Home > Uncategorized > Cold fusion: this has nothing to do with Humboldt

Cold fusion: this has nothing to do with Humboldt

Why would they have lied?

[UPDATE 12/8/12:  suggestions are circulating that Celani’s observations have now been independently replicated.  The rumor mill is suggesting an announcement on or before December 15th. –Mitch]

(Truth in advertising — don’t say I didn’t warn you.)

Those of us who were following science or current events 23 years ago can probably recall the staggering news that a new form of nuclear fusion had been discovered.  Two well-respected but astonishingly unlucky electrochemists had gone public with a discovery that became named “cold fusion.”

Someday, someone will write a fascinating history of the quarter-century of work in the field since.  But you probably “know” that the discovery, by Fleischmann and Pons, was a “fraud.”   The physics community tried to replicate their results, and could not.  The electrochemist community tried, and couldn’t.   Replicability is what science is all about — if you can do it but no one else can, it’s not science, it’s magic.

Well, more and more, it’s looking like it’s not magic, it’s science.  The problems in reproducibility seem to have revolved around the microstructure of the materials that were used, and the name “cold fusion” has given way to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, or LENR.  Most people in physics will still tell you it’s unlikely, but there’s more and more smoke turning up from reputable places.  Places like SRI, an extremely respected research organization, NASA, the University of Missouri, etc…  Mark Gibbs of Forbes Magazine has an interesting column, because people who like to make money like to follow a wide variety of things, “just in case.”

The gubmint and the physics establishment has spent huge sums on hot fusion, and essentially all the “big names” have committed to cold fusion being a fraud.  That’s why this will make such interesting history — it will show what happens when an initially discredited report by highly reputable scientists turns out to be real, and just how big a hole you have to climb out of once you’ve pissed off or otherwise embarrassed yourself in front of the “experts.”  I don’t think it’s conspiracy — as with so many things, I think it’s human nature playing out in all its natural complexity.  Science likes to pretend personalities don’t matter, just facts.  The history will demonstrate otherwise.

If it turns out that “cold fusion,” um, excuse me,  LENR, is real, humanity will have been given a break on the global warming front that it probably doesn’t deserve.  It’s a break that could have been taken advantage of a quarter century earlier, if it weren’t for the savants at MIT and CERN and NSF and…

Interesting stuff, but nothing to do with Humboldt.  Well, I suppose you could power your grow without diesel.  That would be great for the environment.

  1. November 11, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    Mitch says: “as with so many things, I think it’s human nature playing out in all its natural complexity”

    I say: “Live and learn what it means to be naive.” Assumptions and underestimating people will get you in trouble every time – make you look the fool, if nothing else.

  2. November 11, 2012 at 12:16 pm


    I feel absolute confidence that no human being would have kept this a secret if they had been able to replicate the results. Even mere replication would have put you in line for a Nobel Prize, and teams of people from around the world, ranging from undergrads to professors gave it their best shot for quite a while.

    People genuinely tried to replicate this — their mistake was thinking that because they couldn’t replicate the results, the original report was a fraud. That’s arrogance, not conspiracy.

    I probably have more confidence in humanity’s incompetence than you.

  3. November 11, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    Joe, I don’t think Mitch is any kind of fool about this.

    The jury is out as to whether what happens is ‘fusion’ as it was initially understood. What labs are finding is that there is often enough a great deal of energy generated. That’s why you increasingly see name institutions trying to find our what.

    There are a lot of things that establishment science has killed. Some of Einstein’s ideas, for example, which now are bearing fruit — after some rather unsocialized young scientists who had nothing to lose went after this.

    You could also remember the famous Lord Kelvin, British (commonwealth, actually) leader at Cambridge who announced that there was ‘nothing new under the sun’, that physics had discovered it all. This was only a few years before relativity and quantum mechanics showed up.

  4. November 11, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    So what does this have to do with, Humboldt County ? At least you could of presented a good ” POT ” story .

