Cold Fusion Conference Counts Eleven Labs 38
James Salsman writes: "From an American Physical Society conference session held a week ago, there appear to be now eleven institutions actively publishing cold fusion results: Research Systems (Arlington, VA), SRI International, ENEA (Italy), JET Energy (Welleslley, MA), Middle Tennessee State Univ., Russian Academy of Sciences, U. of Il. at Urbana-Champaign, U.S. Navy's SPAWAR Systems Center in San Diego, First Gate Energy (Woodside, CA, and a few blocks from my house), New Energy Research Lab. (NH), and MIT. Credible or crackpot? You be the judge."
Mmm, I dunno... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Mmm, I dunno... (Score:2)
April 1st lasts 48 hours and the best jokes are never during my April 1st -- just other peoples.
NOT a joke -- this happens every year in March (Score:3, Informative)
The primary source is http://www.aps.org/meet/MAR02/baps/abs/S7810.html [aps.org].
As you can see from the text below, this is not a joke.
They had one more presentation than last year [aps.org] At least they're now allowed to call it "cold fusion" instead of "Palladium-Deuteron [aps.org]" and "Palladium Electrochemistry [aps.org]" as they had to before 2001.
Session W21 - Cold Fusion.
FOCUS session, Friday morning, March 22
139, Indiana Convention Center
[W21.001] Quantum Delocalized Interfacial Deuterium as Cold Fusion Heat Source, by Talbot Chubb (Research Systems, Inc., 5023 N. 38th St., Arlington, VA 22207)
Work is underway to test: 1) whether radiationless deuteron cold fusion occurs in quantum delocalized deuterium band-state matter on the interface between a metal surface and a polarizable electrolyte, and 2) whether quantum delocalized deuterium can be produced by overpotential electrolysis in a reactant-starved electrolytic cell. Puska and Nieminen (M. J. Puska and R. M. Nieminen, Surf. Sci. 157, 413 (1985).) showed that D on Ni(111) exists in Bloch function form when in an excited state. Modeling of exchange-symmetrized Bloch-function deuterium in D+ ion band states in a periodic lattice indicates(T. A. and S. R. Chubb,Fus.Tech.20, 93 (1991) and later papers.) that many-body effects can mitigate the normal Coulomb barrier. Liaw et al.(B. Y.Liaw et al, J. Electroanal. Chem. 318, 161, (1991).)showed that nuclear heat release occurred during D-starved electrolysis at a 1.7-Volt overpotential in the Al/KCl,LiCl,LiD/Pd system. Clarke et al. (W. B. Clarke et al, Fus.Sci. Tech. 40, 152 (2001).) showed nuclear reactions had occurred in an Arata-style cathode, containing wet Pd-black, which had been subject to Pt/D_2O,LiOD/Pd electrolysis. H_2O-starved behavior is shown in Pt/KOH,NaOH/Ag electrolysis.
[W21.002] Progress on the SRI/ENEA Collaboration to Investigate Gaseous D_2 / Pd Nuclear Effects, by Michael C.H. McKubre, Francis L. Tanzella (SRI International, Menlo Park, CA), Paolo Tripodi, Vittorio Violante (ENEA, 00044 Frascati, Rome, Italy)
A collaborative effort has been established formally between SRI and ENEA researchers to test and demonstrate the cross-laboratory replicability of gas phase Pd/D_2 excess heat, helium and tritium observations. Similar facilities are being established in both countries to allow on-line determination of heat effects correlated with helium-4, and ultimately helium-3 measurements from so called "Case" experiments involving the application of modest temperatures and D_2 gas pressures to a packed bed of palladium on carbon catalyst and other finely divided palladium materials. The results of experiments performed under similar protocols will be examined and compared. A second facet of this collaboration is the joint attempt to replicate the production of tritium in an "Arata-Zhang" hollow, double-structured cathode. Two massive hollow palladium electrodes were manufactured at ENEA and sealed to contain palladium black within the enclosed void. These electrodes presently are being operated at SRI as electrolytic cathodes in LiOD electrolyte. On experiment termination these will be sectioned and the contents examined for helium-4, helium-3 and evidence of tritium.
