2014 History of Cold Fusion Calendar Available Now!

You asked for it, and now it’s here: the 2014 History of Cold Fusion Calendar!

Jam packed with lots of new info and quotes, this year’s must-have gift for your new energy enthusiast is sure to please.

01_front_cover 28_back_cover-800x622

Twelve gorgeous full-color images from leading researchers of today, as well as rare photos from the New Energy Foundation archives, grace the pages. Energy cells are lavishly displayed in close-up panoramic color!

Click to order yours!

But the 2014 History of Cold Fusion Calendar isn’t just a pretty piece of art, it’s got the facts you need to back up your advocacy.

Find out who first speculated on the existence of atoms! (See January 7)

Do you know how much energy could be released by each gram of deuterium? (Find out March 31)

When did the Electrochemical Society designate F-Day? (See May 8)

What’s the melting point of nickel? (You’ll know on June 17)

Follow a special narrative of Tadahiko Mizuno‘s 1989 massive “heat-after-death” event, as he fills bucket after bucket of water around the cell that won’t quit, and it mysteriously steams away!

Get one mailed to your door!

Last year’s 2013 calendar was a huge success, and presented the field of cold fusion to newbies with prestige. Order a bunch to send to policy-makers and news media. They won’t be able to ignore the technology for long!

Send a few to your local schools, and encourage students to experiment with their teachers. They’ll be in good company with one high-school that has an inter-disciplinary program and working cells right now! (See September!)

Order now, and they’ll be ready just in time for the holidays to give the techies in your family the gift of a lifetime!

All proceeds go to support Cold Fusion Now and the New Energy Foundation, serving the new energy community with education, advocacy, and funding.

LENR: The Debutante at the Ball


The Cold Fusion research of Fleischmann and Pons was an anomaly in and of itself. Two electrochemists, while having a bit of fun with the maximum loading of hydrogen into palladium in an electrolytic cell, ventured into a realm of subatomic phenomenon. No one had been there before in quite this way.

They hazarded to say it was nuclear, and got blasted.

These two electrochemists had no assistance from other branches of science in trying to figure it out. Nobody came to their assistance. In fact, those who should have joined in this scientific quest, ridiculed the pair as charlatans. Instead of helping out these two lone electrochemists with a scientific dilemma, leaders in the nuclear scientific community of the U.S. government-funded Department of Energy (DOE) labs ridiculed them to no end. This left the two fellows to fend for themselves while being kicked out of the tribe, so to speak.

Luckily, the few scientists who had found positive results during the DOE-sponsored race to replicate the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE) persisted, mostly in obscurity and without funding, in this query of the unknown.

Cutting edge experimental science requires patience, honest sharing of data, and evaluation for a continued improvement of the experimenters’ ability to enter into an unknown realm; which is to actually observe and record aspects of a difficult to create phenomenon and thereby test theory. In this manner, our understanding within the unknown realm grows.

I publish. You review after working it a bit. Always improving experiments. Together with theorists, we collect data, analyze and implement sound suggestions, always moving forward, advancing the science. Open collaboration quickens this difficult quest into the unknown. Open and enthusiastic collaboration by all branches of the scientific community into the query of the unknown is the basis of good science and is essential for the birth of a new science.

These early cold fusioneers formed an association of the shunned and published in a few “unrecognized” trade journals which they had to create in order to continue the scientific process in this controversial field. The Internet had appeared before the observed 
Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE), freeing these researchers from the limitations of the printing press.

The printing press had advanced science simply by causing more researchers to be reading more researchers work, which caused a quickening of the scientific process. 

I publish. You review it after working it a bit (through meticulous experimentation and collection of data). Together with theorists, we improve our ability to observe and record phenomenon,  improve analysis of data, always moving forward.

Today’s scientists no longer face the hurdle of a publisher’s peer review to get work printed. If you have fallen into an unknown realm who is your peer? Obviously only those who you find there with you. The Internet allowed the peers of cold fusion research to publish, which is the first step in involving the larger community in your scientific endeavor. Only after publishing can true scientific review begin.

Many of the established branches of science could have assisted Fleischmann and Pons with a few of their questions. These two were wondering what was actually going on. They also were trying to figure out, why, during different runs of their experiments, some cells produced nuclear levels of energy while others did not. None of those in mainstream science helped them to answer any of the questions concerning the new realm they were entrusted with.