  5. November 11, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Read the headline. Dick.

  6. Oh well
    November 11, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Having read one of the articles, the news seems to be: wait and see. Maybe something, maybe nothing.

  7. John
    November 11, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Most scientists didn’t think cold fusion was fraud; they thought (and think) it was self-deception.

  8. November 11, 2012 at 5:45 pm


    The guy I find most interesting is McKubre. He’s an SRI scientist who gave an informal talk on the situation a year or so ago — the talk is available on youtube.

    It seems clear that either something curious is going on or a lot of people are lying about results. I think something curious is going on. That is an entirely separate issue from whether there is fraud involved in companies trying to commercialize the discoveries.

    The self-deception may well be among the nuclear physicists, who have been the poster boys for “big science” for decades now, and who may not be ready to accept that their work will be made moot by a pair of chemists with a flask and a calorimeter. One thing that seems clear is that they’ve bullied reputable chemists, made unsupportable allegations about the chemists’ work, and disrupted their access to grants.

  9. GreenWin
    November 11, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Mitch, thanks for this. Always thought Humboldt to be a haven of some enlightenment and your comments tend to confirm this. A couple thoughts: humanity has caught a break that has been sitting in front of them for a long time. The reactions we see in LENR appear in tectonic activity, in piezo-nuclear effects, even odd stuff like sono-luminescence. Indeed human incompetence manifests in jealously guarded fiefdoms, ivory towers, cliques and cabals. All have negatively influenced the development of cold fusion. As Woodward and Bernstein confirmed, one need only follow the money to see whose jealously was most virulent. For more background on how LENR will not only change the energy paradigm on Earth – but also expose a severely broken scientific establishment:

    “[The] whole picture is one of a power struggle where the odds against innovation are great but the addiction of the innovator to truth is supreme (deGrazia, 1978, p.200). The major forces or factors against innovation would include paradigm protection and so-called turf protection. Along this line, in an article in Science about controversies in astronomy, Burbidge was quoted as saying, ‘When we come across things we don’t like we cut them off, we referee them to death.’” Silencing Scientists and Scholars in Other Fields: Power, Paradigm Controls, Peer Review, and Scholarly Communication, by Gordon Moran, 1998 Greenwood Publishing Group


  10. November 11, 2012 at 11:03 pm

    Good on you, GreenWin.

    Let’s hope some better truths arise. There are some fresh opportunities for it, seems.

  11. Gil Yule
    November 12, 2012 at 6:47 am

    “Reality”…such a slippery commodity. The longer I live the less likely it seems.

  12. November 12, 2012 at 8:09 am

    This kind of thing reminds me of the “Bigfoot” legend. If cold-fusion was working in any applicable way, then it could be replicated in a high school science class. I realize the theory is the thing that’s important at this stage. Early radio and electrical experiments probably had a “Bigfoot” element to them. But the question should be: “Does it prove the principle?” That’s what’s unclear.
    As for “Bigfoot” I have a love-hate relationship with him. As an artist I’ve done so many t-shirts, signs, I even did a “Witness-Sketching” at a meeting of people who’ve “seen” him, but c’mon. It’s the legend that’s real. And it’s the legend that has worth. People will believe what they want to believe. I’ve heard a Bigfoot testimony, and I know the person wasn’t lying; so what do you do with that? I try not to judge, I believe the universe is intelligent. So who’s the real weirdo?
    If cold-fusion can sustain an output of any amount of energy that is more than the amount needed to keep it going, then it works, right? As you can tell, I’m not much of a scientist.

  13. November 12, 2012 at 8:28 am


    You’ve done a great job of presenting why many scientists believe cold fusion is a fraud — they tried to replicate the results and failed. So, for that matter, did Fleischmann and Pons.

    What’s been discovered in the 23 years since is that there were many ducks that needed to be lined up in a row to make things repeatable, many ducks that people didn’t even realize might be involved. I’m anything but an expert in this, but I’ll describe my understanding of what’s been discovered.

