Cold fusion research thriving at 30-years young

A report on the 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT

30-years after Drs. Martin Fleischmann and B. Stanley Pons declared the existence of an unknown type of nuclear reaction occuring between electrolyzed palladium and heavy water, research into understanding the Anomalous Heat Effect has grown into the discipline of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science with experimental results beyond what anyone could have imagined.

Drs. Pons and Fleischmann with cold fusion energy cells in 1989. (Courtesy University of Utah Archives.)

Difficulty in reproducing the experiment caused the topic to be banned from federal funding opportunities and peer-reviewed science journals for the duration of their existence, nevertheless CMNS scientists have documented effects such as fusion-sized excess heat from tiny table-top cells generating no deadly radiation. They have achieved the alchemist’s dream of nuclear transmutation of elements, even finding biological systems that transmute elements. Experiments based on the work of Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons have generated coherent photons, maser-like emissions, and a host of other nuclear phenomenon occurring in solid materials at relatively low-temperatures.

Now, the field that offers so much towards solving humanity’s energy and material woes is starting to get the attention it deserves, and resources are turning towards solving the biggest scientific question of our time and using that knowledge to create a new energy technology that will transform the world.

Read Celebrating 30 Years of Cold Fusion Science: The 2019 CF/LANR Colloquium at MIT [.pdf] by Christy L. Frazier Infinite Energy #145 May/June2019

Robust support and resources boost range of results

The US Department of Energy DoE and the US Patent and Trademark Office USTPO initiated decades of drought for basic CMNS research with a no tolerance policy for anything “cold fusion”, and up until recently, neither agency officially accepted the reality of this reaction. But the USPTO is accepting and approving more small, innovative nuclear reactor designs within the designation called Low temperature nuclear fusion reactors, e.g. alleged cold fusion reactors than ever, despite still battling specific cases.

In the Glossary of Terms, cold fusion is defined by the USPTO as “Nuclear (fusion) reactions taking place at ordinary temperatures”. David French wrote on this designation in 2012, but a new analysis of applications of this type shows shows the number of approvals in this category rising.

This was reported on by former-USPTO Examiner Richard Chan at the 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT, a two-day meeting held on the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology over the 30th anniversary of the news briefing by Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons on their discovery.

The event was organized and co-sponsored by Dr. Mitchell Swartz and Gayle Verner of JET Energy, and Dr. Peter Hagelstein of the Research Laboratory for Electronics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Participants were treated to a program that included top CMNS experimentalists and theorists from around the world.

International scientists and longtime original researchers presented a tour-de-force of frontier work in condensed matter nuclear science. Some results had been presented at the 21st International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science ICCF-21 last June, but at the 2019 Colloquium, new developments in theory were heard, and experimental work was more tightly summarized with new positive data from the last year added.

Gayle Verner and Mitchell Swartz of JET Energy and co-organizers of the 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT. Photo from Celebrating 30 Years of Cold Fusion Science: The 2019 CF/LANR Colloquium at MIT by Christy Frazier Infinite Energy #145.

Colloquium Co-host Dr. Mitchell Swartz began the event with Why CF/LANR is Important and then gave several talks throughout the two-days focused on the engineering aspects of the NANOR, a tiny, reliable, low-wattage unit that is being designed and tested for its commercial potential.

There were short, quick presentations where lessons learned were inventoried at various stages of development.

Two States Characterize and Control Active CF/LANR Systems, D-Line Emission from Active CF/LANR Preloaded NANOR-type Components, Importance of D Flux (Q1D to Motors) and Preloaded NANOR-type components (from teaching components to masers). [See also ICCF-21 video Aqueous and Nanostructured CF/LANR Systems Each Have Two Electrically Driven Modes and ICCF-21 video Personal Experiences During Many Years of LENR Experiments]

Watch Dr. Mitchell Swartz Aqueous and Nanostructured CF/LANR Systems Each Have Two Electrically Driven Modes

Co-host Dr. Peter Hagelstein commemorated the 30-year anniversary by sharing an overview of the problems the announcement cold fusion posed to conventional science with the lecture Physics Issues, Key Experiments and Mechanism, describing some of the key experiments that inform today’s theoretical thinking.

Watch Dr. Peter Hagelstein Physics Issues, Key Experiments and Mechanism

He also talked about PdD and PdH Phase Diagrams. [See also ICCF-21 video Statistical Mechanics Models for the PdHx and PdDx Phase Diagram with both O-site and T-site Occupation]

There was excitement over recent modeling breakthroughs in the excitation transfer ideas, outlined in his lecture Phonon-nuclear coupling, excitation transfer, and applications which have conformed with experimental evidence and

offer a path to modeling the unique release of energy from this newly-discovered nuclear reaction. [See also ICCF-21 video Phonon-Mediated Excitation Transfer Involving Nuclear Excitation]

Watch interview with Dr. Peter Hagelstein at the 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT

Florian Metzler, who’s working with Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT, presented Update on MIT phonon-nuclear coupling experiments describing the process that will confirm the claims. [See also ICCF-21 video Observation of Non-Exponential Decay of X-ray and γ lines from Co-57 on Steel Plates]

But while CMNS experimentalists and theorists were reporting on the state of the field, their very success is riding a wave of attention and funds flowing into research. Concurrent with the increased number of a patent filings in the Low Temperature Nuclear Fusion category, private capital is moving to do what federal funds wouldn’t, securing sections of basic scientific research that are incrementally advancing towards usable technologies in the near- and long-term.

At least four active investors were at the Colloquium getting updates on their projects. Michael Halem of LENRInvest, Dewey Weaver representing Industrial Heat, Hideki Yoshino of Clean Planet, Inc. and Carl Page of Anthropocene Institute all attended the full two-days of lectures by scientists who are looking to engage in more collaborative work.

Dr. Robert Duncan, Professor of Physics at Texas Tech, where a heat-helium correlation, among other experiments, had been announced in 2014 was also in attendance, though there was still no outcomes published from that project.

Watch interview with Dr. Robert Duncan at the 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT

Industrial Heat continues diverse support in experiments and theory

Industrial Heat has been funding several LENR research projects for about seven years. A group photo with some of the scientists IH works with was taken at ICCF-21 and published in the 2019 LENRIA Calendar.

The Industrial Heat Group at ICCF-21 from the 2019 LENRIA Calendar. Photo courtesy A.J.Frankson.

The mix of basic research and commercial aspirations shows the variety of work they fund. Dennis Cravens, Dennis Letts, Tom Claytor, and George Miley (who weren’t at the Colloquium at MIT) are primarily experimentalists who presented new, hotter results at ICCF21 [video]. Student researchers working in the lab with Professor George Miley at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign are supported, too.

Clean Planet, Inc starts new round of collaborations

At the Colloquium, Dr. Yasuhiro Iwamura presented Recent Advances in Heat Generation Experiments using Nano-sized Metal Composite and Hydrogen Gas with newer, positive excess heat data from the repeatable and replicated experiments with the twin Metal Hydrogen Energy reactors. [See also ICCF-21 video Anomalous Heat Effects Induced by Metal Nanocomposites and Hydrogen Gas]

Day 2 of the LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT showing (foreground) David J. Nagel, (bottom counter-clockwise) Anthony Zuppero, Yasuhiro Iwamura, (upper left) Hideki Yoshino, and Dimiter Alexandrov. Photo: Mitchell Swartz JET Energy

Famous for his nuclear transmutation research, which he still continues in partnership with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Dr. Iwamura is lending his engineering expertise to the design of excess heat generators in the Condensed Matter Nuclear Reaction Division of the Electron Photon Research Center at Tohoku University.

Watch interview with Yasuhiro Iwarmura at the 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT

Establishing that CMNS division at Tohoku was due in part to the work of Clean Planet, Inc. and Dr. Iwamura was accompanied to the Colloquium at MIT by Hideki Yoshino, the CEO of Clean Planet. Over the last several years, Clean Planet has put together the largest collaborative LENR project on the globe, involving several university and industry labs in Japan who partnered together for a series of successful replications over a two-year program, showing what can happen when multiple laboratories work together.

Read more about the work of Tadahiko Mizuno, Akito Takahashi, Yasuhiro Iwamura and Hideo Kozima.

Now with new funding, they are beginning another set of coordinated excess heat and nuclear transmutation experiments, and it appears that Anthropocene Institute will be assisting them.

Clean Planet, Inc and friends relaxing at ICCF21. Photo from the 2019 LENRIA Calendar.

“Dr. Iwamura has a terrific approach, and I’m looking forward to working with them – and anybody else who is making good progress”, says Carl Page, President of the Anthropocene Institute.

Anthropocene Institute co-sponsored the 2019 Colloquium at MIT and President Carl Page gave a talk Athropocene Institute, Clean Energy and Cold Fusion [.pdf] about his perspective and plan for nothing less than an overhaul of the global energy landscape.

Watch Carl Page Clean Energy and Cold Fusion

Anthropocene Institute sees new nuclear as solution to climate change

“Anthropocene Institute exists to try to accelerate the adoption of clean energy technology of any sort that can get us well ahead of climate change so we can fix climate energy for sure, with enough energy for a safety margin,” he says, “in case something unexpected happens.”

President Carl Page made clear the priorities of the Institute, which echoed many of the researchers at the Colloquium: to provide clean, dense energy that addresses climate change and initiates an economic renaissance to lift global populations out of poverty, all by deploying new small nuclear technology, as soon as possible. While he includes designs such as molten salt reactors, according to Page, LENR is the “best and most desirable solution”.