[W21.003] The Impact of Heavy Water (D_2O) Doping, by Mitchell Swartz (JET Energy Technology, Inc., Welleslley,MA)
Heavy water (D_2O) yields significant increases in the excess heat observed for nickel light water systems for all input electrical power levels examined (250 to 1500 mW). Gas-free spiral-wound, cold-worked nickel cathodes [volume 0.47 cm^3, area 6.39 cm^2] with an anodic platinum plate en face were examined near the peak of their optimal operating point (OOP) manifold. The peak power gain for light water [1.25^+/-.15] increased with the addition of 3.7% D_2O to 1.7 ^+/-0.2. The rate of peak excess energy generated by the nickel light water system increased from 0.25 ^+/-.05 Joules per second with H_2O, to 0.36 ^+/-0.1 with 3.7D_2O. The volume specific rate of excess energy accumulation as a function of the deuteron population is 6.0 [D/H] + 0.45 Joules/sec per cubic centimeters nickel. The surface specific rate of excess energy accumulation is 0.44 [D/H] + 0.03 Joules/sec per cubic centimeters nickel area. The form of the OOP-manifold remains similar to that for light water. We report that "overdrive" loading of deuterons into these materials, especially at > 4% D _2 O, and at >700 mW, produce irreversible changes in the nickel, characterized both by gross loss of performance and synchronous irreversible lowering of the nickel electrode's specific electrical resistivity when examined by the four-probe technique [ \approx 8-9.6% ].
[W21.004] The Elevation of Boiling Points in H_2O and D_2O Electrolytes, by M.H. Miles, H.D. Arman, J.D. Carrick, C.K. Gren, K.A. Haggerty, H.Y. Kim, A.G. Ky, J.E. Markham, C.F. Meeks, D.E. Noga (Middle Tennessee State University, Department of Chemistry, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA)
The excess enthalpy effect in cold fusion experiments for Pd/D_2O systems is subject to positive feedback, i.e., increasing the cell temperatureincreases the excess enthalpy . Therefore, the largest excess enthalpy effects are often observed near or at the boiling point corresponding to that of the electrolyte solution in the cell(M.H. Miles, M. Fleischmann and M.A. Imam, "Calorimetric Analysis of a Heavy Water Electrolysis Experiment Using a Pd-B Alloy Cathode", Naval Research Lab Mem. Rep.,#6320-01-8526, pp. 27-30 (2001).). However, the actual boiling point increases as the D_2O content of the cell decreases. The purpose of this project will be to compare experimental values of the change in temperature \DeltaT obtained using H_2O and D_2O solutions with theoretical values of \DeltaT calculated by assuming ideal solutions. The emphasis will be on higher concentrations as well as on saturated solutions where \DeltaT values may be quite large. Preliminary results for LiOH in H_2O show reasonable agreement with ideal solution \DeltaT values up to LiOH concentrations of 1.0 molal (m).
[W21.005] In-situ Long-range Alpha Particles and X-ray Detection for Thin-film Pd Cathodes During Electrolysis in Li_2SO_4/H_2O, by A.G. Lipson (Univ. of Illinois, Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering, Urbana, IL 61801, USA), A.S. Roussetski (P.N. Lebedev Physics Institute Russian Academy of Sciences, 51 Leninsky Prospect, Moscow 117924 Russia), C.H. Castano, Kim S-O., G.H. Miley (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering, Urbana, IL 61801, USA)
Measurements of long-range alpha and soft X-ray emissions have been performed using cyclotron calibrated CR-39 plastic track and LiF/Al_2O_3:C-Thermo-Luminescent (TLD) detectors. Application of CR-39 and TLD detectors to the surface of the thin Pd film-cathodes sputtered on the insulator substrate (glass, Al_2O_3, PMMA) allows detection of both alpha and soft X-ray emissions simultaneously with excess heat measurements during electrolysis using 1 Molar Li_2SO_4/H_20 electrolyte. The alpha particles in the range of 8.0 < E< 30.0 MeV (which produced alpha tracks with diameters d, in the range, 7.6> d> 6.0 \mum) were detected upon the electrolysis. Those alpha-tracks are quite unique, never having been observed during CR-39 exposure with trans-uranium alpha -sources (Am^241, Pu^239). The TLD measurement shows generation of the low intensity 5.0-10.0 keV X-ray quanta (\Phi_x < 5.0 s ^-1*cm^-2) accompanying the alpha emission.