    First, it takes a long period for hydrogen to migrate into the surface structure of a metal lattice, and until that time has elapsed, there will be no observable effect when you do your testing. By “a long time,” I mean weeks or months. Most of the initial attempts at confirmation did not allow for sufficiently long periods of pretreatment.

    Second, according to some of the evolving theories, the reaction will occur only in lattices that conform to certain rules — it may be that imperfections are required, or perhaps they need to be perfect, I haven’t paid enough attention to recall which it is. So you can take two filaments that would have been outwardly identical 23 years ago, from the same supplier, one filament will work and one will not. With the advances in nanotechnology, researchers have teased out the formerly invisible differences.

    So what you have now, assuming researchers in the field are not just making things up despite the knowledge that they will be exposed as frauds and disgraced, are increasingly repeatable situations where more heat gets generated in a situation than any known chemical reaction could generate. The heat is associated with the generation of byproducts of nuclear reactions. People have begun to generate theories that can be tested, and the tests are being performed.

    The situation is further confounded by the presence of a fair number of entrepreneurs of varying degrees of shadiness, all selling stuff that they keep behind needless curtains.

    Honestly, I’m a skeptic of almost everything. If you watch the youtube videos of Michael McKubre at SRI, though, you’ve got to agree that it’s one of two things: a lot of respected researchers around the world are throwing their careers down the toilet for no reason, or something formerly unknown has been discovered, and people are having a hell of a time figuring out what it is exactly. It’s not every day we get to see science encountering a Kuhnian paradigm shift, and the lay sociologist in me finds that almost the most fascinating part.

  14. Feynman
    November 12, 2012 at 8:49 am

    Faith? Lay sociology? Intelligent universes? Sounds like fodder for the “Journal of Irreproducible Results”. Would Kuhn consider scientific revolutionaries terrorists?

  15. November 12, 2012 at 8:52 am

    Intelligent universes? I’m not sure there’s even intelligent life in this universe.

  16. GreenWin
    November 12, 2012 at 10:38 am

    Mitch, you and your readers (even… “Feynman”) might find the “real time science” happening at the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project interesting. If only the social science component – reproducing the anomalous heat in Francesco Celani’s cold fusion cell (National Instruments Week & ICCF17.) Loading of H2 in these experiments is significantly shorter than weeks.


  17. Mitch
    November 12, 2012 at 11:11 am

    Thanks, GreenWin. I’ve checked out your site and agree that what you are doing is truly exciting. It’s fantastic that you are doing this with Celani’s cooperation; to a cynic, it’s been really depressing that so many of the claims have been shrouded in commercial secrecy and fairly opaque versions of “transparency.”

    Good luck. Maybe the American on the team can translate this idiomatic expression for you: “never let the turkeys get you down.”

  18. November 12, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Hey Mitch, what happens when you can replicate the “results” of some teaching, philosophy or teaching and they work perfectly? What would you call such a person?

  19. labteh
    November 15, 2012 at 9:24 am

    Here we have a spirited discussion of science by a collection of scientific illiterates. I seriously doubt that any of you have the science, much less the math, background to understand even the basics.

  20. Woo Club
    November 20, 2012 at 7:45 am

    Mitch, are you a fan of pathological science?

  21. Mitch
    November 20, 2012 at 10:56 am

    No, I’m a fan of replicability who recognizes that before something has a good underpinning in theory, replication is not necessarily easy. Fleischmann and Pons were humiliated when “the top labs” couldn’t replicate their work, but I think that, compared with their prior reputation, says little about whether they saw something happening.

    Too many reputable people say they have seen something for me to dismiss it as easily as many here can. Just watch the youtube of Michael McKubre’s talk at SRI, for starters. Then recognize that Toyota, I think, has been putting a fair amount of money behind some of this research.

    Just because a field draws fraudsters does NOT mean that all involved are fakers.