“I’m a climate hawk,” he said in his presentation. “I’m one of those people that believes that IPCC is a conspiracy of scientists lying to us about climate change – but they’re understating the problem. We actually have to get completely off of fossil fuels in 10-12 years if we can, and that means that we have to deploy atomic energy way faster than most people believe is feasible.”

“One of the problems I look at for my schedule is ocean acidification. People worry about temperature increase, and it’s complicated. It takes a big computer to tell you how climate changes.”

“A one line equation tells you when ocean water changes to sparkly water, and it turns out the ocean plankton doesn’t like sparkly water at all.”

“The schedule we have to worry about is somewhere between 2035 and 2050, the plankton will change its way of life.

“It may not decide to kill us – but it could; it might make hydrogen sulfide instead of oxygen. That would be bad if you’re a warm-blooded creature.”

“It probably won’t, but nobody knows. The plankton gets to decide and it hasn’t made up its mind yet. I vote for not giving the plankton the option to choose our fate.”

Rate of decarbonization isn’t fast enough

“We are in a race. Every nation has to decarbonize – I say in twelve years. Some nations already have; I don’t have Sweden on this, but it would probably be at top of the chart. “

“We are all in a race towards zero percent carbon.”

“The only one to use technology to get there is France, because they’re 80% nuclear and 20% hydro. And then you have Germany, which is completely going backwards: they’ve invested a whole lot in wind and solar – you can see that tiny little corner. (These are years going by to the right in each bar). And here’s Japan, which was pretty good, about middle of the pack, and then they got to be as bad as Australia because of Fukushima.”

Sources of generated electricity 1985-2015, portions of Nuclear (red), Wind (orange), Solar (blue) and Hydro (green) Years going by to the right in each rectangle. Only nuclear provides the carbon-free energy density to match replacement of fossil fuels.

“We have spent enough money in California and Germany to completely zero out carbon from our sectors, so we can do it, we just didn’t choose the right technologies.”

“We can’t let this kind of thing slide anymore. That’s why we’re relying on LENR and other forms of innovation in energy.”

That passion is driving Anthropocene to support multiple LENR-based projects, and seek collaborations in both basic research and technology development. Brillouin Energy Corporation was the first lab to get his attention, and with Anthropocene support, Brillouin has achieved multiple benchmarks of success, continually upping their prototype heat generator Hot Tube power output and efficiency.

But Carl Page wasn’t always so optimistic.

“I was very resistant to even looking at LENR because I was pretty sure that physicists knew it was impossible. But I had to look back through the contexts and figure out why people were saying that. I had to figure out who was acting like a scientist, and who was acting like an ideologue, or defending academic turf and funding.”

“I was introduced to Robert Godes and I didn’t even talk to him for a year until I studied the back story, and until I figured out that there was room in physics for this to exist, I refused to talk to him!”

“But I’m obviously pretty convinced now.”

Robert Godes is the President and Chief Technical Officer of Brillouin Energy, as well as the inventor of the Hot Tube, a LENR heat generator.

“It became clear to me that it was possible; that there was a hole big enough in physics to accommodate this observation. And it was also apparent to me that we had passed over most of the relevant important technologies.”

LENR is the #1 choice of all other innovative nuclear technologies

Dr. Francis Tanzella, now retired from SRI International and consulting privately with Energy Research Center reported on the Hot Tube last June, announcing 5 Watts excess thermal power with a 1-2 COP. It was not a commercially-viable output, but controllable, and on-demand, something unique in the LENR research community. [See ICCF-21 video Nanosecond Pulse Stimulation in the Ni-H2 System]

By December, the Hot Tube had realized an increase to 50 Watts excess thermal power with a 2+ COP.

At the Colloquium on March 23 of this year, Dr. Tanzella reported in Update from Brillouin Energy [.pdf] another hike in Hot Tube thermal excess power to 80 Watts.

Watch an interview with Francis Tanzellz at the 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT

Carl Page said, “Robert Godes has a different perspective in that, he’s not trying to get a science win like I kind of would do, but he’s trying to build a practical reactor that doesn’t have material degradation. He’s trying to make sure he can carry the heat away really well, and that there’s no electro-migration of materials in the catalyst, so he’s using an AC impulse function instead of a DC one, to make sure the electro-migration gets healed.”

Slide from Dr. Francis Tanzella presentation at 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT showing features of the Brillouin Energy Hydrogen Hot Tube reactor core.

“He doesn’t want to make any reactions that are sustained by adding temperature, because if the reaction is creating heat, it’s obviously hard to control, expecting heat to control it. So the electrical stimulation function is the option here.”

“He’s got a computer model of the reactor that predicts within 0.1% what the temperature is supposed to be at any given time. So in the old days, they would have to set up the reactor and wait for it to stabilize, and then use the calculator to figure out how much power they were getting. Now, they just have a readout that says how much power they are getting at all times. They can play with the input parameters and the readout is compared with the model and anything unexpected that happens shows up immediately. ”

“That’s a tool available for others to use, too. It’s called System ID or System Identification. And basically you don’t have to tell the computer what you think is going on in the reactor. You let it learn, and then, see if the model predicts that. And then if a thermometer starts to break, you know it right away. It’s a really great system.”

To avert the worst of climate disaster and re-kindle a new economic paradigm, Carl Page sees LENR as superior to all other innovative nuclear technologies, “because that’s the cleanest I’ve ever seen”. Plan B is the small type nuclear reactors like those that use hot molten salt.

All carbon-free options are being pursued

TerraPower is a company developing next-generation nuclear power systems like the Molten Salt Reactor within its own lab, as well as assisting other labs, and was founded by the very resourceful Bill Gates, who resides as Chairman of the Board. [visit] Searching the number of patent apps in the G21B3/00 designation and showing 1,380 results reflects these numerous technologies that have been developing outside the orbit of CMNS science, and the consequence of such able and venturesome support.

While Anthropocene Institute favors LENR technologies, all the alternatives to decarbonize are being explored. President Carl Page outlines the back-up plan. “Now if the LENR community fails, there’s still a good option, the Fission Molten Salt Reactor fueled by Uranium or Thorium. This is the thing that President JFK was trying to build, and that 73% of the American people would support if anybody were building them, as polling data shows.”

In an MSR, uranium or thorium is dissolved in a hot salt liquid. Heat is captured while it fissions within the mix. This type of technology would allow the clean-up of existing stockpiles of uranium nuclear waste to be processed as fuel for an MSR.

This is good news to environmentalists, because Molten Salt Reactors are nothing like the pressurized water, conventional nuclear power plants of yesteryear.

“The fission industry with the light-water reactor is pretty much dead – except in South Korea and China – because it’s hard to make an unsafe system safe, by adding parts and complexity,” reports Carl Page.

“If somebody pokes a hole in a Molten Salt Reactor, the fuel might spill out on the ground, but it sits there – there’s no fallout cloud, there’s no steam explosion, there’s no hydrogen-zirconium disassociation problem. There’s no blowing the roof off with hydrogen, so it’s quite safe.”

Estimate of the improvement factor of MSRs over a pressurized reactor. From Carl Page presentation 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT
Estimate of the improvement factor of MSRs over a pressurized reactor. From Carl Page presentation 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT

“The MSR  can be deployed really fast because it doesn’t require heavy construction – there are no pressurized reactor vessels. You can build many of them per month in a modern shipyard quite easily.  China is getting started on MSRs for water-saving power plants, and for warships.”

“That will happen if LENR doesn’t.”

Carl Page says that “A sub-goal I like to focus on is 1 cent clean energy. Because right now, coal might be 5 cents, and wind is 3.5 cents in new purchases, solar is about 3.7 cents in desert purchases, so if we were trying to sell you a light-water nuclear reactor and they say 10 cents a kilowatt hour, they’re not going to get anywhere, right?”

“If we’re envisioning LENR solutions and anything else, we have to aim at the price that renewables will get to. Even though nuclear energy has advantages that renewables don’t, selling it is still hard against the market.”

The people are ready for change, but are physicists?

“It’s important to be reminded why there are so many people opposed to nuclear power, and I admit as a college activist I was opposed to nuclear anything, but that was because I was really scared about the arms race. Today’s situations are really different, and we need to get over it.”

Sunday at the 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT Photo Mitchell Swartz, JET Energy

A survey done by the Anthropocene Institute shows that most Americans in the U.S. would welcome a new type of nuclear technology.

“It turns out that Americans are afraid of fallout clouds and meltdowns, but they’re not actually afraid of the word nuclear“, reports Page. “The reasons that people who don’t like nuclear don’t like it are varied, but LENR is a winner in all these.”

“Most Americans are looking for good innovation. In fact, if you promise the kind of nuclear that JFK was trying to build before Nixon shut it down – the molten salt reactor – 73% of Americans say they would love that. The word didn’t turn them off.”

“We need to have a lot more people speaking out correctly on what energy systems are safest, as well as cheapest. We shouldn’t be relying on climatologists to tell us what energy technologies are safest, but we’re not out there tootin’ our own horn, so we have to get a lot better at that.”

“MIT has been talking a lot about innovative nuclear. They haven’t gotten as innovative as LENR yet, as this reports, and this is a concern, but this is quite a good report”, he says referring to The Future of Nuclear Energy in A Carbon Constrained World issued late 2018. [visit]

“The fact that classical mechanics with a few corrections from quantum mechanics explains everything that plasma physicists understand and it predicts experiments to nine decimal places, it’s an amazing accomplishment. But it doesn’t work in solid materials at all.”

“Physicists are right to object that if LENR was real, you’d see it in nature. And when you’re looking through astronomy, it’s sometimes hard to see a LENR signature.”

Showing a diagram of the interior of the Earth, he asked the audience of CMNS scientists, “Why is the solid part hotter than the liquid part? It’s not fission, and it’s not fusion. Do you guys know any reactions that might look better in a solid than in a liquid? Because the physicists don’t.”