The people who are experts in atomic theory had nothing to add. The people doing high-energy subatomic research at CERN or Lawrence Livermore had nothing to add. Thermoelectric devices are almost like LENR devices, without the hydrogen. Yet the mainstream thermoelectric crowd offered no assistance even though their grandfather, Harold Aspden, had became a godfather to new cold fusion research. Even the emergent semiconductor field could have assisted this new science with their knowledge of dopants and understanding of the adolescent quantum field branch of science.

None of these folks showed even a bit of healthy scientific interest in this work. Almost all their curiosity evaporated into thin air. After the announcement of the birth of cold fusion research people were thrilled. Then to have virtually all curiosity evaporate within the whole scientific community, is an anomaly of such a magnitude that it is hard to comprehend. These lone researchers from a single branch of science, with their Internet printing, were left to care for this newly born area of research by themselves, held separate from the larger scientific community. They were left without communal guidance or assistance in their care of this new unknown scientific field, the infant known as cold fusion research.

Fleischmann and Pons were just trying to figure it out. Who knows how dirty their electrical currents were? Might there have been harmonic frequencies created upstream of their current supply, caused by any number of other electrical equipment being turned on, or turned off, at the same time? (My TV used to go fuzzy when the neighbor turned on his table saw.)

These electrical eddy currents could cause one cell to go positive, with nuclear dense energy being produced, while another, without this added focusing of energetics, would be a dud. Would there be pulsations created simply by a portional electrical on/off factor, thereby creating superwaves or standing wave formations? Are influential magnetic moments created within such electron dense environments? Are harmonic frequencies within the lattice the key?

What surface topography or nano engineering is required? Are the  proper fractal geometries essential for equilateral fusion firing and control throughout the system?  Do we need some dopants thrown in? Do we need to get the advanced materials folks engaged in doing some Edisonian style research with every known metal and alloy? Is an unknown source of energetics thrown into the mix, such as dark energy or gravity?

How might one capitalize on these many components within the atomic and the subatomic realm of the cold fusion nuclear reactive environment? Are angular eddy currents within the electron shell a key? Or specific angular thermal currents? Do subatomic transmutations within the molecular liquid crystal plasma create atomic transmutations, on an atom by atom basis? 

So many questions faced Fleischmann and Pons in their efforts to sustain this child that, unassisted by the larger community, the new science of cold fusion barely survived. Luckily the science did and she is growing up, as we shall see.

Science has been progressing nicely since the birth announcement of cold fusion research in 1989. Quantum physics and engineering has matured since then. After a battle for acceptance, it is now seen as a branch of science that will advance us beyond our present understanding of known Einsteinian physics. Nano-science has emerged fairly well developed, with exciting possibilities, being fully realized quite quickly.

Both of these branches of science have been openly courting cold fusion research and standing within the low energy nuclear reaction environment for some time. Once an ugly duckling, now a beautiful swan, LENR Energy is now considered to be exciting and full of potential. Highly energetic with no known faults LENR Energy attractive and much sought after.

LENR Energy Science and Engineering is finding herself best able to thrive as a multi-disciplinary field. LENR is the debutante at the ball. With some really great features: Clean inexpensive energy. Both LENR Electrical and LENR Thermal are embodiments of her grace.

We would certainly be amiss if we failed to mention the most attractive features. LENR energy transmutes radioactive waste while driving the turbines. My kinda gal. And when she steps onto the dance floor she actually flies, with the grace of a modern spaceplane and the beauty of a Boeing 747.

My hope is she will capture the attention of the semiconductor and thermoelectric crowd soon. Now that I stop and think on this, they are probably dancing together already. We will soon see.

Laboratoire de Physique Théorique – Toulouse – UMR 5152
A gauge theory picture of an exotic transition in a dimer model
http://www.lpt.ups-tlse.fr/spip.php?article432&lang=fr

We study a phase transition in a 3D lattice gauge theory, a coarse-grained version of a classical dimer model. The dimer model on a cubic lattice, first studied by F. Alet and collaborators, displays a continuous transition between an ordered columnar phase at low temperature and a disordered phase at high temperature where dimer-dimer correlations show an algebraic decay. This is rather unusual as the standard Ginzburg-Landau theory of phase transitions generally predicts an exponential decay of correlations in the disordered phase.

