Hideo Kozima – COLD FUSION NOW!

March 18, 2019March 20, 2019

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.”

Appendices

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].

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)]

References

[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.”
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf. This report is posted at the New Energy Times website:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/DOE2004/7Papers.shtm

[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:
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf

[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. http://jcfrs.org/proc_jcf.html

[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. http://jcfrs.org/proc_jcf.htm

[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; http://www.jcfrs.org/proc_jcf. 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: http://jcfrs.org/file/jcf16-proceedings.pdf

[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: http://www.jcfrs.org/proc_jcf. 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:
http://www.kozima-cfrl.com/Papers/paperf/paperf.html

[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:
http://www.kozima-cfrl.com/Papers/paperf/paperf.html

[Kozima 2019c] H. Kozima, “Development of the Solid State-Nuclear Physics,” Proc. JCF19, 19-3 , pp. 1 – 36 (2019) posted at CFRL website:
http://www.kozima-cfrl.com/Papers/paperf/paperf.html

[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)

February 8, 2015

Cold Fusion Research Laboratory Newsletter #90

The Cold Fusion Research Laboratory, Japan has published Newsletter #90.

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

Find all issues of the Cold Fusion Research Laboratory Newsletter Archive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also Reports of CFRL 15-2, 1 – 7 (2015) posted at the CFRL Website:
http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Paperss/paperr.html
[Kozima 1998a] H. Kozima, Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon (Ohtake Shuppan Inc., 1998). ISBN 4-87186-044-2. The “References” in this book is posted at the Cold Fusion Research Laboratory (CFRL) Website;
http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Books/bookse/bookse.html
[Kozima 1998b] H. Kozima, M. Fujii, K. Kaki and M. Ohta, “Precise Neutron Measurements Revealed Nuclear Reactions in Solids,” Elemental Energy (Cold Fusion) 28, 4 – 15 (1998) , ISSN 1074-5610.
[Kozima 1999] H. Kozima, M. Ohta, M. Fujii, K. Arai, H. Kudoh and K. Kaki, “Analysis of Energy Spectrum of Neutrons in Cold-fusion Experiments by the TNCF Model,” Il Nuovo Cimento 112A, 1431 – 1438 (1999)
[Kozima 2006] H. Kozima, The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon, Elsevier Science, 2006. ISBN-10: 0-08-045110-1.
[Kozima 2010] H. Kozima, “Neutron Emission in the Cold Fusion Phenomenon,” Proc. JCF11, pp. 76 – 82 (2010) ISSN 2187-2260. And also Reports of CFRL (Cold Fusion Research Laboratory) 11-3, 1 – 12 (January, 2011):
http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Papers/paperr.htm
[Lipson 1996] A.G. Lipson, D.M. Sakov and E.I. Saunin, “Change in the Intensity of a Neutron Flux as It Interaction with a K(SxD1-x)2PO4 Crystal in the Vicinity of Tc,” J. Tech. Phys. Lett. (in Russian), 22, 8 ((1996). And also V.A. Filimonov, “A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon?” Cold fusion 7, 24 (1995).
[Takahashi 1990] A. Takahashi, T. Takeuchi and T. Iida, “Emission of 2.45 MeV and Higher Energy Neutrons from D2O-Pd Cell under Biased-Pulse Electrolysis,” J. Nuclear Science and Technology, 27, pp. 663 – 666 (1990).
[Shani 1989] G. Shani, G., C. Cohen, A. Grayevsky and S. Brokman, “Evidence for a Background Neutron Enhanced Fusion in Deuterium Absorbed Palladium,” Solid State Comm. 72, 53 (1989).
[Celani 1992] Celani et al., “Search for Enhancement of Neutron Emission from Neutron-Irradiated, Deuterated High-Temperature Superconductors in a Very Low Background Environment,” Fusion Technol. 22, 181 (1992).
[Stella 1993] Stella et al. “Evidence for Stimulated Emission of Neutrons in Deuterated Palladium, “Frontiers of Cold Fusion (Proc. ICCF3) (1992, Nagoya, Japan), p. 437 (1993).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Riken OB charged Miss. Obokata by suspect of ES cell theft
2015/1/26 22:52
The former Senior Researcher Dr. Tomihisa Ishikawa, now the Director of a NPO organization, laid an information of the theft of the BS cell from Prof. Teruhiko Wakayama’s Laboratory against Ms. Haruko Obokata to the Kobe police station. By the bill of indictment, Miss. Obokata had stolen ES cell from Wakayama Laboratory at around years of 2011 ～2013. She used the ES cell to the stem cell experiment with Prof. T. Wakayama and wrote papers on the STAP cell which were published in the Nature. Around the STAP cell, the Investigation Committee of Riken published a Final Report in which they concluded that the so-called STAP cell discovered by Obokata et al. is probably a ES cell with certainty.” (Nikkei, 2015. 1．16, Translated into English by H.K. Original article (in Japanese) is cited in the Japanese version of this News )

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

June 29, 2014

Japanese Cold Fusion Research Society meeting papers released

The Japanese Cold Fusion Research Society (JCF) held its 14th meeting last December at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, where Dr. X.F. Wang of Arata R&D Center and Hydrogen Eng. A&D Co. and Hideki Yoshino of Clean Planet, Inc. both reported on academic and industry researchers presenting their most recent results.

The JCF-14 Proceedings edited by Akira Kitamura of Technova, Inc. and Kobe University consists of papers of presenters at the event.

“… cold fusion has a potential ability to establish a small-scale, radiationless nuclear reactor, and hopefully to shorten half-lives of radioactive wastes by nuclear transmutation,” writes Kitamura in the Preface.

He believes that this approach has the potential …

“not only to realize an environmentally-sound nuclear power system with zero emission of the greenhouse gases and other harmful oxides, but also to develop a novel technique for disposal of the nuclear wastes produced by fission reactors.”

Transmutation data was presented by several speakers including Yasuhiro Iwamura and S. Tsuruga of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Hideo Kozima of Cold Fusion Research Lab. Several theoretical papers are published as well.

Of particular interest to general readers is Hideo Kozima‘s paper What is cold fusion?

In the essay, he defines: The CFP (Cold Fusion Phenomenon) stands for “nuclear reactions and accompanying events occurring in open (with external particle and energy supplies), non-equilibrium system composed of solids with high densities of hydrogen isotopes (H and/or D) in ambient radiation” belonging to Solid-State Nuclear Physics (SSNP) or Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS). (CFRL News No.81, http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/).

Kozima goes on to say, “The most important fields of the CFP developed after the initial discovery in 1989 are various kinds of events in protium systems and the nuclear transmutations both in deuterium and protium systems which have not been in their targets of the evaluation of the two DOE Reports [DOE Reports 1989, 2004].”

His survey of CF data has caused him to write the “irreproducibility of events in the CFP [cold fusion phenomenon] discussed in Sec. 3 is closely related to the complexity in this phenomenon.” Solutions to data sets are “using the Feigenbaum’s theorem describing a nature of an equation of nonlinear dynamics [Kozima 2012, 2013]”. In response, Kozima presents a “TNCF model [Kozima 1998, 2006] with a single adjustable parameter n_n is based on the whole experimental facts obtained in materials composed of various host solids and hydrogen isotopes not only deuterium but also protium.”

Find the essay What is Cold Fusion? by Hideo Kozima in the JCF-14 Proceedings. [.pdf]