Then he cited data recently observed in Japan that shows “there are neutrinos coming from the direction from the core of the Earth that shouldn’t be coming from the core of the Earth, because the core of the Earth would shield it. In fact, physicists say they have changed the standard model of physics to explain this crazy observation!”

“However, suppose there was a reaction that makes neutrinos located at the core of the Earth. Then we don’t have to change the standard model of physics. So I’m guessing that we’ll be able to see a lot of new stuff in nature once when we really get our heads around when the LENR reaction happens. ”

There happened to be another meeting of physicists at the same time as the LANR/CF Colloquium, and physicist John Wallace, co-author of Yes Virginia, Quantum Mechanics Can Be Understood: How Nature Treats Information [visit] who spoke at the Colloquium on Baryon  Charge Density [.pdf], was hopping back and forth between the two meetings. He indicated there “was some curiosity there” at the physics meeting, and that several physicists stopped by the Colloquium, too, though there was no word on their thoughts about the talks.

Carl Page likes to remind people that “with LENR, we’re in a place where experimentalists are in the drivers seat, and physicists are really uncomfortable with that. But that’s how we got through thermodynamics: scientists didn’t tell the steam engineers anything useful, rather, thermodynamics was curve-fitting into what the engineers had already figured out.”

Technology and applications that can’t wait are developing together

Larry Forsley gave a wide-ranging talk titled A Reliable Protocol for Inducing Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter which included an update on his work with the fusion-fission hybrid reactor being developed in partnership with NASA for space power, the benefit being that the most dangerous and expensive material is replaced with a clean LENR cell. Slides from the presentation show the reactor core features and comparisons.

USPatent 8,419,919 was issued in 2013 for the System and Method for Generating Particles detailing the original design for the GeNiE.

Larry Forsley says that, “This hybrid technology embraces the NASA Kilopower and previous Prometheus nuclear reactor programs but requires neither low nor high enriched uranium (LEU or HEU) fissile material. Previous NASA power conversion, shielding and heat dissipation research and development is applicable to this new reactor core.” [See also ICCF-21 video Hybrid Fusion-Fission Reactor Using Pd/D Co-Deposition and ICCF-21 video Space Application of a Hybrid Fusion-Fission Reactor]

Another project he announced was a A STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Math) Trackers Kit initiative intended to help train students to use the technique of co-deposition. The project is being developed with Dr. Pamela Mosier-Boss and assistance from Anthropocene Institute.

Watch interview with Dr. Larry Forsley at the 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT

Student participation to rise with new STEM Trackers Co-deposition Kit

From taking sound and video from an active cathode that allowed them to hear and see the “mini-explosions” of power, to generating neutrons detected with CR-39, Dr. Stanislaw Szpak and Dr. Pamela Mosier-Boss, who initiated and developed the co-deposition method, derived two decades of successful research at the Navy SPAWAR electrochemistry lab from the approach . There is “independent reproducibility and replication across multiple laboratories in five countries”, according to Forsley.

“Consequently, we’re developing an undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) enrichment program using the Pd/D co-deposition protocol in conjunction with Point Loma Nazarene University (PLNU) in San Diego, CA. A student presented some of their data in a poster session at the march meeting of the American Physical Society,” said Larry Forsley.

The STEM Trackers Kit originated with undergraduate chemical engineering seniors at University of California, San Diego over a three-year period. Students successfully used the protocol to produce energetic particles as detected by CR-39. The paper Energetic Particle Emission in Pd-D Co-deposition An Undergraduate Research Project to Replicate a New Scientific Phenomenon [.pdf available] reports on that project.

Sadly, there are few women involved in this science. In fact, there may have been only two women officially registered for the event. Gayle Verner of JET Energy, Inc co-organized the event was there of course, and one other woman registered. Initiatives to engage students is an important task for CMNS scientists, not only to educate more young people about this exciting science, but girls, too.

Lectures on Experiments and Theory

There were two lectures on Helium production in Pd-D systems.

Dr. Dimiter Alexandrov presented Cold Fusion Synthesis of Helium Isotopes in Interaction of Deuterium and of Hydrogen Nuclei with Metals [.pdf]. In the course of his materials research, he had been performing experiments using palladium and deuterium, and discovered – by accident – that helium was being produced! Since then, he’s been studying the parameters of the repeatable experiment. At the Colloquium he also described the methods used to determine it was helium production, including mass spectroscopy. [See also ICCF-21 video Nuclear Fusion in Solids–Experiments and Theory]

Dr. Melvin Miles was scheduled to talk on Production of Helium in Cold Fusion Experiments [.pdf] At the last minute, Dr. Miles was unable to attend, so I was recruited to give his talk. It was about a simple equation he developed to compute the theoretical amount of helium that should be generated in Pd-D systems, given the excess power generated in Watts and the current in Amps. This equation assumes all the excess power is derived from the helium generation, neglecting other reactions that may be taking place. With that input, you can compute the amount of Helium-4 generated in parts per billion.

Dr. Miles then re-analyzed his early heat-helium data and compared the theoretical amount to the actual amount of helium measured. Not surprisingly, the computed values followed the measured values. [See also ICCF-21 video Excess Power Measurements for Palladium-Boron Cathodes]

Steve Katinsky and David J. Nagel presented Status of LENRIA Experiment and Analysis Program (LEAP). The Industrial Association for LENR [visit] organized and sponsored the 21st International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science ICCF-21

in Colorado, US last summer, and, they publish the LENRIA Calendar. The growth of LENRIA’s participation in the CMNS community from advocacy into scientific research continues with LEAP, a testing project using the Naval Research Laboratory’s palladium-boron cathodes, which Dr. Melvin Miles had used previously with success.

Working together on a theoretical model, Thomas Dolan presented Heavy electron catalysis model [.pdf] right before his colleague Anthony Zuppero presented Applications of the model to experimental data. [See also ICCF-21 video Electron Quasiparticle Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions]

Konrad Czerski talked about Crystal Lattice Defects and Threshold Resonance of D-D Reactions at Room Temperature. [See also ICCF-21 videoInfluence of Crystal Lattice Defects and the Threshold Resonance on the Deuteron-Deuteron]

I missed the talks by Vladimir Plekhanov with Experimental study of the strong nuclear interaction via re-normalization, Jozsef Garai on a Physical Model for Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reaction, and Jeff Dricscoll, who talked about Mills’ Theories, though I was able to get a one-on-one with Jeff Driscoll for the documentary.

Interesting new science was presented by Keith Fredericks in his lecture Elliptical tracks: Possible Evidence for superliminal electrons [.pdf] which looked at strange tracks detected on photographic emulsions. [See JCMNS 15 Possibility of Tachyon Monopoles Detected in Photographic Emulsions]

Brian Ahern talked about Anharmonic Motion and Magnetism in LANR, which contained a section about his analysis of an unusually powered car. [See .pdf Energy Localization The key to Understanding Energy in Nanotechnology & Nature]

Dr. Hysen Blloshmi spoke epically on the History of one Significant Invention [.pdf] which included details on his cold fusion generator which he reports was able to power the desalination of seawater for 400 days. Thomas Ciarlariello spoke on Muon Catalyzed fusion from Prior Art to Future Space Planes and had this hand-out [.pdf].

Robert Smith, Jr. talked about the Impacts on the Rate of Knowledge in LANR.

On a related topic, Dr. Thomas Grimshaw gave an overview of the LENR Research Documentation Initiative [20Mb .pdf] which is currently servicing and/or finished a total of 11 different projects.

Imagine 30-years of data on varied file formats, including 5″ floppies and software from 1990, and you can understand the importance of capturing the early record of research in this field, especially as original scientists get older.

Cold Fusion Now! was on the scene to get video interviews for a documentary movie to begin production in 2020. I was able to talk one-on-one with scientists such as Sveinn Ólafsson who spoke on Experimental techniques for studying Rydberg matter of Hydrogen. [.pdf][See also ICCF-21 video What is Rydberg Matter and Ultra-Dense Hydrogen?]

I taped video statements from longtime researchers Francis Tanzella, Francesco Celani, Larry Forsley, and Brian Ahern. Also, Yasuhiro Iwamura, Robert Duncan, Dimiter Alexandrov, Mathieu Valat, and Thomas Grimshaw spoke with me about their thoughts on this thirty-years of research.

Lectures were captured by videographers Richard Chan and Frank Ling, who also recorded some interviews. Videos of the presentations are expected to be available at

Turning agony to ecstasy accompanied by cocktails

Saturday night was a party at Legal Seafood in Cambridge, a block from the MIT campus, to celebrate the decades of historic revolutionary science performed by a community of outcasts turned heroes. Delicious appetizers, drinks and dinner were served, and it was good to know it was Legal.

Former-USPTO Examiner Richard Chan, who gave a patent update at the Colloquium – and performs more functions than a Cray – was ready with equipment to DJ that night! Would the set of music put together for the party be realized? Alas, the room was not appropriate for that.

It turned out that there was so much to talk about, the conversations reached high decibel levels, so nobody missed the music. It was probably good that there was no dance floor. What might occur when nuclear scientists electrolyze Chardonnay with the Ohio Players?

It wasn’t just Cambridge that partied. Festivity migrated around the world that night. Electrochemist and veteran LENR researcher Dr. Michael McKubre shared a photo of he and Dr. Huw Price celebrating a toast in New Zealand. [See H. Price Icebergs in the Room Cold Fusion at 30]

Cheers! Michael McKubre and Huw Price celebrate three decades of breakthrough science at the March 23 Global Party. Courtesy Michael McKubre.

