Review of the Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF10)
Eugene F. Mallove
Here We Go Again. . .
It has become a familiar pattern for those of us in the beleaguered
"cold fusion" field, which should be termed by now, much
more appropriately, the Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) field.
(But the cold fusion nomenclature, with which the field began, is
probably unavoidable and will be used interchangeably with LENR.)
The time of the new conference approaches. We anticipate another
International Conference on Cold Fusion (an "ICCF"), which
have come at intervals as short as about a year, and as long as
two years since the heyday of cold fusion, when the first one was
held about a year after the Fleischmann-Pons announcement of March
23, 1989. It was in Salt Lake City under the auspices of the now
defunct National Cold Fusion Institute gone, but most surely
not because of faulty science.
The months shrink, papers are written, experiments
completed, travel plans made, and conference registration applications
filed. We are ready for a new adventure; we look forward to meeting
old friends on the frontiers of science, at a nexus where fundamental
errors of physics and chemistry and, many believe, even within
biology have now become glaringly apparent.
We know what is about to happen: Astonishing results
in excess heat will be revealed by scientific teams from around
the world. The better papers that will be presented at the ICCF,
which are the vast majority of them now, find irrefutable evidence
of excess heat that cannot be explained by ordinary chemical reactions
its magnitude is far beyond explanation by ordinary chemistry. Other
papers equally good, if not generally better find overwhelming
evidence for nuclear emanations and transmuted heavy elements. These
findings come from the same or similar presumptively chemical systems;
they were obtained using standard laboratory nuclear radiation detectors,
as well as element and isotope detection devices. We have entered
the age of modern alchemy and we know it. But for the most part,
the world will not be listening. Important as these results are
to the future of science and technology, we who will be attending
the new ICCF, and who will be attempting to transmit this precious
knowledge to the world, will be ignored and/or attacked and mocked,
as though we had some kind of embarrassing disease.
In fact, the enemies of this startling new scientific
knowledge have a name for the alleged sickness: "pathological
science." It transpires that these name-calling Scientific
Establishment bigots (there is no better term for them) are the
ones who have the real malady pathological skepticism.
This is proper scientific skepticism that has run amok; it is an
uniformed skepticism that refuses to be moved by any and all evidence
from its initial and proper doubt concerning a novel phenomenon.
The pathology is so deep that no new evidence is even glanced at
by these pathological critics (Martin Fleischmann's term).
The evidence is just ignored. And the heavens cry out
against this injustice: this patently anti-scientific behavior receives
the cover and support of almost the entire science journalism establishment.
We end each conference with hope for the next one, that there will
be vindication in one form or another. Scientific progress has been
made, but we have not changed many closed minds. One rightly asks
whether there can be much hope for this field? Perhaps, because
where there is life and struggle there is hope. But overcoming the
vicious opposition will not be easy. After all, it has been for
almost fifteen years very much like this. Only the death or disinterest
of this or that pathological skeptic, e.g. respectively Douglas
Morrison of CERN and Robert Park of the APS, has changed.
ICCF10: Cold Fusion Returns
The latest international LENR conference, ICCF10, took place from
Sunday, August 24 through Friday, August 29, 2003 at the Royal Sonesta
Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts, less than one mile from MIT;
there were also demonstrations of excess heat-producing LENR experiments
conducted at MIT. From the early days of cold fusion, my wayward
alma matter MIT became known as a "bastion of skepticism,"
though several MIT professors adopted a positive, open-minded stance
and two have been involved in research and theory since the beginning.
(See my editorial "Cold Fusion Returns to MIT," Infinite
Energy, #47, pp. 7-10, and also my 55-page report "MIT and
Cold Fusion" available in PDF
format at www.infinite-energy.com, and in IE #24, pp. 64-119.)
According to professor Peter L. Hagelstein, a long-time LENR
theorist from the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science (EECS), who was Chair of ICCF10, some 150 attendees gathered
for all or part of the intense week-long program: scientific talks,
poster sessions, demonstrations of excess heat experiments at Hagelstein's
EECS office, and one other demonstration conducted remotely in Texas
and viewed live via Internet connection during a plenary session.