This phase transition is “exotic” in the sense that it cannot be simply explained by the spontaneous symmetry breaking of an order parameter. The existence of such unconventional continuous transitions is still very controversial, numerous authors pointing at an artifact due to a very weak first-order driven process.

To have a better understanding of the dimer model, we show, using duality arguments, that the classical dimer model can be mapped to a frustrated XY spin model coupled to a gauge field. The ordering transition is then naturally understood in terms of a Higgs mechanism. A Monte-Carlo study on large system sizes of the dual model indicates a second-order transition with exponents close but slightly different from those of the simple XY model. In order to confirm the type of the transition, we perform a flowgram analysis, a powerful numerical tool to test the nature of a transition. The results of the flowgram are unambiguously pointing toward a continuous transition.

Post-scriptum :

For more details, see the original paper Gauge theory picture of an ordering transition in a dimer model, by D. Charrier, F. Alet, P. Pujol in Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 167205 (2008)

Mardi 12 fevrier 2013-14:00
Spin-dependent thermoelectric transport in HgTe/CdTe quantum wells
http://www.lpt.ups-tlse.fr/spip.php?article1000&lang=fr

Marine Guigou (LPS Orsay) par Bertrand Georgeot – 12 février

HgTe quantum wells are known to host, under a topological phase transition, the quantum spin Hall effect. The latter refers to the presence of metallic edge states moving in opposite direction for opposite spins. Recently, HgTe/CdTe quantum wells, among others topological insulators, have been proposed as good materials for thermoelectric conversion. The basic idea relies on the topological protection of the 1D edge states that prevents reduction of electrical transport in disordered systems. Their efficiency to convert heat into electricity is based on the dominance of the edge modes on transport [1,2].

During this presentation, I will discuss about the thermoelectric properties of HgTe/CdTe quantum wells through the analysis of Seebeck and spin Nernst coefficents in a four terminal cross-bar setup. As a lateral thermal gradient induces a longitudinal electric bias and a transverse spin current in such a system, each of them can be used as a probe of the topological regime as well as finite size effects of the quantum spin Hall insulator. Furthermore, I will present a qualitative relative between effective mass of particles and magnitude of spin Nernst signal which allows to provide an explanation of the observed phenomena based on anomalous velocities and spin-dependent scattering off boundaries[3]

[1] R. Takahashi and S. Murakami, Phys. Rev. B 81, 161302 (2010).

[2] O.A. Tretiakov, A. Abanov, S. Murakami, and J. Sinova, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 073108 (2010).

[3] D.G. Rothe, E.M. Hankiewicz, B. Trauzettel, and M.G., Phys. Rev. B 86, 165434 (2012).

When spontaneous transmutation of particles occurs in a quantum liquid.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 016403 (2012)

par Carlos Lamas – 12 juillet 2012

Toutes les versions de cet article : English , français

The nature of doped insulators (where electrons experience strong repulsion) is a key issue that has been debated for years : it was first suggested that fermionic dopants (fermions are particles that can not share the same quantum mechanical state) can change into bosonic particles (bosons are particles that can occupy the same quantum mechanic state) – so-called statistical transmutation. This spectacular phenomenon is made possible by the exotic nature of the parent insulator, a quantum liquid which might be viewed as a “soup” of fluctuating close-packed dimers. Such a state is shown to exhibit emergent (topological) quantum defects that can bind to dopants and change their fundamental quantum properties and statistics (fermionic or bosonic statistics). In a recent Letter, C.A. Lamas, A. Ralko, D.C. Cabra, D. Poilblanc and P. Pujol have proven the existence of a “statistical transmutation” symmetry : the system is invariant under a simultaneous transformation of the statistics of the dopants and change of the signs of all the dimer resonances. The authors combine exact analytical results with high performance numerical calculations to clarify this issue. The exact transformation developed in the letter enables to define a duality equivalence between doped quantum dimer Hamiltonians, and provides the analytic framework to analyze dynamical statistical transmutations. These results constitute a fundamental step in the understating of a broad family of new phenomena in the large community of strongly correlated electronic systems.