Cold Fusion Now! had special I’m Hot! t-shirts made for the occasion, and gave the Colloquium organizers a prize for their hard work. Then, a lucky player volunteered for our game: Name Three Effects of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon and Win a Shirt! I am not actually sure who it was that played, but he was a real sport and lots of fun, and readily met the challenge, as

determined by the scientists in the room, who judged the answers with three boisterous Yeas and zero Nays.

Happening at the same time around the world, CMNS colleagues at the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences were celebrating “Cold fusion – 30 years: results and prospects” in Moscow. A report was first published in Regnum, but here’s a google-translate of the article to read.

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. Flowers

The program reviewed the 30-years of Russian Cold Nuclear Transmutation research, referring to what we call LENR, and contained a wish for continued success to their friends around the world. We wish for the same, and CMNS scientists look forward to meeting together at the 22nd Interntational Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science ICCF-22 happening Sept. 8-13, 2019 in Assisi, Italy. [visit]

Of course the goup was missing patent lawyer David French, who freely served the community for the last decade and passed away this year. His unique skills, and amenable disposition made him a valuable asset to the field where scientists are brilliant in chemistry and physics, but not so informed on business and law. THANK YOU David.

Over 100 people registered for the Colloquium, and there were more than a few walk-ins throughout the two days. The lecture room in the Strata Building was filled on Day 1, with almost all the seats taken. There was less attendance on Day 2, as many had to leave early to return home for Monday morning.

By 5:30PM Sunday, the Colloquium was officially over, and participants were still hopped up – and numb – from the 48-hour science storm.

Light On the LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT Photo: Mitchell Swartz, JET Energy

Walking around the campus for a last look in the early evening, I came upon Dr. Francesco Celani waiting for his ride. He spoke at the Colloquium on the Advanced version of the “Capuchin knot” geometry [.pdf] and the bump in power he got by putting knots in the straight wire. He was planning to stay another day and roam the MIT campus and bookstores. [See also ICCF-21 video Steps to Identification of Main Parameters for AHE Generation in Sub-Microscopic Materials]

Francesco Celani in Cambridge after the 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT. Photo: Ruby Carat

Green LENR future to benefit oceans, wildlife, and global populations

After thirty years, the CMNS field is now receiving essential attention and support for basic scientific research as well as engineering prototypes from several investor groups. The Anthropocene Institute, the newest to bring help and supplies, has come full-circle in their search for carbon-free, energy-dense, ultra-clean power.

“If you don’t envision where you want to go, you’ll never get anywhere. This is what I envision we should have,” says Carl Page.

“We should have great transportation, we should have great food, a lot of it grown indoors because its way cheaper and a higher quality. We should be able to make a lot more wildlands than we have today, because we don’t need all that farmland, especially those growing bio-fuels. We don’t need palm oil for European Diesel, we don’t need corn ethanol.”

“We’ll need to provide carbon-neutral fuels for vehicles we don’t get rid of. We should have room for 12 billion affluent city dwellers, and, we’ll need to provide industrial heat for our industrial way of life. We’ll need to desalinate large-scale; and this is all quite doable. We should fully recycle everything we use, and we should guarantee success for fifty years.”

“In the 80s, people were taught that if too many people were wealthy, the planet would be overpopulated. It turns out that when people get to be middle class, the population explosion disappears. Population explosions happen because of subsistence farmers needing child labor. The moment child labor is not in the money, people stop overpopulating.”

“So we’ve got to get to work on it.”

Teamwork and communication essential to success

The conversion of Carl Page is complete, and it’s unlikely he’ll be backing down from putting LENR front and center in his nuclear energy mix. In fact, he’s advocating a kind of truce, even collaboration, between the differing nuclear approaches. CMNS success will be reached by broadening participation into a wider, mainstream association. The resources that Anthropocene brings to do that are unmatched to anything this field has seen, and Carl Page has a plan to do it.

“The fact that LENR physics is not well-explained – I consider that a software problem, which is the best kind of problem to have. Because once you figure out your software problem, manufacturing is free. So we only have to figure out the physics once, and then, it’s free.”

“That’s not true of hot fusion, because there we have engineering problems. The physics is well-understood, but the engineering is not. Enginnering problems mean costly changes.”

“The hot fusion and the cold fusion people are sometimes a bit competitive”, he says. “But these innovative nuclear groups are start-ups, and most of them are clever, smart, interested people, and they have a business problem to solve. When they get new physics from people who understand condensed matter, it really helps them. Some, like AGNI are actually half-way between cold fusion and hot fusion, where they have a solid target fusion system.”

Slide from Carl Page’s presentation shows innovative nuclear fusion start-ups.

“…and the thing is, the government is providing hardly any money into any kind of innovative growth in technology. So if we can stop shooting arrows at each others back, and start trying to get the government to be less disruptive towards research in the relevant technologies, it will help us all. Because if they start funding innovative nuclear, and it includes even a shred for LENR, LENR will take the lead, because we just don’t need as much money. They’ll think they’re hurting us by not giving us enough money, but actually, we’ll get ahead.”

“There are other people in Las Vegas that put the penny in the million dollar slot machine that almost never rings, and there are investors similarly willing to take long odds bets, if it’s more than fair.”

Watch video interviews and selected lectures from the 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT on Youtube.

The 22nd International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science ICCF22 Early Bird Registration is now open! Go to the International Society of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science website at

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.

Stanley Pons speaks at the ACS in 1989

On April 12, 1989, American Chemical Society (ACS) President Clayton Callis hosted a special Presidents Event “Nuclear Fusion in a Test Tube” at the 197th Annual Meeting of the ACS in Dallas, Texas. Valerie Kuck of AT&T Bell Laboratories organized the Symposium and introduced the speakers.

Special guest Dr. Stanley Pons spoke on the then recently announced discovery of the Fleischmann-Pons Anomalous Heat Effect. Watch the entire set of talks courtesy of the New Energy Foundation.

The initial panel included Harold Furth, Director of Princeton University’s Plasma Physics Lab, Allen Bard from University of Texas, Ernest Yeager of Case Western Reserve University, Stanley Pons from University of Utah, and K. Birgitta Whaley of University of California – Berkley.

Here is the introduction to the meeting:

Dr. Stanley Pons presented, and here’s his talk.

Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Marks 30th Anniversary of Pioneering Discovery

This is a re-post of a google-translate of the article first published on here. Any use of materials is allowed only if there is a hyperlink to REGNUM news agency. The original article has been re-formatted slightly.

On the conference of the Coordination Council on the issue of “Cold nuclear transmutation” of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences on March 23, 2019, dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the press conference of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons on cold nuclear fusion

Dr. Martin Fleischmann (R) and Dr. Stanley Pons (L) announcing discovery of breakthrough science in energy production.

On March 23, 2019, the REGNUM press center hosted the30th Anniversary Cold Fusion Synthesis Conference: Results and Prospects, organized by the Coordination Council on the Cold Nuclear Transmutation Problem of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS).

The main task of the one-day conference is to tell about the history of cold nuclear fusion research in the USSR and the Russian Federation, about the most promising domestic developments in this area and substantiate the thesis about the beginning of a new phase of cold fusion research – the stage of its industrial implementation.

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. Flowers

It so happened that this conference was the first event of the Coordination Council, organized more than a year ago. Such a long delay was due to the fact that, in 2018, two of its organizers and co-chair passed away, the theoretical physicist Anri Amvrosiyevich Rukhadze (09.07.1930 — 07.03.2018) the creator of the Soviet beam weapons passed away in July, and the nuclear physicist, the permanent organizer, and the organizer of the Russian and international conferences on cold fusion and ball lightning, Yuri Nikolayevich Bazhutov (04/21/1947 – 03/09/2018) passed away in March.

Anri Amvrosiyevich Rukhadze and Yury Nikolayevich Bazhutov, Organizers of the Coordination Council of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences for the Cold Kernel Transmutation Problem

By the decision of the Presidium of the Academy of Natural Sciences, a new chairman of the council was elected the chief researcher of the Institute of Physics of the Earth, O. Yu. Schmidt of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics Alexei Vsevolodovich Nikolaev, and his co-chairs were the Physics Faculty of Moscow State University. MV Lomonosov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Alla Alexandrovna Kornilova, and Anatoly I. Klimov, a member of the Joint Institute for High Temperatures (JIHT RAS), academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, doctor of physical and mathematical sciences.

Member of the Institute of Physical Research and Technology of the Russian University of Peoples’ Friendship (PFUR), head of the All-Russian Cold Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightning Seminar since 1993, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Nikolai Vladimirovich Samsonenko and corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Alexander G. Parkhomov were elected deputy chairmen of the board.

The work of board leaders has long been known in the international community of cold fusion researchers. In a flawless experiment, Alla Kornilova proved the possibility of implementing nuclear fusion reactions in microbiological cultures (biological transmutation), and her technology for accelerated deactivation of liquid radioactive waste using a radiation-resistant microbial association, developed in the late 1990s, passed successful state expertise in South Korea, the results of which were published on February 28, 2019 (see Kyou-Jin Yum, Jong Man Lee, Gun Woong Bahng and Shanghi Rhee with An Experiment of Radioactivity of Radionuclide (137Cs) with Multi-component Microorgani sms of 10 Strains).

In terms of its official recognition, the South Korean expertise is a landmark event for the entire scientific field of research on cold fusion, recognition which has already occurred at least in the USA, Canada, Japan, South Korea, India and China. We hope that this will finally happen in Russia.

Today, there are all the conditions for the technology of accelerated microbiological deactivation of liquid radioactive waste and contaminated land to become part of world practice before the cold fusion power reactors are widely used.

