The Cold Fusion Mystery Continues

ONE YEAR LATER

The Cold Fusion Mystery Continues

By Eugene F. Mallove

News Office

Cold fusion, whatever it is or isn't, refuses to fade away a year after 
chemists Martin Fleischmann and B. Stanley Pons made their dramatic and 
controversial announcement at the University of Utah. Attention recently 
focused on the First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion held in Salt Lake 
City (March 28-31), which was sponsored by the National Cold Fusion 
Institute, an organization funded by the State of Utah Among the 
provocative findings discussed at the conference were results from a 
heat measuring device of improved design. Stanford University 
researchers led by Professor Robert Huggins said that the device proved 
that significant excess energy generation was occurring that could not 
be explained by any chemical process within the cell.

Claiming a measurement error of less than one percent, they said that 
the total electric energy that was monitored going into the device over 
a few hundred hours was exceeded by the heat measured flowing out in 
that period in an amount that to them  implied a nuclear process going 
on inside. 

About 230 scientists, engineers, basement experimenters, entrepreneurs, 
and interested citizens gathered to hear  more than 40 presentations and 
panel discussions on cold fusion experiments and theory. Drs. 
Fleischmann and Pons were present as speakers and participants, and 
handed out a paper on measurement of excess heat in electrochemical 
cells. 

Severe critics and skeptics were there too, but including Professor of 
Chemistry John R. Huizenga of the University of Rochester, who cochaired 
the DOE review panel that reported negatively on cold fusion last 
November, Dr. Douglas Morrison of CERN, Dr. Richard Petrasso of the MIT 
Plasma Fusion Center, and MIT Professor Ronald Ballinger of the 
Departments of Nuclear Engineering and Materials Science and 
Engineering. 

Though most papers dealt with experimental results, a handful of 
theorists including Associate Professor Peter L. Hagelstein of the MIT 
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, presented 
ideas to explain the physical mechanism of cold fusion (They assumed for 
the sake of argument that it really has occurred in experiments.): By 
and large, the theorists have concluded that if heat-producing cold 
fusion is real, some hitherto unknown collective or cooperative 
phenomenon among atoms and nuclear particles must be at work to 
distribute energy throughout bulk matter. Either this occurs deep within 
the deuterium-infused palladium atomic lattice or in or near the surface 
of the electrode.

Ordinarily, energetic particles emerge in conventional fusion reactions, 
but such particlesÑmany now seem to agreeÑdo not account for the heat in 
cold fusion. Professor Julian Schwinger of UCLA said, "It is clear that 
cold fusion and hot fusion are qualitatively different phenomena."  Then 
he went out on a limb saying, "It is no longer possible to lightly 
dismiss the reality of cold fusion." 



Evidence: Pro and Con

Keeping cold fusion alive is a puzzling array of experiments intriguing 
to those who consider this compelling evidence for a new kind of nuclear 
process. The same data infuriate those who consider all reports of 
anomalous "cold fusion" phenomena to be flimsy or at best resting on 
shaky ground.

There continue to be reports of excess power being generated by 
electrochemical cells with heavy water, palladium rod cathodes, and the 
electrolyte lithium deuteroxide (LiOD). A number of researchers claim 
that this net power is dozens or even hundreds of times greater than 
what  any conceivable chemical process could explain. 

Continued reports of such excess heat come not only from the National 
Cold Fusion Institute, but from Case Western Reserve University, Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford Research 
Institute, and Texas A&M University, among others. The excess power 
measurements are being made with a variety of techniques now in both 
open cells and closed cells, in which no matter is allowed to flow in or 
out. Experimenters have made strenuous efforts to address some of the 
concerns about possible sources of error that have been voiced in the 
past year. Skeptics continue to believe that errors are being made in 
this work.

Some observers of excess power made very strong claims. Professor Ernest 
B. Yeager of Case Western University said that these results, ". . . 
will be noted as a decisive turning point in the history of the affair. 
These results cannot be explained by trivial mathematical errors."  

But skeptics and believers alike have been troubled by the lack of a 
direct connection between the possible excess energy and quantitatively 
related nuclear reaction products. Reports of radioactive tritium 
generation continue to come from many laboratories and some groups claim 
to see bursts of neutrons in these and similar experiments.

The strongest seeming such claims come from Los Alamos National 
Laboratory. Drs. Edmund K. Storms and Carol L. Talcott say of their 
tritium results, "We can put aside the question as to whether the 
tritium is real." Skeptics continue to say that experimental 
contamination is involved, a charge strongly at odds with what the 
tritium-finders believe.

Most agree, however, that the tritium and neutronsÑeven if they are 
being producedÑcan explain only a tiny fraction of the excess energy. 
Those who think that a new kind of nuclear reaction is going on believe 
that the end-products may be helium-4 (still unsatisfactorily measured 
in gas streams from the palladium rods), perhaps deuterium itself masked 
by the bulk of chemically liberated deuterium gas, or something else. So 
though they may have ideas, no one claims to have ascertained even what 
"fuel" is involved.

In response to persistent questioning by Dr. Petrasso  about the need to 
identify reaction products, Dr. Fleischmann agreed and said, "Absolutely 
so! In order to do this, you must devise a very clean experiment. It is 
very expensive to do this and is not consistent with our general 
direction." He said, "You must have an unbiased view as to what might be 
there. It is a Catch-22. If there is no belief that the effect is there, 
then there will not be the money to do the experiment."

Dr. Petrasso said to Tech Talk after the conference: "I believe the 
claims of excess heat as directly attributable to nuclear fusion 
processes are still without substance. 

One of the most annoying factors in the experimental work, many would 
agree, is the lack of reproducibility at will of many of the results. 
They can be duplicated, but still not in every case. Some researchers 
require runs with many cells before getting an observed effect in some 
cells, others see effects more consistently.

An indication of why this may be happening was provided in numerous 
electron microscope views of palladium electrodes taken before and after 
operation. Researchers provided ample evidence that the surfaces of the 
rods are of great physical and chemical complexity. There are thoughts 
that the effects, if any, may occur in peculiar localized regions. 



The Nature Controversy

The conference was held amidst a furor surrounding several editorials 
that appeared in the issue of Nature dated March 29. One,  titled 
"Farewell (not fond) to cold fusion," attacked the "cold fusion fuss," 
saying, ". . . it has licensed magic in the particular sense that 
reports of remarkable phenomenaÑit could next be unicorns againÑclaim 
equal credence even when they fly in the face of expectation." 

The editorial chided cold fusion theorists, saying that the cold fusion 
episode ". . . has shown up the frailty of the collective confidence in 
theoretical science; why else should so many serious people have been 
bamboozled for so long."  The editorial provoked outrage on the part of 
many at the conference.

In a parallel commentary in the same issue titled, "The Embarrassment of 
Cold Fusion," Nature associate editor Dr. David Lindley said of 
Fleischmann and Pons's work, "What was reprehensible a year ago has 
become absurd."  Dr. Lindley ended his remarks with words not often seen 
in a science magazine: "Would a measure of unrestrained mockery, even a 
little unqualified vituperation have speeded cold fusion's demise?"

Drs. Fleischmann and Pons shot back with printed comments of their own 
at the conference. They said, "If Lindley doesn't have the time to come 
now to Utah to gather information first hand, then why doesn't he at 
least have the sense to use that well-known shortcut of establishing the 
scientific credentials of the believers and non-believers, namely the 
Citation Index?"