Cold fusion defended against ITER at Channeling Conference

Edward Tsyganov presented Cold Nuclear Fusion at the Channeling 2014 Conference held October 5-10, Capri, Italy.

During the Oct. 8 roundtable session, Dr. Tsyganov has reported that “some of the participants suggested that we avoid rushing to promote cold fusion and, therefore, prevent any interference with the implementations of international tokamak ITER.”

Tsyganov explained, “… it is difficult to ignore the cold fusion process because it is much less expensive and much more practical than traditional thermonuclear fusion.”

In a summary of the discussion in English, Tsyganov continued:

Fig. 8. The transparency of the Coulomb barrier for the reaction of DD in the crystal depending on the effective interaction energy Eeff.
Fig. 8. The transparency of the Coulomb barrier for the reaction of DD in the crystal depending on the effective interaction energy Eeff.
The scientific community has always had trouble adapting to truly new knowledge. The current paradigm of nuclear physics does not contain effects such as cold fusion, although this phenomenon does not contradict any of the fundamental laws of nature. Attempts to generate controlled nuclear fusion, which have been conducted for nearly half a century, have already come a long way. The most advanced attempt, ITER, a tokamak of cyclopean size and corresponding value is currently under construction. Realists assess that this facility will take 35-50 years to complete and commence operations. It is only considered as a research project and is expected, after its launch, to start even more gargantuan industrial tokamak. The prospect of huge financial and material spends for another half century looms.

Oil and gas can no longer serve as global fuel, due to its exhaustion, while the companies will try to fight back. This way also may well lead to climate change, a population reduction, and social upheavals.

Cold fusion is a real alternative to this tragic scenario. We believe that in the coming years, the scientific success of cold nuclear fusion will be realized and a radical change in the applied nuclear research will come.

Unfortunately, cold fusion still seems to be quite distant from wide recognition, even though the issue is now practically solved in experimental and theoretical terms. At the moment we are facing a problem that is not scientific but sociological. It is difficult to predict how fast events will develop in this direction. A paradigm shift in science has never been an easy task for society. We should propose the optimal behavior for scientists in these circumstances.

Find Powerpoint presentation slides and photos of the event here:

7 Replies to “Cold fusion defended against ITER at Channeling Conference”

  1. If you like to consider different methods of “cold fusion” experimentally have then a look at Belgian patents BE1002780 and BE1002781. These patents have been withdrawn from publication for 2 years by the Belgian Ministry of Defense (such on demand of Los Alamos?). Is it because of the terminology “Coulomb Explosion”? Why has the Univ of Hawaii with their electrolytic melt system containing hydrogen anions in the presence of lithium salt around a palladium anode not been blocked from publication of their WO patent application at 1992. Why is the fomer e-Cat Site been withdrawn from the web? In that site you find a translation into Enfglish of the above Belgian Patents (see the articles: Belgian LANR Patents and LANR by Coulomb Explosion). A theory based on orbital broadening and fusion alike “electrostatic wetting ” has been disclosed in BE1002780. That patent contains also the use of lithium in plasmaform together with deuterium for fusion at an electronrich cathode enabling the fusion of both anions resembling the fusion in the electron-well of the POLYWELL of Sir Bussard (US-invention). Comments are welcome.

  2. Practical? How can we know anything of practicality of something, that NOBODY has implemented in any useable form.

    1. Are you talking about hot fusion, or cold fusion?

      In either case, cold fusion is the better bet for a technology.

      And in either case, as with most radical technology, the science exists before a useable technology.

      1. He was thinking of LENR. He is a self-proclaimed “patho-skeptic.” Pathoskeptics are not skeptical of impractical boondogles supported by big government and big institutions. These are ok. They keep people employed in mostly harmless ways and do not require any rethinking of assumptions.

  3. We should avoid rushing to promote transistors to prevent any interference with the implementation of vacuum tubes.

  4. Who’s been interfering with whom for the past quarter of a century? Avoid rushing to promote ITER and, therefore, prevent any interference with the implementations of cold fusion.

  5. Excellent article! I wish we could hear a full-on, loud, angry, truth-telling debate about the clash between the hot and cold fusion people. Wouldn’t that be fascinating? Thank you so much for this article!

Comments are closed.