[W21.006] Thermal Measurement during Electrolysis of Pd-Ni Thin-film -Cathodes in Li2SO4/H2O Solution, by C.H. Castano, A.G. Lipson, Kim S.-O., G.H. Miley (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering, Urbana, IL 61801, USA)
Using LENR - open type calorimeters, measurements of excess heat production were carried out during electrolysis in Li_2SO_4/H_2O solution with a Pt-anode and Pd-Ni thin film cathodes (2000-8000 thick) sputtered on the different dielectric substrates. In order to accurately evaluate actual performance during electrolysis runs in the open-type calorimeter used, considering effects of heat convection, bubbling and possible H_2+O_2 recombination, smooth Pt sheets were used as cathodes. Pt provides a reference since it does not produce excess heat in the light water electrolyte. To increase the accuracy of measurements the water dissociation potential was determined for each cathode taking into account its individual over-voltage value. It is found that this design for the Pd-Ni cathodes resulted in the excess heat production of \sim 20-25 % of input power, equivalent to \sim300 mW. In cases of the Pd/Ni- film fracture (or detachment from substrate) no excess heat was detected, providing an added reference point. These experiments plus use of optimized films will be presented.
[W21.007] Preparation of Pd-Ni Thin-film Electrodes using Magnetron Sputtering, by S.-O. Kim, C.H. Castano, A.G. Lipson, N. Luo, G.H. Miley (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering, Urbana, IL 61801, USA)
This study fabricated Pd-Ni thin film on Macor and Alumina substrate using magnetron sputtering in order to develop optimized cathodes for electrolysis experiments. The surface morphology of palladium-Nickel thin films on the different substrates showed completely distinct structures. Figures of merit for the cathodes include maximum excess heat production and lifetime. The quality of the film has been studied as a function of surface preparation, deposition rate, adhesion, hydrogen transport properties, and operational lifetime. This involves extensive analysis prior to and after annealing and after electrolytic runs.
[W21.008] Sub-surface Separation of Pd Isotopes in Cold-worked Palladium Foils as a Result of Deuterium Loading, by E.I. Saunin, A.G. Lipson (Institute of Physical Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, 31 Leninsky Prospect, Moscow 117915, Russia), G.H. Miley (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering, Urbana, IL 61801, USA), V.I. Savenko (Institute of Physical Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, 31 Leninsky Prospect, Moscow 117915, Russia)
Symmetric separation of Pd isotope pairs of Pd^108-Pd^105 and Pd^110-Pd^104 taking place in the sub-surface layer down to 500 depth in the cold worked Pd foil loaded with deuterium has observed by a high-resolution SIMS technique. It is established that the Pd isotope separation is solely defined by a strong plastic deformation (mechanical strain), induced by deuterium loading in Pd-matrix. Possible mechanisms for the sub-surface Pd isotope separation include (a) Pd atom self-diffusion through Pd-vacancy/Pd-lattice interfaces and (b) Pd atom "centrifugation" within the dislocation sources/loops.
[W21.009] Resistance Measurement of Sputtered Pd Thin-Films During Electrolysis N. Luo, C.H. Castano, Kim S-O., A.G. Lipson, T.H. Woo, G.H. Miley (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering, Urbana, IL 61801, USA)
We report the real-time resistance measurement of Pd thin films during electrolysis. The result confirms the typical resistance-loading curve obtained in the bulk Pd/H(D) system(M.C.H. McKubre et al., Proc. ICCF3, 5 (1993).)^,(G. Selvaggi, Master Degree Thesis, University of Illinois, (2001).). The time dependent resistance, however, indicates a much faster hydrogen diffusion rate along the film axis than that observed in bulk systems. One possible reason is likely the fast diffusion through grain boundaries that are abundant in sputtered thin metal films. This condition is considered favorable for the loading-flow rate desired to achieve proton reactions.