Reference : C. A. Lamas, A. Ralko, D. C. Cabra, D. Poilblanc, and P. Pujol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 016403 (2012)

The Streetlight Effect and Cold Fusion

By David J French

Sometimes an iconic article is written that makes a change in how our society views important issues. One possibly iconic article is that published in Discover Magazine in July – August, 2010 by a contributing journalist, David H Freedman. Freedman coined the expression “The Streetlight Effect”. The idea is old but the name is rich with meaning; this concept now has a Wikipedia page.

The article explored how scientists everywhere when they undertake research often start with a focus which is driven by their own comfort and convenience. They acknowledge that there’s a puzzle to be solved and they aspire to make a contribution. They have specialized equipment available in their labs and graduate students who are trained in a specific field. Possibly, they may also have access to funding which is slanted towards a certain type of research. So it’s natural that they make a proposal to use their existing resources to address the specific scientific problem. Can this be wrong?

This is the essence of the “Streetlight Effect”: researchers tend to do the kind of research that’s easy, convenient and accessible. They have an aversion to going where no researcher has gone before if it means going where they must acquire new resources and/or undertake a major learning exercise to equip themselves appropriately. Instead, they pursue the easy path.

How does this relate to the scientific mystery colloquially called “Cold Fusion”? This July will see the 18th annual meeting of Cold Fusion researchers from around the world in Columbia, Missouri, attending ICCF-18. Sponsored by the University of Missouri, ICCF-18 will allow dozens of Cold Fusion researchers over a period of five days to present their findings in this field. The field of Cold Fusion is remarkable for the reality that while the miracle of unexplained excess energy has been demonstrated over and over again, more than 1000 times since 1989, the source of this energy is still not accounted for. Nobody understands clearly what is happening.

Since Fleischmann & Pons made their first ill-fated announcements in March, 1989 at the University of Utah, the field of Cold Fusion, also now called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions – LENR, has been in general disrepute in the broader scientific community. The failure by many major institutions in 1989 – 1990 to replicate the Fleischmann & Pons effect and produce meaningful amounts of unexplained excess heat at significant temperature levels has caused an unfortunate prejudice to persist in the scientific community.

This prejudice was entrenched by the publication of several highly critical books such as “Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion” by Gary Taubes, and “Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century“ by John R Huizenga. Even though subsequent developments have negated most of the criticisms leveled by critics at the Fleischmann & Pons effect, there is still a general belief in many physics departments, and indeed in government agencies, that Cold Fusion simply is not real.

Well something about it is real. There’s no question that moderate amounts of heat have been generated from sources that cannot be chemical and cannot be attributed to experimental artifacts; heat has persisted long enough that the effect cannot be ignored. But no theory has been presented so far that can conclusively explain the source of this energy.

Now enter the “Streetlight Effect”. What are we going to expect of the experimenters who make presentations at ICCF-18?

Most of them will be reporting on the experimental results that they have achieved. A large number of these results have been will have been carried out in electrolytic cells, in the liquid phase. This is true even though there have been definite demonstrations of the LENR effect in the gas phase, both in the case of Palladium saturated with deuterium as well as nickel saturated with hydrogen. Indeed, even other hydride-forming metals have been shown to demonstrate the unexplained release of excess heat.

Experiments are still being done in the liquid phase even though the gas phase has much greater commercial potential simply because of many of the experimenters have laboratories that are well equipped for electrolysis and the researchers themselves have spent years immersed in this field. But now even the gas phase is finally being explored more extensively. This may open up new opportunities.

These experiments have all been invaluable in order to assemble data on what gives rise to the LENR effect. But the amount of data that has been generated, while almost overwhelming, has not yet lifted the veil on what is actually happening. We have to give credit for all this work that has been done, and indeed it is invaluable in providing a foundation for further thought and analysis. But something more is needed.

Where are the “killer” experiments that will lift the veil and finally provide understanding for what is really going on? Will there be a Milliken attending to describe the measurement of electric charge on oil drops? Or a Rutherford who provides results on alpha particle scattering? Examples of such key experiments in the history of science could be extended indefinitely. But will such a corresponding experiment be proposed at ICCF-18, an experiment that will solve the LENR Mystery? Possibly, but not probably.