  22. Woo Club
    November 20, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Mitch, Toyota’s involvement is not very compelling. Consider that Yale offers coursework in homeopathy and reiki.

    Contrast to what you stated:
    Just because influential people and organizations financially support bullshit does NOT make it credible.

  23. November 20, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Woo Club, it isn’t credible yet. What have you got against research — actually looking where theory doesn’t have a planned idea yet? History says this hasn’t been a bad idea — for theory as well.

    For me, the interest lies in that considerable energy seems to have been developed, more than once. Digging into this may turn up a mechanism of experimental mistakenness, or it may give another kind of insight into the quantum world.

    I would compliment Toyota on their contribution, and SRI, both working at an entirely reasonable scale. Odds may be low, but the return could be remarkable.

  24. November 20, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Woo Club,

    No, Toyota’s involvement may not be enormously compelling. Have you looked at the SRI talk?

    The conventional wisdom is always considered right until it’s proven wrong, and that is a fascinating process to watch. Is the conventional wisdom always wrong? No, it’s mostly right. Is the conventional wisdom always right? No, if that were the case, nothing new and startling would ever emerge from science.

    The point is, people now have reasonable guesses about why replication of Fleischmann and Pons didn’t work, they’ve been designing experiments that take that new knowledge into account, and they’ve been reporting positive results. Many people, independently. People with reputations that they presumably want to protect as much as you or I are going on the record saying they are observing excess energy in these experiments, over periods of weeks, at quantities that current chemical theory cannot explain. They could all be deluding themselves or making experimental mistakes, but I’m convinced that at least some of these people are both proficient and sincere.

    What’s kind of fun to watch is how many shallow “wise” people, without even investigating for themselves, are happy to listen to and repeat the expert consensus that the phenomenon is not real, and then feel extra “wise” for supposedly knowing something about which they haven’t a clue.

  25. Woo Club
    November 21, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    Mitch, you are in good company. Mitt Romney said that he also supports basic science research including cold fusion.

    The question about pathological science is because articles you post about science here have been mostly about pseudoscience. While you say replication is important, it doesn’t appear that replicates suggesting something you are interested in to be false are as important as fringe research supporting your interests.

  26. November 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    Woo Club,

    First, you cannot disprove something by failing to replicate it. That’s basic freshman logic.

    I can think, offhand, of three things I’ve posted here that might be considered in some way to be related to science.

    Two were announcements about reports in peer-reviewed journals that I thought might be of interest to local readers. (One was about a potential hazard of cannabis use to developing brains; I don’t recall the details of the other.)

    The third is about a field of research that has been shot down by “the scientific mainstream.”

    The reasons I find this third one so fascinating are, first, that it crashed into the world news with a major bang about a generation ago; second, that it resulted in the humiliation of a very highly respected electrochemist; third, that the payoff from it could be as large as the payoff of the discovery of electromagnetism; fourth, that a small group of reputable people have continued investigations into the field; despite, fifth, the tendency of most people to think it has been “disproven.”

    I’m going to take a moment now to talk about replication, science, and theory — not just for your benefit, WC, but for the benefit of any readers with an open mind.

    Many people completely misunderstand what scientific research is about. They think it involves white smocks and either bubbling beakers or expensive equipment. Those are not attributes of scientific research at all, though sometimes beakers are needed for research and sometimes expensive equipment is needed.

    Usually, though, beakers are used by lab technicians who want to follow a recipe that has resulted from prior scientific research in order to conduct a procedure to determine something of practical interest: whether (say) a patient has cancer or a bay has pollution. People see the beakers, or the expensive equipment, and think scientific research is involved. It’s not: the scientific research is long past, and what you have are technicians following recipes.

    Scientific research usually means someone has a question that has not yet been answered but has entered the realm where observations may potentially contribute to an answer. Many questions aren’t well-formed enough to be answerable by scientific techniques. “Why does the sky look blue” is a question that science can answer; “what is the experience of ‘blue’, beyond eyes being exposed to a frequency of electromagnetic radiation” is not.