[W21.010] Thermal and Pressure Gradients in the Polarized Pd/D System, by J. Dea, P.A. Mosier-Boss, S. Szpak (SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, San Diego, CA 92152)
It is known that negatively polarized Pd/D electrodes, prepared by the co-deposition technique, and immersed in heavy water, generate excess enthalpy at well defined spots randomly distributed in time and space. A natural consequence of localized heat sources is the development of associated pressure gradients. T he easiest way to display such gradients is to co-deposit the Pd/D system onto a pressure sensitive substrate. Indeed, in the course of the co-deposition, we have observed pressure spikes shortly after initiation of current flow. Two points of interest are discussed: First, the frequency of these spikes increases with time and with cell current; and second, in a fully charged system, they persist for hours upon termination of the cell current. The presence of pressure spikes during Pd/D co-deposition is consistent with excess enthalpy generation, which has been reported by us earlier. Furthermore, the occurrence of pressure gradients upon termination of current flow is expected in view of the heat-after-death effect, discussed by Fleischmann. A connection between excess heat generation, the presence of pressure gradients and the initiation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is considered.
[W21.011] Finding the Missing \gamma in D+D\rightarrow ^4He Cold Fusion Excess Heat, by Scott Chubb (Research Systems, Inc., Burke, VA 22015)
The source of Cold Fusion (CF) Excess Heat is a novel form of D+D\rightarrow ^4He reaction in which no high energy \gamma rays are emitted (http://www.aps.org/meet/MAR01/baps/abs/S7640003.h tml)
. An important source of confusion concerning this point is the
apparent lack of consensus about known effects associated even with
the conventional D+D\rightarrow^4He+\gamma reaction. In fact,
although little information about D+D\rightarrow ^4He+\gamma appears
in the conventional fusion literature, the photo-dissociation
reaction ^4He+\gamma\rightarrowD+D not only has been widely studied
but is known to occur through a quadrupolar (E2) transition in
which the two particle wave function associated with the D-nuclei
is required to preserve Bose symmetry, in the far field regions,
where the Electromagnetic Interaction EMI is dominant. Also in this
reaction coupling occurs between strong and EMI's that invalidates
the separability requirements that are present in the remaining
D+D fusion reactions. These facts lend credibility to the notion
that coherent many-body effects, involving D-exchange can alter
the reaction in such a way that \gamma ray emission is not required.
[W21.012] Evidence for D+D \rightarrow ^4He Without High Energy Paricles, via Cavitation, by Roger Stringham (First Gate, 84 Big Tree Rd, Woodside, CA 94062)
The collapse of a transient cavitation bubble in deuterium oxide produces a high density plasma jet containing 1010 deuterons. The jet experiences an inertial compression via the pinch effect to reach high densities in the order of 1025 gm/cc before implanting into a foil target. During the initial period of implantation of a few picoseconds, the high density deuterons in the target lattice experience reduced coulomb repulsion due to the high density charge screening. In this environment it is possible some DD fusion events occur as evidenced by 75 to 1000 nanometer diameter vents in the target lattice. Photos of the metal target foils show a unique population distribution of vents and analysis of the reactor gases show evidence of helium four production. Making some basic assumptions the smallest diameter and highest population vents are produced by events in the order of 20 Mev. When monitored there was no long range radiation detected.
[W21.013] Progress Toward a Sono-Fusion Demonstration Device, by Kenneth Rauen, Eugene Mallove (New Energy Research laboratory, PO Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816)
New Energy Research Laboratory (NERL) has been developing a commercial demonstration device, based on the pioneering work of Roger Stringham (First Gate Energies). Stringham has shown how to produce excess heat from ultrasonic, cavitating bubbles, typically using D_2O, in contact with various metals. NERL has improved the power and heat measurements, by employing Seebeck envelope calorimetry. Nerl has also improved the design of these sono-cavitation reactors, and may make them available in 2002 to the public, in the form of research kits, which would be suitable for corporations and universities, as well as individual engineers and scientists who would like to obtain hands-on, concrete proof of phenomena connected with cold fusion particularly its primary signature: nuclear scale excess energy. Potentially, such kits may be useful for investigating anomalous by-products, such as helium-4. But the primary goal of the kit is to demonstrate significant excess energy beyond electro-acoustic input power. Prototype reactors here at NERL have already produced about 1.5 watts of continuous excess power for many hours.
