Cold Fusion: Progress Report

Your humble writer has been watching for the news out of the International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Symposium, ILENRS-12 held at The College of William and Mary Sadler Center early last week. At long last, after years of little available event news we’re getting some interesting bits out.

The process of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) or Cold Fusion or your choice on an array of ideas on what to call it, have required the element palladium as a catalyst, that isn’t consumed, but represents an expensive initial outlay. Current commercial efforts use nickel instead, because it is plentiful and cheap and works almost as well.

The fuel of choice has been “heavy water”, which is non-radioactive and can be recovered from ocean saltwater. Four ounces of heavy water today costs about $50 and contains enough energy when converted to electricity to supply the average American with electricity for a lifetime. The commercial efforts are focused on plain fresh water, some with a hydrogen gas flow, now.

A LENR start is dramatic and unmistakable when it occurs – much more heat is released than any conceivable chemical process could generate. Such heat can be used for industrial processes, space heating or hot water, or it can be converted to electricity.

Whatever it is that makes LENR work, the phenomenon seems to have a mind of its own, and decides when to turn itself on and off. The commercial work that seems closest to a resolution of these problems are holding their cards close to their chests, hoping to be first to enter a huge and lucrative market.

A bit of background is in order because for LENR or cold fusion news isn’t appearing in papers published in major scholarly journals – a point we need to keep in mind. The story – very briefly:

Along with government censorship, which we can expect in proper circumstances, political censorship in an effort to not unduly alarm the public in the mainstream media there’s a wall still up of scientific censorship for LENR. The Internet is putting a foundation out for specialty and niche news, blogs and social networks that are exposing more information.

LENR has occupied a scientific backwater now for 23 years. Demonstrations have been repeated again and again, a great deal of know-how has been acquired and shared over the Internet. Scientists who stuck with it have been vindicated to those who are in the interested in the field.

In 1989, Martin Fleischmann, a scientist at the top of his field, with Stanley Pons told the world they had ran a LENR in a test tube. Within a year scientists from prestigious labs around the world spilled announcements they had tried to duplicate what Fleischmann had reported with no success. The results were un-reproducible. Cold Fusion was to become a joke about junk science.

About a year and a half back an Italian entrepreneur named Andrea Rossi demonstrated a cold fusion boiler, and announced the taking orders for 2012 delivery. The following months have brought a lot of others from the personal labs and quiet private researchers out into view.

Mr. Rossi has made a lot of web traffic and the first thing we see from the Symposium is the estimable Jed Rothwell who operates the prime scientific source for the field, LENR-CANR.ORG, starting a forum thread that became a worthy look at Mr. Rossi from those who know him. With subjective understanding a better objective view of Mr. Rossi and what he has going on is covered in the forum thread.

Before one begins a click through to the thoughts on Mr. Rossi his technology and business acumen lets note a fundamental problem – that government censorship.

So far the patent ability for LENR isn’t coming. The US Patent Office has a backlog of dozens of applications on which it is not acting, demanding cumbersome and expensive on-site demonstrations in addition to the usual paper filings. It’s not much better overseas. This puts the inventors in a very unusual spot. With no intellectual property rights, whatever is offered can simply be taken with poor grounds for compensation.

That plus the prospect that whatever works and is verified will become the top media circus in all of mankind’s history. Whatever we have, as reasoned and responsible as we try to be, what we’re getting from the commercial effort is so clouded, confused and in organizational disarray as to be without credibility.

Still, out in the real world, LENR science is in better shape. Italy, Japan, Israel and Greece are the current world leaders. China is suspected to have a major LENR program. Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are quietly pursuing the pot of gold, isolated and in secret, avoiding the heavy hand of the US government, which might be a very good thing when commercial prospects get to market.

But the “news” is in a whole new arena. We won’t be getting papers and studies that can connect to existing technology for a long while. The commercial folks are working in a world more primitive than a “Wild West” situation and every bit as likely to go into a cold war framework or legal battles just as soon as someone seems to be making money.

The stakes are huge. Something dramatic is bound to happen, and a lot of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists and academic administrators will be gravely embarrassed – its essentially too late for them already. Yet, they will claim that they were simply surprised, that they could not have seen this coming.

"Science is repeatable. Cold fusion is not, peer review be damned."

"Peer review be damned"....an interesting comment from someone who supposedly manages research. And who also refuses to examine the science that shows the cold fusion "is" repeatable, at least according the the level of "science repeatability".