    Sometimes, the researcher doesn’t care about theory at all, and observation is all that is needed. The best example of that was when the renowned Richard Feynman, stuck with some gaggle-of-Congressional-mediocrities, dipped an O-Ring of the same material as used in the space shuttle’s O-Ring’s into a glass of cold water and demonstrated that it became brittle. That’s cut-to-the-core science that required no theory — just observation.

    Sometimes, there’s a good theory of what’s happening at a deep level (a well-supported and sensible guess), and that can lead to very productive experiments which produce relevant observations with high efficiency. But, and this is where the surprises come out of left-field, sometimes there is an observation that precedes the good theory. That’s probably where the most creativity is required of scientists, because without bringing good hunches to the table, you can easily spend a great deal of time on experiments that have very little chance of answering questions about the observation.

    The observation is a gift, but the scientist has to be prepared not to dismiss the observation because it does not come gift-wrapped.

    When you have a good theory, it’s possible to create experiments to support or contradict your theory. When you just have an observation, you are kind of wandering around in the dark, and need to make more observations to try to lead yourself to a starting theory. The reason scientific revolutions are more often caused by young scientists than old may be that young scientists are still more willing to wander around in the dark, because they know so much less than older scientists about the well-lit areas.

    When people have been in a field for a long time, they are so confident of their theories that they are capable of pooh-poohing observations — literally ignoring them. See, for example, the discovery that many ulcers are a result of bacterial infection, which went against the existing theories of ulcers: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1993/09/20/1993_09_20_064_TNY_CARDS_000364807

    It is really easy to imagine situations where replication fails. If you don’t have a good theory to start with, you simply don’t know what ingredients and procedures must be included for a correct replication recipe. You do your best to create one, but it is leaving out the most important part. Maybe replication depends on everything being a particular color, but you haven’t yet discovered the existence of color (your species is color-blind). Maybe it depends on a circuit being insulated, but you haven’t yet discovered electricity. Maybe it depends on the martini being “shaken, not stirred.” Or maybe it depends on the nanostructure of your materials, but you don’t yet know that material nanostructures vary from sample to sample.

    When Fleischmann and Pons were forced by University of Utah patent attorneys into going public with their experimental results, 23 years ago, there was no good theory of what was happening. Everyone “knew” that high temperatures and pressures were vital in nuclear fusion, so it was bizarre that two electrochemists were claiming to observe a fusion process. Really, all they were observing was apparent excess energy from a monitored calorimetry experiment, but it was at levels that no existing chemical theory could explain.

    They were not able to get a “recipe” for making the effect happen, but they’d seen the effect many times. They went public before they had tacked down a recipe. The result was personal disaster. Without a proper recipe, they could not replicate the results on command, nor could they communicate to other researchers what was required to replicate the results. The problem was they didn’t have a useful theory of what was happening, and as a result they were still in the “wandering around in the dark” stage.

    This is where real research happens, and I find it fascinating.

    The observations, by reputable people, have continued. Theories are developing. It’s certainly possible that the observations are resulting from experimental error, but that becomes less and less likely as an explanation as more and more reports come in.

    At some point, the observations may be explained by non-nuclear interactions. But that would be even more revolutionary than if it turns out that, at a level of microstructures, electric fields are able to produce pressures that we hadn’t realized they could create.

    I don’t pretend to understand this field — all I assert is my recognition and acknowledgement of my ignorance. That, in my opinion, puts me miles ahead of people like Woo Club, who seem to think that polling the “experts” provides a sufficient answer. The experts are only right until they’re wrong.

  27. Not A Native
    November 21, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    People of scientific accomplishment(experts) are always interested in efforts to disprove theories when an alternative theory or observation with potential passes peer review. For example, experimental treatments in the medical field and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence in the cosmological field. And multiple experiments to detect proton decay, gravity waves and measure effects of gravitation on light in the physics field. Not to mention the high energy accelerator observations searching for unanticipated particles and forces.