[W21.014] Extracting Compact dd State Energies from the Kasagi Experiment, by Peter Hagelstein (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Cambridge, MA 02139)
Kasagi has reported on the observation of 17 MeV protons and 6 MeV alpha particles from 100 KeV deuterons incident on metal deuteride targets. As the fast proton and alpha signals have a large spread in energy, Kasagi has conjectured that these products may be due to a three-body ddd-fusion reaction process. We have previously described a model in which coupling between nuclei and the lattice leads to the development of compact dd-states as a consequence of site-other-site interactions. The model indicates that the compact dd-states can have a spread of energies as a consequence of the different nuclei/phonon coupling strength associated with different sites. The impact of a spread in dd-state energies on the proton and alpha energy distributions is discussed.
Re:Mmm, I dunno... (Score:1)
the American Physical Society, the Space and
Naval Warfare Systems Command, and UIUC are
going to participate in an April fool's joke
by publishing such an elaborately constructed
body of scientific literature and conference
proceedings in collusion, well... I guess
it was a pretty effective joke, because it sure
made you look foolish.
Re:Mmm, I dunno... (Score:2)
What were you saying about fools?
Dupe/paraphrase of #1243204 (Score:1)
Re:Dupe/paraphrase of #1243204 (Score:1)
A fine balance to be kept.... (Score:2, Informative)
If cold fusion is discovered and turned into a viable alternative energy, then good on them and I wish them well. But if it turns out to be experimental error or more conventional phenomenon, well.....it could easily leave them out in the cold when looking for a new job - I hope that they all have more mainstream research that can provide bread and butter on their table.
Dr Fish
Re:A fine balance to be kept.... (Score:1)
Long live Cold Fusion!
Re:A fine balance to be kept.... (Score:1)
Negative results are always important results in Science, as opposed to snake oil sales. Researchers owe their institution and those who support that institution (like taxpayers) their best effort -- they do not owe them positive results. Any institution who would take punative measures against a researcher for honest negative results is a poor place to research in the first place.
The existance of a crowd of sycophants to "cold fusion" is a reflection on those people personally, not on their field of inquiry. If anything seriously bad came of the Pons/Fleishman fiasco, it was that certain avenues of investigation were made into cognito non grata and researchers who wanted to investigate these claims into pariahs in the "scientific establishment."
I wish them luck, but more importantly, I wish them to be as careful as possible, and to accurately report their results, irrespective of what results they achieve.
Am I crazy? (Score:1)
People have laughed at revolutionary ideas before (Score:2, Funny)
"They also laughed at Bozo the Clown." (Score:2)
BlackGriffen
Basics (Score:3, Funny)
Cold fusion has been around for a while. (Score:2, Informative)
So remember kiddies, when they say "we can do fusion", or "we have cold fusion", they're usually right, but it might just not be a viable power source in the way that they do it.
Blind fundamentalists (Score:5, Interesting)
has blinded the physics community to the
accumulation of evidence in favor of some sort
of CF process, from excess neutrons, to impeccable
calorimetry. The bottom line is that the hot
fusion industry is big money for big science, and
CF is percieved as a threat to a lot of grants.
Really, the only respectable excuse for this
blindness is the subtlety of the materials aspect:
The reproducibility of CF experiments is amazingly
sensitive to the origin and process application of
the Pd electrodes. This makes it genuinely
difficult to generate consistent results, in the
absence of consistent experimental apparatus.
Those who discount CF on this basis have retained
some credibility.
The greatest lesson of the CF saga is simply
that press releases are a double-edged sword,
because popular press sensationalism created an
enormous antipathetic backlash against CF.
It seems most likely at this point that classical
CF is some sort of lattice-distributed analog of
sonoluminescent fusion, which also has been
demonstrated to produce excess neutrons.
I think that if Pons and Fleischman had chosen
not to release their results publically, progress
in this area would have been much more rapid.
I don't blame them for feeling obligated to make
such a fundamental breakthrough public knowledge,
but in retrospect, it was an enormous tactical
mistake. Even if (and it is by no means a given
that this will ever happen) one day a practically
useful powersource can be developed from CF or
sonoluminescent fusion, it will be a huge uphill
struggle to reverse the entrenched biases of
even the public, let alone the well-heeled hot
fusion lobby.