We can expect to hear at the conference from researchers who have assiduously been collecting data using the apparatus that they have on hand, attended by their previously recruited graduate students who are focused on their supervisor’s field of expertise and funded by sources who are able to comprehend the proposed research for which they are providing money. Is this the best way to crack the nut that will explain this potentially revolutionary phenomenon?

This work has all made its contribution and more along such lines will still have to be done. It may be that the “Streetlight Effect” is unavoidable. But is it too much to hope that someone, or the consensus of this assembled wisdom, will be able propose an experiment, or series of experiments, which will be so telling that finally a basis will exist to shine light on a robust theory that will explain what is really happening?

ICCF-18 will be a gathering of people knowledgeable in the field. There will be plenty of exchanges of information and insight. Perhaps the “killer” experiment has already been done and may finally see the light of day. But if not, rather than continuing to pursue pet theories, a tremendous opportunity is available for those who know how to do experiments to discuss the key types of tests that should be done. This may, however, require them to depart further away from their streetlights and explore possibilities that will finally bring truth from the darkness. Let us hope this will happen.

John O’ Mara Bockris: 1923-2013

Photo: John O’M. Bockris from the 2013 History of Cold Fusion Calendar month of April courtesy Infinite Energy.

Infinite Energy Magazine reports that John O’M. Bockris has crossed over on July 7. Words of remembrance are gathered in IE’s Bockris Memorial. [.pdf]

IE32He was one of the first few scientists to detect tritium from cold fusion electrolytic cells while reproducing the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE) of excess heat, and he paid a price for it. Accused of fraud, and then “misconduct”, Texas A&M University’s Committee of Inquiry eventually cleared of all charges after a third and final investigation turned up no wrongdoing.

Still, an early workshop on transmutations, documented in The History of the Discovery of Transmutation at Texas A&M University [.pdf] written by Bockris, was organized in an atmosphere so hostile, the second workshop was held off-campus at a Holiday Inn, with off-duty police hired for security.

Eugene Mallove wrote a full report in Infinite Energy issue #32The Triumph of Alchemy: Professor John Bockris and the Transmutation Crisis at Texas A&M“. [.pdf]

However, Bockris told his own story in the documentary film Cold Fusion: Fire from Water written by Eugene Mallove and Jed Rothwell and directed by Chris Toussaint.

Released in 1999, Bockris speaks nonchalantly as a man at-ease who was nonplussed at the events.

“I think the main part was that, I had done work which was against the paradigm, and that’s what they were really upset about,” said Bockris.

“You know people said they’d been to our university, and some people had laughed at it, saying ‘What the heck are you doing trying to disprove the laws of nuclear physics?‘, and of course, that’s exactly what we were doing,” he laughs, ” – and succeeding.”

Watch the clip of John Bockris here. (The still image is that of George H. Miley, but Bockris begins the piece.)

One of the world’s top electrochemists, Bockris was first to use the phrase “Hydrogen Economy” in the year 1970. A prolific writer, he authored more than twenty books on electrochemistry, energy resources, and the topology of cultural paradigms. Aware of Peak Oil and the work of Richard Heinberg, he was realistic in his analyses of renewable energies, though still clear on the need for alternatives to carbon-emitting fuels. Read his Global Warming [.pdf] for a comprehensive outline of the problem.

First and foremost, Bockris was a teacher. After the passing of Martin Fleischmann, and the journal Nature‘s horrendous obituary, Bockris was one of many who wrote to protest the “gross distortion” of statements made by author Philip Ball. Bockris had supervised part of Martin Fleischmann‘s PhD thesis, calling him “a brilliant scientist”.

As a generation of new-energy researchers leaves our world behind for bigger, better beyonds, their teaching remains alive, with us here today, through the legacy of their work. You can honor the contributions of these scientists by buying their books, and giving them to schools, science clubs, and your local library.

Peace, and

Cold Fusion Now!

Stanley Pons’ Preface from J.P. Biberian’s La Fusion dans Tous ses États translated

Stanley Pons, co-discoverer of cold fusion, left the United States in 1991 amidst an unprecedented assault. Physicists wedded to the 100-year-old standard model of nuclear theory, and whose funding would be jeopardized by this seemingly simpler approach to energy production, ‘threw tantrums’ and attacked with vehemence.