Like many others you seem to be conflating "scientific repeatability" with "engineering repeatibility". They are two vastly different things.

"Science does not happen but once. — Newton."

Absolutely true. But science also does not happen every time....even with well understood technology.

Peer review is only as good as the reviewer. I was at NSF not long ago reviewing proposals, as I have a number of times. It always amazes me how some names carry the day, regardless of the science behind it. I have seen the same thing a number of times with journal peer review as well. I have also been the receiving end of those who do not understand what they are reviewing. I have looked over a number of your references and talked with a number of experts within the Navy's community, including those at NRL. There is a good reason that this work is essentially banned or frowned on in the electrochemistry and physics groups I work with, and that includes more than a dozen universities and five US government research labs within DOD, NIST and DOE clients. But you go ahead and cheer-lead to your heart's content. Rossi was a scammer. A number of us told you so. You acted like an ass to those who disagree with you. Now you are harping about another and making claims and organizational connections in an effort to show gravitas, that I personally know to be specious at best and damning of your claims at worst. But what do I know, I only have 4 different labs that are involved in energy research. Extraordinary claims MUST be backed by even more extraordinary evidence that stand against extreme scrutiny.

"Peer review is only as good as the reviewer.

Yup. Which is why I don't put much faith in it. I depend more on what is actually contained in the paper.

"I was at NSF not long ago reviewing proposals, as I have a number of times. It always amazes me how some names carry the day, regardless of the science behind it. I have seen the same thing a number of times with journal peer review as well. I have also been the receiving end of those who do not understand what they are reviewing.

Same here.

"I have looked over a number of your references and talked with a number of experts within the Navy's community, including those at NRL. There is a good reason that this work is essentially banned or frowned on in the electrochemistry and physics groups I work with, and that includes more than a dozen universities and five US government research labs within DOD, NIST and DOE clients.

Blah, blah, blah. You just got through telling me that you didn't review "voodoo science", and now you're trying the old "argument from authority". Critique the data, not the politics.

"But you go ahead and cheer-lead to your heart's content.

LOL. I have NEVER "cheer-led" on ANY of these threads.

"Rossi was a scammer.

STILL not proven. This is simply speculation. Of course the reverse is also true.

"A number of us told you so. You acted like an ass to those who disagree with you."

LOL. When the first response on every thread is "Rossi is a crook" or some equally fatuous comment, how to you expect me to react. I respond to people exactly as they start the comversation.

"Now you are harping about another and making claims and organizational connections in an effort to show gravitas, that I personally know to be specious at best and damning of your claims at worst.

WTF are you talking about?? "I" have claimed precisely nothing. I have presented references to scientific works which contain data. NOBODY (including you) is willing to actually critique the DATA.

"But what do I know, I only have 4 different labs that are involved in energy research."

SURRRRE you have.

"Extraordinary claims MUST be backed by even more extraordinary evidence that stand against extreme scrutiny."

Sorry.....not true! This comment is constantly made and it is NOT part of any real science. This is an umbrella comment for people who are actually saying "no amount of data will ever change my mind".

So let me just give you an example of the silliness in this article, Mr. Cheerleader....

Really? So the average household spends about $3,000 annually on energy (car and home/condo). We have what, 100,000,000 to 125,000,000 households? Let's just talk about one so as not to be completely ridiculous. So a household “lifetime” is around for 50 years. That means $150,000 can be generated from $50 worth of material (today's dollars) ROI of 3000:1. Of course this is the “preferred” fuel, instead we use fresh water and H2? WHY??? NOTHING HAS A 3000:1 ROI!!!!! I am in the energy game and if we get 50:1 we are RICH RICH RICH!!!! But instead of using the very best components to prove the greatest discovery since electricity, they are using something else and the preferred stock is $50 a pop with a 3000:1 ROI? BEEEEEEE EEEEEESSSSSS!

"It is obvious that we didn't go to the same schools of science. Rossi is a FRAUD, so are most of those in this field. There is a REASON it is not considered science by APS or any other noteworthy electrochemistry, physics or other scientific community. Again, really. Believe what you want. I'm hiring 5 folks to work in the electrochemistry world for energy research this week. Well, technically, I made an offer to a PhD today and we are interviewing over the next week or so for another, a MS level and two technicians, but go ahead and say what ever make you feel good.