Re:Blind fundamentalists (Score:1, Troll)
If you could stop your ranting for long enough to provide a good proof of the science, all the ranting would be unnecessary.
The history of science is filled with extroadinary claims which were mistakes. Prove you aren't one of those, and you're golden. Whine, and you won't get anywhere.
Re:Blind fundamentalists (Score:2)
and go read the papers, man! The evidence is
there. I'm just providing analysis and
explanataion of the social problems that CF
research faces, on the basis of my own reading
and experience as a cog in the machine of academic
science.
The evidence is there, but until it is pushed
under the noses of the public and the policy
makers, a few temperate rants are de rigeur.
Without adequate advocacy, even the best of
invention can languish, just as a poor business
plan can doom a really good technology.
So you see, I don't mind one bit that you
characterize my comment as a rant. As long as
I don't err in the sense of making claims which
are beyond the set of reasonable interpretations
of the physical evidence, I feel it is worthwhile.
Re:Blind fundamentalists (Score:1, Troll)
I am not on the couch. The evidence is not there. If you have nothing to contribute but ranting, then please let those who have something useful to say speak before you do.
evidence IS there, just look! (Score:2, Informative)
Looks like someone didn't read the article's abstracts, nor their peer-reviewed citations, nor the multi-megabyte U.S. Navy SPAWAR/San Diego technical report.
Unsurprising.
If you want to count, instead of making unsubstantiated claims, look for the strings "res+" and "res-" in Dieter Britz's Cold Fusion Bibliography [chem.au.dk] which contains nearly every peer-reviewed cold fusion article ever published in the scientific literature. The negative results got off to a strong early lead (hence the controversy and ridicule) but the positive results now lead the negative results about 450 to 250. The most important thing to note is that there have been NO negative results published since 1995. I guess people figured it out after five years. Too bad the public's mass consciousness is seemingly indelibly etched.
The evidence IS there. Take a look!
Re:evidence IS there, just look! (Score:1, Troll)
It is common to claim that people who disagree with you have not read enough. Please stop being such a child. Arguing on Slashdot is no replacement for peer reviewed scientific publications, and no, the scientific community doesn't agree with you that the evidence is clear.
Re:evidence IS there, just look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm. It is common to provide a non-sequitor and resort to name-calling when one is obviously losing an argument. Mr. Lindahl, your arguments are trite and consist of complete non-sequitors. Stop the name-calling (i.e. "child"). It doesn't add much to the discussion (nor does my reply, but I felt your comments warranted more than a simple moderation).
For the record, aminorex never stated that "the evidence is clear". Instead, he stated, "The evidence is there" and to "Get off the couch and go read the papers". He is not stating that the evidence is incontrovertable. He is merely stating there is a wide body of evidence that supports the claims of cold fusion.
Greg, your debating skills are weak and you retreat to simple name calling and the use of non-sequitors when you are losing. It is not aminorex that is dilluting this discussion; instead, it is you.
Re:evidence IS there, just look! (Score:1, Flamebait)
Why, thank you for your constructive comments. You're 100% right: I'm actually an agent of the International Conspiracy to Suppress Cold Fusion Experiments, and now I've been unmasked. All those conspiracy theories about why the overall science community rejects cold fusion as unproven are true; we're all just trying to protect our grant money, and we know that we are so powerful that we can suppress the truth by simply arguing against it. Oh damn, now the cat is out of the bag, and tomorrow Cold Fusion Generators will go on sale at Wal-Mart.
Re:Blind fundamentalists (Score:2)
But given that comparatively little money is left for other science, when even many well-founded projects can't be funded, there just is no money left for odd-ball things.
As for cold fusion, that would be commercially such an attractive proposition that I'm sure that the investment community has given it all the funding it deserves.
no neutrons -- read the abstracts! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blind fundamentalists (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is, due to their release of bad data through public media, all of this research is tainted, inside and outside the scientific community. This has hurt the funding of all types of fusion research.
It might turn out that cold fusion is profitable sooner than any other type. The paper on sono-fusion certainly suggests that. But until those research kits are delivered, the effects you mentioned will remain laboratory anomalies, unable to disproove the statistical calculations showing the improbability of a positive energy gain (which is highly improbable!).