Vladimir Grachev, Editor-in-Chief of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Radio Electronics, Nanosystems, and Information Technologies (RENSIT), demonstrates the thematic issue of the journal (# 1, 2017) on cold nuclear fusion

The vortex plasma power reactor of Anatoly Klimov in its parameters is included in the group of world leaders among numerous power plants that use cold nuclear fusion energy. The work of Alexander Parkhomov on “deciphering” the e-cat reactor Andrea Rossi of ​​Russia has become widely known in the world due to its complete openness. Today, the Parkhomov reactor in all respects “comes on the heels” of its secret Italian prototype.

* * *

A few hours after the Russian conference opened, the two-day memorial colloquium at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2019 LANR / CF Colloquium at MIT), dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the sensational press conference at the University of Utah, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, at which they reported that they managed to get a nuclear fusion reaction during the electrolysis of water.

The participants of the Russian conference sent a greeting to the American colloquium:

“Dear colleagues, please accept our warmest regards to the International Colloquium on the 30th anniversary of cold fusion.

We were 30–40 years old when we all united around the idea of ​​cold fusion. For many years, we have conducted research, exchanged knowledge, built models and theories, and everyone has matured a bit during this time. Today, as leaders of this science, we want the thirst for knowledge not to leave us, and for us to manage to pass on our vast experience to the younger generation.

The Russian community of cold fusion researchers wishes all their friends and associates from different countries to see the fruits of the realization of our ideas and results, and have time to enjoy this in the coming years.

Successful work of the International Colloquium and see you soon at the 23rd International Conference in Italy.

Alexey Nikolaev

Alla Kornilova

Vladimir Vysotsky

Irina Savvatimova

Sergey Tsvetkov

Alexander Parkhomov

Anatoly Klimov

Vladimir Balakirev

Valery Krymsky

Nikolay Samsonenko

Vladimir Grachev

Albina Gerasimova

Natalia Famina

March 23, 2019, Moscow. ”

The MIT colloquium also did not go without pleasant surprises. It became known yesterday that the American Classifier of Patents and Trademarks (CPC – Cooperative Patent Classification) in section G21 “Nuclear Fusion Reactors” has introduced a new class of reactors 3/00 “Low-temperature nuclear fusion reactors, including the so-called cold fusion reactors.”

New section in the classification of US patents for low-temperature nuclear fusion rectors (highlighted in red)

March 23, 1989 – the day of the press conference of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons – today is considered to be the date of birth of the direction of cold fusion research. However, we know that Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons were not sole pioneers of the cold fusion phenomenon, and even the term cold fusion was coined by journalists much earlier, in 1956, in connection with the research of Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez on muon catalysis, one of the “scientifically recognized” options obtain cold nuclear fusion.

Pioneering experimental and theoretical work on cold nuclear fusion within the framework of emerging nuclear physics and quantum mechanics was carried out in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Some results of these forgotten studies for many years have been reproduced at the present experimental level only at the turn of the XX and XXI centuries.

After the end of World War II, the classics of Soviet nuclear physics — Igor Kurchatov, Yakov Zeldovich, Andrei Sakharov, Yevgeny Zababakhin — also wrote about the possibility of implementing cold nuclear fusion.

Why exactly did the poorly reproducible, modest in its results, and frankly “raw” work of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons cause unprecedented interest in the whole world to begin research in cold nuclear fusion? What exactly gave impetus to thousands of highly professional and frankly amateurish research?

The answer to this question will become clear after becoming acquainted with the reports of one of the leading theorists of cold synthesis, Professor of Kiev University T. G. Shevchenko, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Vladimir Ivanovich Vysotsky, member of the NPO Luch, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Irina Borisovna Savvatimova and Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Sergey Alekseyevich Tsvetkov.

Works on cold fusion by I. B. Savvatimova and S. A. Tsvetkov began, like many other Soviet researchers, literally several days after the press conference of Drs. Fleishman and Pons, and V. I. Vysotsky published his first article on cold fusion back in 1981.

Already in May 1989, the first applications for copyright certificates on cold fusion were filed in the USSR. The work carried out at the highest methodological level by leading specialists of the institutes and nuclear centers of Sredmash and the USSR Academy of Sciences, allowed not only to successfully reproduce the results of Fleischmann and Pons, but also to obtain nuclear fusion reactions using other methods (including shock waves, saturation from the gas phase, cavitation, electrolysis in molten salts, etc.).

At the end of 1990, the Interdepartmental Council for Chemistry and Chemical Technology of the State Committee on Science and Technology of the USSR held a closed competition on the issue “Cold synthesis stimulated mainly by electrochemical means”. According to the results of this competition, and under the guidance of the Director of the Institute of Electrochemistry of the Ural Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Academician Alexei Nikolaevich Baraboshkin, the project of the All-Union Cold Nuclear Fusion research program was developed.

Academician Alexei Nikolaevich Baraboshkin (1925–1995), author of the unrealized All-Union research program “Cold Nuclear Fusion” of 1990

The program was not funded due to the collapse of the USSR. Despite this, by the mid-1990s, participants in the program practically solved all the tasks formulated in the draft program, the main ones of which were clarifying the conditions for the reproducibility of cold fusion reactions and determining the most promising directions for its use.

After the death of academician A.N., since 1998, Baraboshkina began the shameful scientific period of the existence of cold fusion, shameful for the Russian Academy of Sciences, which continues in Russia today. How did they almost completely forget the Soviet achievements in the study of cold fusion – one of the many “mysteries” of post-Soviet Russia?

In any case, today we are grateful to Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons for their civic courage, for their press conference that violated the canons of scientific communications, but played the role of a trigger to study the numerous “anomalous” manifestations of cold fusion accumulated by that time in nuclear physics, materials science, plasma physics, catalysis, biophysics, geology and other scientific disciplines.

All reports of the participants of the conference “Cold Synthesis – 30 years” will be published on the site of IA REGNUM and on the site of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.
by Andrey Sverchkov

Conference of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences “Cold fusion – 30 years” is a re-post of a slightly reformatted google-translate of the article first published on here. Any use of materials is allowed only if there is a hyperlink to REGNUM news agency.

Juxtapositional ending: Here is a photo taken from the 1st Russian Cold Fusion Conference. Can you name these pioneers of science?–Ruby Carat

On the 30th Anniversary of the Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon by Hideo Kozima

On the 30th Anniversary of the Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon by Hideo Kozima [.pdf] was first published in the Cold Fusion Research Laboratory CFRL News No. 107 (2019. 3. 1)

March 23 is the birthday of the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP). On this day 30 years ago, the existence of the nuclear reactions in a solid at near room temperature was declared by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the press conference held in the University of Utah, USA. This event, right or wrong, is the start of the open research on the CFP lasting 30 years since, and has given a specific destiny to the research field we have been involved in. The investigation on the physics of the CFP has lasted without interruption and is developing day by day now.

Martin Fleischmann (March 29, 1927 – August 3, 2012) on April 7, 1995 at his office in IMRA S.A. Science Center, Sophia Antipolis, Valbonne, France. (Photo by Hideo Kozima)

I would like to recollect the history of the cold fusion research from my point of view focusing at my research activity kept about 30 years from the beginning of this science.

First of all, it is necessary to recollect the great pioneering works accomplished by Martin Fleischmann. We give a brief survey of Fleischmann’s work in Section II focusing on his mental phase of the cold fusion research. It is interesting to notice the motivation of the scientist who discovered the new phenomenon – nuclear reactions in transition metal deuterides and hydrides at around room temperature – with an inappropriate premise on the nuclear reaction between two deuterons. In Appendix A, we cite several sentences on this point from writings by Martin Fleischmann.

Here, we give a short comment on the words “Cold Fusion Phenomenon” we used to call the events observed in CF materials, i.e. materials where the CFP has been observed.

We notice the words “Cold Fusion” and “Cold Fusion Phenomena” are used in the titles of several Fleischmann’s papers (c.f. Appendix A). In the words “Cold Fusion” he had given a special meaning as we see in Section II where we survey his mental process resulted in the discovery of the CFP

“Cold Fusion Phenomena” used by Fleischmann means whole events resulting from nuclear reactions occurring in materials composed of host elements (Pd, Ti) and deuterium. In the progress of research in this field, we know now that nuclear reactions occur not only in deuterium systems but also in protium systems. Furthermore, we know the observables related to the nuclear reactions in this field ranges not only to excess energy but also to transmuted nuclei including tritium, 4He, and neutron. We can guess that the events producing these products in such various materials had been called as “phenomena” by Fleischmann. He would has used “Cold Fusion Phenomena” to express whole research field he explored and developed since 1989 combining the “cold fusion” in his mind from the beginning and “phenomena” containing various events observed. Borrowing his terminology partially, we would like to use the “Cold Fusion Phenomenon” to call the whole events thus occurring in the CF materials where occur nuclear reactions at around room temperature without acceleration mechanisms for participating particles

I. My Research on the Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon

Hideo Kozima (left) and John Dash (right) in February 2001 (courtesy of Hideo Kozima for Infinite Energy Magazine.)

I have published two books and many papers on the CFP. The books are:

H. Kozima, Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon – Development of Solid State-Nuclear Physics and the Energy Crisis in the 21st Century –, Ohtake Shuppan Inc., 1998, ISBN 4-87186-044-2. [Kozima 1998]

H. Kozima, The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon, – In Search of the Physics and Chemistry behind Complex Experimental Data Sets –, 1st Edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006, ISBN-13: 978-0-08045-110-7. [Kozima 2006]

These books give record to the progress of my research; Book 1 had shown effectiveness of the phenomenological approach with the TNCF model (trapped neutron catalyzed model). This is also understood as evidence of the participation of neutrons on the nuclear reactions in materials composed of host elements and hydrogen isotopes (CF materials) where occurs the CFP.

