in Peterson’s obituary accounts illustrate the spectrum of those perspectives. Chase Peterson never stopped believing it was his job and responsibility to support the freedom of research, no matter the personal cost to himself and his family, no matter the warnings of no less an advisor than Nobel laureate Hans Bethe, who told him ahead of time, “They will only laugh at you.”

Peterson wrote in his memoir: “No president, dean or department chair at any research university can arbitrarily influence the publication or suppression of something against a faculty member’s will, whether that something is a chemical process, a better can opener, a concerto, a play, a piece of writing, or anything else. Neither can a faculty member’s right to publish or circulate something be prevented. Such action violates academic freedom in its most basic sense.”

If cold fusion could work, Chase Peterson said, it would be as important as the discovery of fire. The local NPR station in Salt Lake City rebroadcast a program on Peterson’s book this week that quoted him as saying this. More important was the right to pursue cold fusion, or any idea. Chase Peterson’s support of cold fusion was instrumental in costing him the presidency of the University of Utah. He often stated that he would do it all over again. Patrick Shea, who had served as counsel to Fleischmann and Pons, this week reflecting on Chase Peterson’s death commented, “No University of Utah president has ever done as much to support his faculty and their academic freedom.”

Chase Peterson is survived by his wife Grethe Ballif Peterson, his children Stuart and Edward Peterson, Erika Munson, and thirteen grandchildren. His memorial service will be held on September 27th at 10:00 am in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Monument Park North Stake.

Marianne Macy has been doing oral histories relating to the history of cold fusion since 2007 and is writing a book on cold fusion’s start to the present day. An excerpt from the book will run in Issue 118 of Infinite Energy.

Related Links

The Guardian Poplar: A Memoir of Deep Roots, Journey, and Rediscover by Chase Nebeker Peterson

Cold Fusion Now Cross-Country Tour Ruby Carat visits the University of Utah campus.