On the other hand, the mechanics of these collisions are not well understood. It's possible, as the first paper suggests, that other processes are at work here which allow a positive energy gain. These are similar effects to what is already accepted for certain types of fusion in stars.
In either case, it's important for the scientific community to support at least the understanding of these anomalous processes... it might not lead to fusion, but it could lead to something else.
Ugh... Enough with shouting 'conspiracy'! (Score:4, Informative)
First: there is no grand conspiracy in science. Fox and Mulder are as nonexistant as Santa Claus. Likewise for cold fusion's early claims. How do I know this? Because I was in a tiny little physics department 150 miles due north of Pons & Fleischman (sp?) when they released their results. No big science. No big budgets. No reason to fudge results wrong and lots of reasons to verify a nearby peer's claim. Just a dozen PhD's, a very minimalist beam lab, some grad students pursuing Master's Degrees, and a whole boatload of freshman Astronomy courses.
Our department faculty jumped on it, because it was nearby, it was novel, and the experiment was easily reproduced. The math even somewhat works. Papers written all over the world came to the same conclusion ours did: close... but no cigar.
So... ditch the conspiracy theories. Rather than ask a physicist about cold fusion (a wild-card answer is all you'll get, 'cuz they're all tired of the subject like I'm tired of Roswell and any other tabloid topic), ask any physicist more carefully phrased questions:
1 - was the cold fusion experiment mentioned above a bust: yep.
2 - is there a conspiracy to bury cold fusion: nope.
3 - would it surprise you if cold fusion became a reality (in *any* form) someday: nope.
4 - what do you watch for as you snore your way through new papers or claims: breakthroughs, significant exothermy, or mention of something useful and unexpected, together something different about aparatus or method that explains the cause.
As for conspiracies, the closest to truth there is that top scientists do have monumental ego's. Perhaps even too big, if you ask me. Does it impede (as in SLOW DOWN) progress? At times. Does it ever prevent the truth getting out? Hell, no. It can slow release of information down, but nothing stops curiosity. More importantly, nothing ever stops all the rest of us from wanting to help discovery along, get famous (perhaps) or even for a brief time be 'Smarter than a Nobel Laureate'. And regardless of how shouted-down someone might be for an iconoclastic view *this year*, the truth gets out. Even a bad idea gets attention (I was once asked to build a prototype to help a professor convince a politician that some rube-goldberg gravity-defying device wasn't a perpetual-motion device capable of launching anything into space).
So, stop with crying 'conspiracy'. Yes, there might be papers being written. Are they making advances? Probably. But enough reputable papers have been written and enough effort has been put into this that it isn't conspiracy that makes physicists all shrug when people talk small, incremental cold fusion advances. The problem's just unsolved and we're all busy elsewhere on our own unsolved problems. The collective non-shrug will come when a respected peer calls one of us up and say "Hey, this one's *INTERESTING*".
-- The most powerful declaration in the scientific method isn't "Eureka!", but "That's funny..."
Re:Ugh... Enough with shouting 'conspiracy'! (Score:1)
To add to your comment, here are some useful "filters" to use when looking at scientific stories. Caveat: they are not perfect, they are not 100% complete, and they should NEVER be used as a final assessment of the work in question. Just a useful way of considering science news.
1 - was the work in question released via accredited, peer-reviewed publications or through a big media splash?
2 - is the work in question based on previous studies in some way, or a completely new approach?
3 - did the author(s) claim sole responsibility for the breakthrough or acknowledge the work of others?
4 - did the author(s) make personal attacks on those who disagreed with them?
5 - did the author(s) provide sufficient information for the experiment(s) to be duplicated by another party?
Science needs a balanced approach; splashy media releases of work heralded as "totally new", in which the authors claim sole responsibility for major advances while disparaging the work of their peers and not providing their methods to others for confirmation is not balanced, and can be should be considered carefully before you throw that big party to celebrate.
APS meetings are open to all (Score:2, Informative)
Worth noting is that the American Physical Society allows any member or any person sponsored by a member to present a paper at an APS March or April meeting. Furthermore, any person can become an APS member.
The point of those APS meetings is open discussion of all topics in physics without the society making a judgement on the validity of the work.
So James' question is a good - you, as an individual, be the judge because the APS is making no statement whatsoever about the validity of the work.