    Its only the rejected, disgruntled, and low performing back of the classroom nonachievers who feel a need abase experts as a way to improve their personal self esteem. The rest of us realize that as a group experts are likely smarter, more magnanimous, sincere, and intelligent than others. And their superior ability isn’t a rebuke to anyone else, its the opposite. Its a tribute to the capabilities of humankind, of which we are all a part.

  28. November 21, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

    I’ll leave it to NaN to locate the author of the quote. And here’s wishing everyone a very happy “Let’s Not Show Our Gratitude By Killing Our Helpful Neighbors Any More” Day.

  29. Walt
    November 22, 2012 at 6:37 am

    Hear, hear, Mitch: let’s be grateful (to whatever Powers That Be) we aren’t all spending the day in Gitmo, Gaza, New Jersey, Pelican Bay, Afghanistan, WalMart or Syria, and that we have a choice to eat turkey, ham, or tofu (non GMO). Treasure what you ARE doing and, if you can, with whom you’re doing it.

  30. Just Watchin
    November 22, 2012 at 8:17 am

    And from the resident troll……a Happy Thanksgiving to all.

  31. November 22, 2012 at 8:35 am

    And to you as well, JW.

  32. November 22, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    Cheers also, Just Watching.

    Trying to imagine a turkey flying around Florida, just now, and well…maybe it’s a place where turkeys too enjoy the day ;)

  33. November 22, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    Just Watching, also moderated wishing you cheers — and when you see it, something about turkeys enjoying the day…!

  34. November 22, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    jw, third try, to see if mentioning your full name is what is getting me moderated. A happy turkey day your way, for sure.

  35. December 8, 2012 at 9:07 am

    An update: suggestions are circulating that Celani’s observations have now been independently replicated. The rumor mill is suggesting an announcement on or before December 15th.

  36. Plain Jane
    December 8, 2012 at 9:14 am

    That would certainly be good fortune, Mitch.

  37. December 8, 2012 at 9:39 am

    If there’s fire behind any of this smoke, it’s somewhere equal in importance to the harnessing of nuclear power in power plants and bombs, or to the discovery that moving a conductor through a magnetic field generates electricity. And, again, there are many reputable names mixed in amongst the likely fraudsters.

    If it’s just smoke, oh well. I’ve wasted a few hours of my life looking into it, when I could have been watching America’s Most Wanted.

  38. December 8, 2012 at 9:48 am

    The replication, if it’s occurred, would probably be to work described here:


    and here’s Celani’s bio:

    CV Francesco CELANI (CERN 22 March 2012)

    *Francesco Celani, born in Rome-Italy (8 February 1951). Italian citizen.
    * Married (Misa Nakamura, chemistry co-worker in LENR since 1994), 2 daugthers.
    * Degree in Experimental Physics from Physics department of University “La Sapienza”-Roma, on December 15, 1975 with marks 110/110. * Thesis (just after degree, published on NIM) at Frascati National Laboratories (LNF) of National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN) with argument applied cybernetics: electronic nuclear detectors used on nuclear accelerator (e+e- 3.1GeV Collider, ADONE).
    * Staff member of INFN-LNF since July 1, 1976 (Researcher, experimental, in Physics).

    * (1976-1983) Joined the NA1 experiment at CERN-SPS. I was involved, mainly, on the design of the first (in the world, at that time) ultra-compact, remotely controlled, High Voltage generators for both Multi Wires Proportional Chambers (MWPC) and Photo Multipliers (PM). The instruments was named FRAMM 77 System and largely used also in USA (FERMILAB) and France (Saclay). Developed an ultra-fast, variable repetition rate and power, pulser to calibrated, by short duration (few ns) light pulses the PM: discovered the so-called “rate effect” on PM. Because discovering of such unexpected effects that could produces fake signals in specific operating points of PM, the industries developed (since 1982) a new family of PM called “rate effect free”. Developed also some, fast, low-noise charge pre-amplifiers for silicon detectors used in the front-end of the SPS beam (350GeV).