Book 2 had shown that the premises assumed in the TNCF model have been explained using quantum mechanics where a new feature of nuclear interactions between nuclei of host elements at lattice sites (lattice nuclei) and hydrogen isotopes at interstitial sites (interstitial protons/deuterons) works effectively to realize a new interaction between lattice nuclei not noticed before.

In addition to the possible new interaction between lattice nuclei, the effect of complexity on the CFP has been investigated in relation to various experimental data.

It should be mentioned here about an elaborate work by Edmund Storms who compiled and published an extensive list of papers until 2007 [Storms 2007]. This work is very useful to contemplate the total image of the CFP

I-1 The Subtitle of “The Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon”

The subtitle of the Book 1 is suggestive to the history of the cold fusion research: Development of Solid State-Nuclear Physics and the Energy Crisis in the 21st Century.

The first half of this subtitle is reflected in the papers I have presented at JCF 19 held on October 2018:

H. Kozima, “Development of the Solid State-Nuclear Physics,” Proc. JCF19, 19-15 (2019) (to be published), ISSN 2187-2260. [Kozima 2019c]

In this paper, the essential contents of the solid state-nuclear physics have been systematically surveyed. The complexity in the process of formation of the CF materials and the novel features of the interactions between host elements and occluded hydrogen isotopes have been extensively investigated.

Key concepts developed in our theory are;
(1) Complexity in formation of the metal-hydrogen superlattice
(2) Super-nuclear interaction between neutrons in different lattice nuclei
(3) Neutron energy bands and neutron drops in them
(4) Nuclear interactions between neutrons in the neutron bands and nuclei at disordered sites.

The second half of that subtitle “the Energy Crisis in the 21st Century” has shed various light on the cold fusion research. This problem is discussed below in Sections II and III.

I-2. The Subtitle of the book “The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon”

We now take up the subtitle of the Second Book – In Search of the Physics and Chemistry behind Complex Experimental Data Sets –.

We have noticed many characteristics of the CFP observed in metal-hydrogen systems and carbon-hydrogen systems as pointed out in our papers [Kozima 2006, 2016a]. It should be noted here that the chemistry of the CFP seems to be a key factor to form the CF materials in the electrolytic systems [Kozima 2000b (Sec. 4)]. It was noticed a characteristic of the CF materials in the electrolytic systems is the preference of a cathode metal and an electrolyte: “It should be emphasized here that there are preference for combination of a cathode metal (Pd, Ni. Ti. Pt, Au, etc.), an electrolyte (Li, N, K, or Rb) and a solvent (D2O or H2O) to induce CFP.” [Kozima 2000b (p. 45)].

The physics of the CFP seems to be the fundamental factor for the occurrence of the nuclear reactions in the CF materials. Main efforts to explain the nuclear reactions in CF materials at near room temperature without any acceleration mechanisms have been endeavored as follows [Kozima 2004, 2006, 2013, 2016b, 2019c]. To give a unified explanation of these complex experimental data containing such characteristics, we have struggled with successive trials (shown below) arrived at our final image summarized in the paper published in 2019 [Kozima 2019c].

We follow the history of our research chronologically:

Observation of neutron emission from Pd/LiOH+H2D/Pt electrolytic system [Kozima 1990].

Proposal of the TNCF model (trapped neutron catalyzed model) assuming quasi-stable neutrons in CF materials [Kozima 1994].

Publication of Book I compiling experimental data analyzed by the TNCF model [Kozima 1998].

Proposal of the ND model (neutron drop model) assuming formation of the cf-matter containing neutron drops AZΔ composed of Z protons and (A – Z) neutrons [Kozima 2000a].

Publication of Book II compiling experimental data analyzed by the TNCF and ND models [Kozima 2006]

Explanation of the neutron energy band (one of central premises of the ND model) by a quantum mechanical verification of the super-nuclear interaction between neutrons in different lattice nuclei [Kozima 2009].

Compilation of three laws in the CFP induced from experimental data sets [Kozima 2012].

Explanation of the formation of the metal-hydrogen superlattice and the nature of the three laws in the CFP by complexity inherited in the CF materials [Kozima 2013].

Justification of the phenomenological approach using the TNCF and the ND models to the CFP by inductive logic and the meta-analysis [Kozima 2019c].

II. Martin Fleischmann – A Great Scientist who co-discovered the Cold Fusion Phenomenon

In this section, we follow Fleischmann’s idea which lead to the discovery of the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) through his papers. We know that anyone can’t be omnipotent. Even Martin Fleischmann is, regrettably, not its exception. He had been uncomfortable in the d – d fusion reactions at several points* but remained there without stepping over its conceptual barrier to a mechanism applicable not only to deuterium systems but also to protium systems.

*There are several sentences showing his insight into new mechanisms for the CFP. Followings are some of them cited from his papers referred in this paper.

“The most surprising feature of our results however, is that reactions (v) and (vi) are only a small part of the overall reaction scheme and that the bulk of the energy release is due to an hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes ) presumably again due to deuterons).” [Fleischmann 1989 (p. 308)]

“In the development of any new area of research (and especially in one likely to arouse controversy!) it is desirable to achieve first of all a qualitative demonstration of the phenomena invoked in the explanation of the observations. It is the qualitative demonstrations which are unambiguous: the quantitative analyses of the experimental results can be the subject of debate but, if these quantitative analyses stand in opposition to the qualitative demonstration, then these methods of analysis must be judged to be incorrect.” [Fleischmann 1991 (p. 2)]“An important key to the understanding of the system is given by the strange properties of D and H and T in such lattices. We must ask: how can it be that D can exist at a ∼ 100 molar concentration and high supersaturations without forming D2 in the lattice?”

“How can it be that D diffuses so rapidly thorough the lattice (diffusion coefficient > 10–7 cm2s–1 greater than that of either h or T!) whereas He is practically immobile?”

The answer to the last questions, of course, that deuterium is present as the deuteron whereas 4He does not form α-particles.” [Fleischmann 1991 (p. 9)]

In Appendix A, we have collected several sentences showing Fleischmann’s ideas on the CFP; there are his interesting ideas from the original simple one resulted in the paper published in 1989 to later ones speculating possible mechanisms for various experimental data obtained in the progress of the science in this field. Short explanations are given for each sentences from my point of view at present by an afterthought.

III. Problems related to the “the Energy Crisis in the 21st Century”

In this section, we focus on the financial phase of the scientific research in modern society which has given enormous effects on the cold fusion research.

The financial support to scientific researches has been a fundamentally important problem to promote the research programs in the modern society. We have given a short investigation on this problem [Kozima 2017].
In the discovery and development of the CFP, there are shadows of this problem from the first up to present. The financial faces of the CF research until 1990 had been written in the DOE Report I published in 1989 [DOE 1989] and also written by Taubes [Taubes 1993] and by Huizenga [Huizenga 1992]. The same problem after 1989 until 2004 appeared in the DOE Report II published in 2004 [DOE 2004].

III-1. DOE Report I [DOE 1989]

The shortcomings of the DOE Report I were discussed in my book published in 1998 [Kozima 1998 (Sec. 1.2 DOE Report), 2016a (Sec. 2 DOE Reports 1989 and 2004)] as follows:

“The Committees in the Department of Energy had been composed of experts in relevant fields to the CFP and their technical opinions should be esteemed. It should, however, be pointed out limitations imposed on them by their duty different from the researchers in this field. Their duty binds them to confine their sight and also their expertise limits their investigation of the data of the CFP inside their field preventing extension of their sight.” [Kozima 2016a (p. 163)

Let us point out mistakes in the DOE report

Conclusion (1) is based on Conclusions (2) ~ (5), and it has no basis if Conclusions (2) ~ (5) are incorrect. The issue of excess heat and fusion products discussed in Conclusion (2) has significance only when D + D reaction is assumed as the main process. This assumption was adopted by the majority of the scientists at that time, including those who discovered cold fusion.

If there is some other mechanism governing the process, this argument is no longer valid. If you are searching for truth, whether one assumption made by a scientist is correct or not has no importance. You should search for the truth based on the fact that the phenomenon did occur. From this point of view, we will show, in Chapters 11 and 12, that it is possible to explain the results of cold fusion experiments without any inconsistency.

Conclusion (3) was based on the fact that the cold fusion phenomenon presented poor reproducibility. However, the reproducibility of a phenomenon is determined by the condition of the entire system, in which the process takes place. Simple analogy from other physical phenomena should not have been used to draw a conclusion. We will also show the reasons for the poor reproducibility and the way to improve it in Chapters 11 and 12.

Conclusion (4) only shows that the interpretations of the discoverers of cold fusion were not appropriate, and it has nothing to do with the truth. It is hard to believe that board members have made such an elementary mistake. It was found later that inside solid, such as Pd or Ti, with a combination of various factors, complex phenomena can occur. There is always such possibility in science. Today, it is quite obvious to everybody. The board members might have forgotten for some reason that natural science is built upon the fact.

Conclusion (5) is similar to Conclusion (4). If any new findings had been denied only because they were contradiction with the existing knowledge, there would have been no progress in science and there will not be any progress in the future.

The discussions expressed in the DOE Report remind us Procrustes’ bed. As Procrustes used his bed as an absolute standard to measure heights of his captives, the critiques against cold fusion used d – d reaction as an inevitable standard to judge anomalous events.” [Kozima 1998 (pp. 3 – 7)]
It is difficult to evaluate scientific works without a right point of view, even if he/she has enough knowledge about the theme of the works.