Steven E. Koonin, who left Caltech Institute to work for BP Oil and later became the U.S. Under-Secretary of Energy 2009-2011, Robert Park, then-Director of Public Information for the American Physical Society and author of Voodoo Science, and John Huizenga, co-Chair of the Department of Energy panel charged with evaluating the scientific claims and author of Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, were just a few of the men who used their authority to create a myth that ultimately denied funding to anyone interested in researching the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE) of excess heat, and to blacklist all scientific papers on the topic from mainstream publication.

Sheila Pons documented the absurd melee in her editorial ‘Fusion frenzy’ stymies research published in the Deseret News March 28, 1990. For the Pons family, as well as the Fleischmanns, the emotional cost was great.

A new laboratory in the south of France funded by Minoru Toyoda, of the Toyota Corporation fame, was set up to continue research. The Institute of Minoru Research Advancement (IMRA) provided a peaceful, supportive setting for the embattled scientists to work.

Dr. Pons describes his early experience in France in the Preface to La Fusion dans Tous ses États: Fusion Froide, ITER, Alchimie, Transmutations Biologiques (Fusion in All Its Forms: Cold Fusion, ITER, Alchemy, Biological Transmutations) by Dr. Jean-Paul Biberian. Published last December 2012 in French, a new English version is expected later this year.

Dr. Biberian has worked on cold fusion cells for the past two-decades at the University of Marseille Luminy where he was a physics professor until retirement last summer. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science published by the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS).

From the French version, he wrote:
À l’annonce de la découverte de la fusion froide, en 1989, l’ensemble du monde scientifique entre en ébullition. Il serait donc possible de produire de l’énergie illimitée à moindres frais ? Dans de nombreux laboratoires, connus ou inconnus, réputés ou non, chacun tente de reproduire l’expérience dont tout le monde parle. J’ai fait partie de ces pionniers, de cette aventure prometteuse extraordinaire. Mais la fusion froide ne s’est pas faite en un jour.

Laissez-moi vous raconter la petite et la grande histoire, humaine et scientifique, alchimique et biologique, de la fusion froide. Une histoire qui me passionne et qui se poursuit aujourd’hui…

with a Google translation:
At the announcement of the discovery of cold fusion in 1989, the entire scientific world boils. Is it possible to produce unlimited energy at a lower cost? In many laboratories, known or unknown, ‘deemed’ or not, everyone tries to replicate the experience the world speaks of. I was one of the pioneers of this extraordinary, promising adventure. But cold fusion was not built in a day.

Let me tell you the small and the great history, human and scientific, biological and alchemical, of cold fusion. A story that fascinates me and that continues today …Jean-Paul Biberian La Fusion dans Tous ses États: Fusion Froide, ITER, Alchimie, Transmutations Biologiques (Fusion in All Its Forms: Cold Fusion, ITER, Alchemy, Biological Transmutations)

Dr. Biberian has been a colleague and friend to Stanley Pons since they first met in 1993 at the IMRA lab.

Infinity Energy Magazine has obtained special rights to publish the translation to English of Stanley Pons‘ Preface and has made it freely available to the public. [ download .pdf]

You can support Infinite Energy Magazine with your subscription.
Your subscription helps to continue the legacy of
Eugene Mallove and the New Energy Foundation.

Related

Edmund Storms at NPA-19: What is cold fusion and why should you care? video August 7, 2012

Too Close to the Sun: 1994 BBC documentary profiles early history of ‘cold fusion underground’ June 7, 2012

World Wide Lab September 18, 2011

Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In Japan by Andrew J. Pollack NYTimes November 17, 1992

Video: 1989 Steven E. Koonin “we are suffering the incompetence and perhaps delusion of …. New Energy Times

Asleep at the Foot of the Bristlecone Pine

Respectfully
Once in Awhile We Should Pause and Listen
Learn About LENR Energy – Popular Cold Fusion
Listen to the Bistlecone Pine

As the SAGA of Cold Fusion Energy Unfolds
The Bristlecone Pine Bears Witness
As Do We
At Cold Fusion Now
Forever and Eternally Grateful for the Works of Sergio Focordi – et. al.
A Tribute to Sergio Focardi from the Poets Corner
Cold Fusion Now
In Remembrance to All
Care – Listen – Learn – Teach
LENR ENERGY and TRANSMUTATION of RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS
Asleep at the Foot of the Bristlecone Pine

See Sergio Focardi in Remembrance