    * (1983-1987). After the experience with silicon detectors (sensitivity of about 1e-/3.6eV energy released), I decided to study innovative detectors having an equivalent sensitivity thousand times larger. So I started to study Superconducting Tunnel Junctions (Ni-Pb; T=4.2K), in collaboration with Salerno University, having an intrinsic energy gap of only few meV. Found some quite intriguing results using thick junctions on 1985. One of these were contaminated (by chance) from several other elements and showed behaviour similar to superconductivity even at temperature as large as 77K (LN2). It was stated a multi-disciplinary Commission in order to clarify the origin of such signals. Unfortunately the results were rejected, a-priori, because in disagreement with the BCS model/theory (i.e. max temperature of superconductivity stated at 32K). One year later Bednorz and Muller (from IBM, Zurich), independently (and starting from different points of view), found similar results in Cuprate Oxides mixed with rare-hearts and got Nobel Prize.

    * (1985-1986). In parallel with superconducting studies, I joined a small group aimed to measure the neutron flux (expected very low) inside the Underground Gran Sasso Laboratory, at that time under construction. The experiment, although very adverse environments, was really successful and the final documents about the “nuclear qualification” of such Laboratory come also from our measurements of neutron flux (about 1000 times lower than sea level).

    * (1987-1992). After the results of Muller, and just later of Chu (in USA), I started the developing of new procedures to improve the quality of High Temperature Superconductors, specially type YBCO.

    I get success and patented (January 1988) a new procedure based on Ozone annealing (instead of usual Oxygen) and synthesis by pyrolysis of citrates (instead of usual dry mixing of powders). Specifically, such last procedure produces materials at sub-micron dimensions that seems to be a key factor of their (excellent) performances. Later, because so called Cold Fusion studies, some of such materials were forced to absorb some amounts of both Hydrogen or Deuterium. Some of such sample showed a superconducting transition temperature as high as 101K, i.e. 10K larger than the 91 K of usual YBCO. The value of 101K is, still now, the largest reported for such materials.

    *(1989-2012). Involved in the Cold Fusion studies, now re-named LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). I was involved, at the beginning, in the search of neutrons. We found some, at low intensity, inside the Gran Sasso Underground Laboratory, mainly during strong non-equilibrium transitions. The discovery of non-equilibrium was the key aspect of almost all my research in LENR.

    We studied both usual Pd-D2O electrolytic systems and (from 2003) gaseous environments. The last were based both on Pd-D2 gas system with thin and long wires (up to temperatures of 550°C) and Ni-H2 (up to temperatures of 900°C).

    Studying electrolytic system I found even a new species of bacteria living in the heavy water. It was named Ralstonia detusculanense and his used even to recover/concentrate radioactive Co and Cs from spent nuclear fuel.

    In some of previous experiments I found enough scientific evidences to convince me to work in such (controversial) field of research up to now.

  39. December 9, 2012 at 10:46 am

    Yasuhiro Iwamura of Mitsubishi R&D, Yokahama, December 2012 presentation at the American Nuclear Society. Check the slide at 5:15 or so if you don’t want to listen to anything else. Iwamura was able to include portable nuclear powered electrical generation as a potential application of what he’s observed. He’s got a patent application dating from 2003/2004; I don’t think the patent office approves cold fusion applications, but his is an application for handling nuclear waste (using the same transmutation phenomena that the cold fusion people talk about).

  40. December 9, 2012 at 10:51 am

    Paging Not a Native. Paging Dr. Not a Native.

    Paging Woo Club. Paging Dr. Woo Club.

    Paging Lab Tech. Paging Dr. Lab Tech.

    Code Blue. Code Blue.

  41. December 9, 2012 at 11:33 am

    The question and answer near the end of the video at #39, at 39:30 to 40:30, is also rather amazing.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s