Standard skeptopath cant. EVERY cold fusion critic I've encountered on these threads absolutely refuses to make an argument based on the published data.

And THANK GOD we didn't go to "the same schools of science". Here's a clue. The "argument from data" trumps both the "argument from authority" and the "argument from theory". ALL the science requires is replicated data. No more, no less.

"The fuel of choice has been “heavy water”, which is non-radioactive and can be recovered from ocean saltwater. Four ounces of heavy water today costs about $50 and contains enough energy when converted to electricity to supply the average American with electricity for a lifetime. The commercial efforts are focused on plain fresh water, some with a hydrogen gas flow, now.

"Really? So the average household spends about $3,000 annually on energy (car and home/condo). We have what, 100,000,000 to 125,000,000 households? Let's just talk about one so as not to be completely ridiculous. So a household “lifetime” is around for 50 years. That means $150,000 can be generated from $50 worth of material (today's dollars) ROI of 3000:1. Of course this is the “preferred” fuel, instead we use fresh water and H2? WHY???

Again....WTF are you going on about. There are certainly still LENR researchers who are pursuing deuterium-based systems. A tiny minority is focusing on Ni-H. If it works, who cares WHAT they use.

"NOTHING HAS A 3000:1 ROI!!!!! I am in the energy game and if we get 50:1 we are RICH RICH RICH!!!! But instead of using the very best components to prove the greatest discovery since electricity, they are using something else and the preferred stock is $50 a pop with a 3000:1 ROI? BEEEEEEE EEEEEESSSSSS!

More manager-think BS. LOOK AT THE DATA. Even if LENR is a long shot, don't you think investing even 1% of what has been spent on "hot fusion" to actually check it out would be worth it.

The CURRENT success rate in LENR experiments is 75% (it started out around 15%). And the most recent information shows even higher replication successes.

Your information (and that of your consultants) is simply out of date. Hell, even Robert Park and Richard Garwin have modified their positions on LENR, at least somewhat.

Drag your "scientist hat" out from under the rest of the debris in your junk closet, put it on, and LOOK AT THE DATA.

Maybe we think your data is junk as is your continuous whining. If the data is so solid, the world (and scientific community) would be doing back flips, but it is not. You posted Rossi’s data over and over, but it wasn't real data or useful data. It was absolute junk. He was a fraud and the defense of him is plain silliness that completely undermines your credibility. The very way this silly article is written smacks of junk science,
“Your humble correspondent.” My global warming believer colleagues always said the same thing, “the data this..., the data that..., the data says.... Yet they were completely unwilling to look at all of the data. The data seems interesting in this case, but I'm not sure that I buy it. The fact that others cannot reproduce it causes me great pause. If others cannot reproduce it, it ain't science! I definitely don't believe the hype and junk science approach to this potential technology. It is not a scientific or political conspiracy against this technology. It is science that is against this technology. Want to impress me? Can the hype and build a usable prototype that can light up a neighborhood and do so in an open and scientific way that can actually be verified by independent observers. Again, extraordinary claims MUST be backed by extraordinary evidence if you want it to be considered science, it needs to be repeatable.

"Maybe we think your data is junk as is your continuous whining. If the data is so solid, the world (and scientific community) would be doing back flips, but it is not. You posted Rossi’s data over and over, but it wasn't real data or useful data. It was absolute junk. He was a fraud and the defense of him is plain silliness that completely undermines your credibility. The very way this silly article is written smacks of junk science,

I'm not talking about Rossi's data, nor the specific article heading this thread. I'm talking about the two scientific publications I posted to you which show the experimental evidence for cold fusion. Replication of both heat excess and helium production. Pure scientific evidenmce. But like all the other skeptopaths, you wiggle and weasel and ignore the science.

"The data seems interesting in this case, but I'm not sure that I buy it. The fact that others cannot reproduce it causes me great pause. If others cannot reproduce it, it ain't science!

Others HAVE reproduced it. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge or even READ the evidence doesn't gainsay the science.

"Again, extraordinary claims MUST be backed by extraordinary evidence if you want it to be considered science, it needs to be repeatable.

You can repeat this BS all you like. That dpesn't make it part of the practice of science. Science knows nothing about "extraordinary claims"....just reproducible evidence. I suggest you actually look up the history of that phrase. It does NOT originate in science. And the experimental evidence for LENR "has" been repeated. Multiple times.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.