III-2. DOE Report II [DOE 2004

Almost 15 years since the DOE Report I, several scientists in the U.S.A. asked their Department of Energy to reconsider the evaluation issued in 1989.

The DOE Report 2004 [DOE 2004] has a different character from that of 1989. The new Report was issued according to the request presented by several CF researchers as a document [Hagelstein 2004].

“’The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science (SC) was approached in late 2003 by a group of scientists who requested that the Department revisit the question of scientific evidence for low energy nuclear reactions. In 1989 Pons and Fleischman first reported the production of “excess” heat in a Pd electrochemical cell, and postulated that this was due to D-D fusion (D=deuterium), sometimes referred to as ‘cold fusion.’ The work was reviewed in 1989 by the Energy Research Advisory Board (ERAB) of the DOE. ERAB did not recommend the establishment of special programs within DOE devoted to the science of low energy fusion, but supported funding of peer-reviewed experiments for further investigations. Since 1989, research programs in cold fusion have been supported by various universities, private industry, and government agencies in several countries.”[DOE 2004]

According to the limited evidences given to the DOE as clearly written in the above Abstract, the material is confined to the “The experimental evidence for anomalies in metal deuterides” and does not include the data obtained in the protium systems. Therefore, the material given to the DOE is necessarily an incomplete one to show the cold fusion phenomenon as a whole. However, the Report [DOE 2004] had merit to evaluate positive phases of the CF researches after the DOE Report 1989 [DOE 1989].

“Conclusion of DOE is cited as follows: “While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.”

“The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.” [DOE 2004]

It should be cited one of the positive comments in the Report as follows:

“It is now clear that loading level and current density thresholds are required in order to observe excess heat in these experiments. The values are consistent regardless of the approach used and the laboratory where the experiment was conducted. Early failures to reproduce the heat effect were, in part, due to not meeting these requirements. It has also been found that thermal and current density transients, which are thought to effect the chemical environment such as deuterium flux, can trigger heat ‘events’. “

“SRI has published an expression for the correlation between excess power and current density, loading, and deuterium flux. These discoveries have led to a better understanding of the phenomena and more reproducibility.” (Reviewer #9) [Kozima 2016a (pp. 164 – 165)]

Even if the nuclear transmutation in the CFP was excluded from the investigation by experts in the review team of DOE, the partial positive evaluation given in their Report was encouraging to the cold fusion society.

III-3. Two Books by Huizenga [Huizenga 1992] and Taubes [Taubes 1993]

The unpleasant episodes about the financial support around researchers described by Taubes in detail in his book [Taubes 1993] and the movement in the State of Utah to establish the National Cold Fusion Institute described by Huizenga [Huizenga 1992 (Chap. X)] had made the atmosphere around the cold fusion research dark or even black. These episodes had given very strong negative influence about the CFP on scientists all over the world.

Some examples of the negative influence are seen in book reviews for these books. The scientists wrote these reviews by only reading the books by Huizenga [Huizenga 1992] and Taubes [Taubes 1993] without reading original papers and contemplating experimental data written there. Even if a scientist is trained in one of established branches of modern science, it is not easy to understand the pioneering work in a truly novel field of researches if he/she don’t use his/her scientific spirit for the field which is alien to him/her.

It should be remembered that there is a scientist in the Cold Fusion Panel in the U.S. Department of Energy who insisted to add several words on reservation to deny the existence of the cold fusion events making the preamble as follows:

“A. Preamble Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time.”

“However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. As as a result, it is difficult convincingly to resolve all cold fusion claims since, for example, any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons.”

“Likewise the failure of a theory to account for cold fusion can be discounted on the grounds that the correct explanation and theory has not been provided. Consequently, with the many contradictory existing claims it is not possible at this time to state categorically that all the claims for cold fusion have been convincingly either proved or disproved. Nonetheless, on balance, the Panel has reached the following conclusions and recommendations:” [DOE 1989 (V. Conclusions and Recommendations, A. Preamble, p. 36), Kozima 1989 (Sec. 1.2 DOE Report), 2016a (Sec. 2)]

IV Conclusion

The history of the CF research in these 30 years since the observation of a part of the CFP induced by nuclear reactions in a CF material is a typical story of discovery of a new science. There had been no framework to put the events in it and we had to treat them by trial-and-error. In the processes of trial-and-error, there were many unintentional errors which might be, regrettably, supposed intentional. The social condition for scientific activity in modern times has been severe asking shortsighted success for investment which is not fit with science.

I have endeavored to give a unified scientific explanation for the complicated variety of experimental data obtained in various CF materials. Fortunately, the phenomenological approach using a model with the trapped neutrons in CF materials could explain experimental data qualitatively and sometimes quasi-quantitatively. As summarized in Section I, our trial on this line developed to enclose whole phases of the CFP. I hope that my system of explanation for the CFP thus established may be, at least, a tiny step to establish the solid state-nuclear physics even if I remember in my mind a sentence I wrote above anyone can’t be omnipotent. However, I would be behind the words “to err is human; to forgive, divine.”


Appendix A. Martin Fleischmann on the Cold Fusion Phenomenon

[Fleischmann 1989] M, Fleischmann, S. Pons and M. Hawkins, “Electrochemically induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium,” J. Electroanal. Chem., 261, 301 – 308 (1989), ISSN: 1572-6657

[Fleischmann 1990] M. Fleischmann, “An Overview of Cold Fusion Phenomena,” ICCF1 lecture (March 31. 1990, Saturday), Proc. ICCF1, pp. 344 – 350 (1990)

[Fleischmann 1991] M. Fleischmann, “Present Status of Research in Cold Fusion,” Proc. ICCF2, Addition to the Conference Proceedings, pp. 1 – 10 (1991), ISBN 88-7794-045-X

[Fleischmann 1998a] M. Fleischmann, “Abstract” to “Cold Fusion: Past, Present and Future,” Proc. ICCF7.

[Fleischmann 1998b] M. Fleischmann, “Cold Fusion: Past, Present and Future,” Proc. ICCF7, pp. 119 – 127 (1998). ENECO Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

[Fleischmann 1989] Martin Fleischmann had considered the realization of the dream F. Paneth dreamed 70 years ago that deuterons will fuse in a palladium metal where they are occluded with a very high concentration.

“A feature which is of special interest and which prompted the present investigation, is the very high H/D separation factor for absorbed hydrogen and deuterium. This can be explained only fi the H+ and D+ in the lattice behave as classical oscillators (possibly as delocalised species) i.e. they must be in very shallow potential wells. In view of the very high compression and mobility of the dissolved species there must therefore be a significant number of close collisions and one can pose the question: would nuclear fusion of D+ such as
2D + 2D → 3T (1.01 MeV) + 1H (3.02 MeV) (v)
2D + 2D → 3Te (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (vi)
be feasible under these conditions?” ([Fleischmann 1989 (p. 302)]

However, it is interesting to notice following sentences in the same paper:
“The most surprising feature of our results however, is that reactions (v) and (vi) are only a small part of the overall reaction scheme and that the bulk of the energy release is due to an hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes ) presumably again due to deuterons).” [ibid. (p. 308)]

His motivation to this experiment published as a preliminary note in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry was printed in his later article [Fleischmann 1993a]

The controversial contents of this paper in addition to other data obtained following few years had been consistently analyzed by the TNCF model [Kozima 1997].

“- – – We, for our part, would not have started this investigation if we had accepted the view that nuclear reactions in host lattices could not be affected by coherent processes. The background to this research has been presented from the point of view of the behavior of D+ in palladium cathodes since this has been our exclusive concern. A somewhat different account would be relevant to the behavior of deuterium in titanium, the other system which has been the subject of intensive research following the description of the generation of low levels of neutrons during cathodic polarization.” [Fleischmann 1990 (p. 347)]

“It is now also essential to broaden the base of the research to include both the quantitative evaluation of the effects of the many variables leading to the control and optimization of particular outputs (compare(46) ) and the extension of the range of systems showing the various effects. For the Pd-D system the central conundrum, the disparity of the excess enthalpy generation and of the expected nuclear products according to reactions (i) and (ii) however remains unsolved. It is clear that there must be other nuclear reaction paths of high cross-section and that these will only be discovered by a careful search for products on the surface and in the bulk of the electrodes (as well as in the solution and gas spaces).” [ibid. (p. 348)] [Fleischmann 1991]

He seems to have had realized the nature of the CFP and necessity of qualitative approach which had been elucidated in our recent paper [Kozima 2019b].

“In the development of any new area of research (and especially in one likely to arouse controversy!) it is desirable to achieve first of all a qualitative demonstration of the phenomena invoked in the explanation of the observations. It is the qualitative demonstrations which are unambiguous: the quantitative analyses of the experimental results can be the subject of debate but, if these quantitative analyses stand in opposition to the qualitative demonstration, then these methods of analysis must be judged to be incorrect.” [Fleischmann 1991 (p. 2)]

He was persisting in the d – d fusion reactions: “The most rudimentary measurements of the generation of tritium and of the neutron flux (or rather the lack of it!) show that the nuclear reaction paths
2D + 2D → 3T (1.01 MeV) + 1H (3.02 MeV) (i)
2D + 2D → 3Te (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (ii)
which are dominant in high energy fusion (and which have roughly equal cross-sections under those conditions) contribute to only a very small extent to the observed phenomena.

We reach the conclusions:
i. The lattice has an important influence on the nuclear processes;
ii. The observed processes are substantially aneutronic;
iii. The generation of excess enthalpy is the main signature of these new nuclear processes.” [Fleischmann 1991 (p. 4)]

He was aware of the correlation between the super-diffusivity of D in Pd and the CFP in it.

“An important key to the understanding of the system is given by the strange properties of D and H and T in such lattices. We must ask: how can it be that D can exist at a ∼ 100 molar concentration and high supersaturations without forming D2 in the lattice?”

“How can it be that D diffuses so rapidly thorough the lattice (diffusion coefficient > 10–7 cm2s–1 greater than that of either h or T!) whereas He is practically immobile?”

“The answer to the last questions, of course, that deuterium is present as the deuteron whereas 4He does not form α-particles.” [Fleischmann 1991 (p. 9)]

This point has been explained in our recent paper [Kozima 2019c]

[Fleischmann 1998a, 1998b] He explained his basic concept of his experiment on the CFP done before 1989.

“In 1983, Stanley Pons and I posed ourselves the following two question:
i) Would the nuclear reactions of deuterons confined in a lattice be faster (and different) from the fusion of deuterons in a plasma?
ii) Could such nuclear reactions be detected?” [Fleischmann 1998a]

He was adhered to the d – d fusion reactions and looking for a mechanism to realize them in solids. He considered the Q.F.T (quantum field theory) is the savior for his expectation:

“- – – The scientific importance lies in the fact that whereas the Bohm-Aharanov Effect is a clear demonstration of the need to replace the C.M. (classical mechanics) by the Q.M. (quantum mechanics) paradigm, the Coehn-Aharanov Effect (indeed, “Cold Fusion” in general) is a demonstration of the need to go one step further to the Q.F.T. (quantum field theory) paradigm.” [Fleischmann 1998b (p. 123)]


[DOE 1989] DOE, “Cold Fusion Research,” November 1989, A Report of the Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585. DOE/S – – 0073, DE90 005611

[DOE 2004] “Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.” This report is posted at the New Energy Times website:

[Fleischmann 1989] M, Fleischmann, S. Pons and M. Hawkins, “Electrochemically induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium,” J. Electroanal. Chem., 261, 301 – 308 (1989), ISSN: 1572-6657

[Fleischmann 1990] M. Fleischmann, “An Overview of Cold Fusion Phenomena,” ICCF1 lecture (March 31. 1990, Saturday), Proc. ICCF1, pp. 344 – 350 (1990)

[Fleischmann 1991] M. Fleischmann, “Present Status of Research in Cold Fusion,” Proc. ICCF2, Addition to the Conference Proceedings, pp. 1 – 10 (1991), ISBN 88-7794-045-X

[Fleischmann 1998a] M. Fleischmann, “Abstract” to “Cold Fusion: Past, Present and Future,” Proc. ICCF7

[Fleischmann 1998b] M. Fleischmann, “Cold Fusion: Past, Present and Future,” Proc. ICCF7, pp. 119 – 127 (1998). ENECO Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

[Hagelstein 2004] P.L. Hagelstein, M.C. H. McKubre, D.J. Nagel, T.A. Chubb, and R.J. Hekman, “New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides,” (paper presented to DOE) posted at DOE website:

[Huizenga 1992] J.R. Huizenga, Cold Fusion―The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY, USA, 1992. ISBN 1-87882-207-1

[Kozima 1990] H. Kozima, S. Oe, K. Hasegawa, H. Suganuma, M. Fujii, T. Onojima, K. Sekido and M. Yasuda, “Experimental Investigation of the Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion,” Report of Faculty of Science, Shizuoka University, 24, pp. 29 -34 (1990), ISSN 0583-0923

[Kozima 1994] H. Kozima, “Trapped Neutron Catalyzed Fusion of Deuterons and Protons in Inhomogeneous Solids,” Transact. Fusion Technol., 26, 508 – 515 (1994), ISSN: 0748-1896.

[Kozima 1997] H. Kozima, S. Watanabe, K. Hiroe, M. Nomura, M. Ohta and K. Kaki, “Analysis of Cold Fusion Experiments generating Excess Heat, Tritium and Helium,” J. Electroanal. Chem., 425, pp. 173 – 178 (1997), ISSN 1572-6657.

[Kozima 1998] H. Kozima, Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon – Development of Solid State-Nuclear Physics and the Energy Crisis in the 21st Century –, Ohtake Shuppan Inc., 1998, ISBN 4-87186-044-2.

[Kozima 2000a] H. Kozima. “Neutron Drop: Condensation of Neutrons in Metal Hydrides and Deuterides”, Fusion, Technol. 37, 253 – 258 (2000), ISSN 0748-1896.

[Kozima 2000b] H. Kozima, “Electroanalytical Chemistry in Cold Fusion Phenomenon,” Recent Research Development in Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 2 – 2000, pp. 35 – 46, Ed. S.G. Pandalai, Transworld Research Network, (2000), ISBN 81-86846-94-8.

[Kozima 2004] H. Kozima, “Quantum Physics of Cold Fusion Phenomenon,” in Developments in Quantum Physics, Ed. V. Krasnoholovets and F. Columbus, Nova Science Pub. Inc., pp. 167 – 196 (2004), ISBN 1-59454-003-9.

[Kozima 2006] H. Kozima, The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon, – In Search of the Physics and Chemistry behind Complex Experimental Data Sets –, 1st Edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006, ISBN-13: 978-0-08045-110-7.

[Kozima 2009] H. Kozima, “Non-localized Proton/Deuteron Wavefunctions and Neutron Bands in Transition-metal Hydrides/Deuterides,” Proc. JCF9, pp. 84 – 93 (2009), ISSN 2187-2260.

[Kozima 2012] H. Kozima, “Three Laws in the Cold Fusion Phenomenon and Their Physical Meaning,” Proc. JCF12 (Kobe, Japan, December 17 – 18, 2011), pp. 101 – 114 (2012), ISSN 2187-2260.

[Kozima 2013] H. Kozima, “Cold Fusion Phenomenon in Open, Nonequilibrium, Multi-component Systems – Self-organization of Optimum Structure,” Proc. JCF13 13-19, pp. 134 – 157 (2013), ISSN 2187-2260

[Kozima 2016a] H. Kozima, “From the History of CF Research – A Review of the Typical Papers on the Cold Fusion Phenomenon –,” Proc. JCF16, 16-13, pp. 116‐157 (2016), ISSN 2187-2260 and posted at the JCF website; html

[Kozima 2016b] H. Kozima and K. Kaki, “The Cold Fusion Phenomenon and Neutrons in Solids,” Proc. JCF16, 16-14, 158 – 198 (2016), ISSN 2187-2260 at the JCF website:

[Kozima 2017] H. Kozima, “The Sociology of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon – An Essay –,” Proc. JCF17, 17-13, pp. 148‐219 (2017), ISSN 2187-2260 and posted at the JCF website: html

[Kozima 2019a] H. Kozima and H. Yamada, “Characteristics of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon,” Reports of CFRL, 19-1, pp. 1 – 31 (2019) posted at CFRL website:

[Kozima 2019b] H. Kozima, “Inductive Logic and Meta-analysis in the Cold Fusion Phenomenon,” Reports of CFRL, 19-2, pp. 1 – 26 (2019) posted at CFRL website:

[Kozima 2019c] H. Kozima, “Development of the Solid State-Nuclear Physics,” Proc. JCF19, 19-3 , pp. 1 – 36 (2019) posted at CFRL website:

[Storms 2007] E. Storms, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction – A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion –, World Scientific, Singapore, 2007, ISBN-10 981-270-620-8

[Taubes 1993] G. Taubes, Bad Science―The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion, Random House Inc., New York, USA, 1993, ISBN 0-394-58456-2

List of papers published by the Cold Fusion Research Laboratory [html][.pdf]

(On March 23, 2019 at the 30th Anniversary of the Discovery of the CFP) —Hideo Kozima

On the 30th Anniversary of the Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon by Hideo Kozima [.pdf] was first published in the Cold Fusion Research Laboratory CFRL English News No. 107 (2019. 3. 1)

Stephen Bannister on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast

Episode 22 of the Cold Fusion Now! podcast features Dr. Stephen C. Bannister, an Economist at University of Utah Salt Lake City. Dr. Bannister received his undergraduate degree from the University of Illinois, Champaign and then spent a career in high technology, becoming Director of Novell in Provo, Utah.

He then returned for a PhD in Economics at University of Utah where most of his research centers around energy and economic activity and is strongly connected to climate change.

Listen to Dr. Stephen Bannister on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast with Ruby Carat on the podcast page here.

Approaching the 30th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion by Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons on March 23, 1989, Ruby asked Dr. Bannister if there was any activity on the campus to commemorate the event.

“If you go to the chemistry department and bring up this topic – which I have done – they come back and say “Oh no no no, that’s pathological science, and we don’t want to talk about it much”, says Dr. Bannister, “and I’m not sure that anyone in the physics department has much of an interest in [cold fusion] today. I don’t know that, but I’ve talked to some of the grad students in physics and there’s no awareness of it at that level. However, there is some interest in the Department of Earth Sciences.”

Dr. Bannister learned that a former post-doc at Los Alamos National Lab, who had prepared a report on the LENR work of Dr. Edmund Storms, had subsequently become Dean at the College of Earth Sciences at University of Utah. He and Dr. Bannister are “now in communication thinking about how to begin to advance the rehabilitation of the reputations of Drs. Fleischmann and Pons, and do some other things, although its not very formal yet.”

The National Cold Fusion Institute, funded right after the 1989 announcement, has an archive housed in the UU Library, offering another chance to bring more material to light.

Listen to Dr. Stephen C. Bannister discuss the relationship between energy inputs and economic output, and how breakthrough energy fits in, on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast with Ruby Carat on our podcast page here.

The LANR/CF Colloquium happens this weekend!

Go to to register now!