The very strong demonstration component was perhaps the most striking
departure of ICCF10 from most previous ICCFs, though Clean Energy
Technologies, Inc. (CETI) of Sarasota, Florida presented a strong
electrolytic excess heat demonstration at ICCF5 in Monte Carlo,
Monaco (1995) and Dr. R. Notoya conducted a less strong demonstration
of excess heat at ICCF3 in Nagoya, Japan (1992).
Most ironic was the active participation, at least
at a purely administrative level, of "MIT Conference Services,"
the official group within MIT that handles registration and other
conference mechanics-related matters for MIT professors and other
campus groups that hold conferences. It must have been these fine
people who naively put signs on the entrance to the main conference
hall that read: MIT 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion.
We are in the Internet Age, to be sure. Unlike all
earlier conferences, soon after ICCF10 a great information outburst
erupted. Delivered technical papers, poster presentations, and even
Power Point slide shows used by ICCF10 participants began appearing
for free downloading at the exclusively "cold fusion"-focused
As this brief ICCF10 review was in preparation in late October 2003,
there were already posted some 55 technical presentations, with
many more to follow. Within one year of its birth this site registered
downloads of some 250,000 PDF-format and other format technical
papers. This is bound to have a salutary effect on the growth of
interest in LENR studies.
At ICCF10, I personally video taped all of the talks
and discussion sessions (minus the pre-conference "cold fusion
short course" held on August 24) with a portable Sony digital
camera. Initially I had not intended that this tape would be used
for any purpose other than reviewing scientific aspects of the conference
in the future, and for helping to prepare this report. But when
it became clear to me that ICCF10's presentations were unusually
strong, we decided to put all of these "mini-DV" digital
tapes on a set of DVDs and distribute them to anyone willing to
pay the nominal cost for producing them and shipping them. So, if
readers wish to order a set of the eighteen (yes, 18!) DVDs
approximately 36 hours of content that is indexed on accompanying
paper program guides by conference speaker name and DVD "chapter
number" (accessible by ordinary DVD player controls)
they may do so at the website of New Energy Foundation, Inc., by
Alternately, simply send payment of $130.00 to New
Energy Foundation, Inc., P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816.
Shipping is included in this price to domestic or foreign
destinations. We will begin sending these out in late November or
early December 2003, so please order promptly to reserve your place
in the order-placing queue.
In the last issue of Infinite Energy, I editorialized
about some highlights of ICCF10 these were quickly assembled
as we went to press with our last issue; they are worth re-examining.
But there is much more, now that I have had the time to reflect
on ICCF10 and review some of the full papers already posted on www.lenr-canr.org.
But a detailed review of all the available papers is not warranted,
since so many of them are now readily web-accessible.
In my view, there were three absolutely fundamental
scientific high points, though this is not to detract at all from
the many other thoroughly revolutionary works reported:
1. Laser-Driven Excess Heat "Weapons": What
is now being called the Letts-Cravens Effect excess heat stimulated
by laser light irradiation of cold fusion electrolytic cell cathodes
(see IE #50, pp. 10-15) has now been independently observed
by three outside groups: Dr. Michael McKubre of SRI International,
Dr. Edmund Storms in New Mexico, and Dr. Mitchell Swartz in Wellesley,
Massachusetts. Low-level laser light power is input and a huge power
excess emerges, for example: 30 milliwatts input, 1 watt output
(a 30-fold multiplication of input power), though this now rides
on top of a much higher electrical input power that is initially
in thermal balance (i.e. no excess). This is evidently a highly
repeatable effect one that has the potential of breaking through
into numerous other labs around the world.
2. Mitsubishi's Modern Alchemy: The astonishing nuclear
transmutation experiment carried out by the Iwamura group at Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries Advanced Technology Division, which was reported
in Infinite Energy (#47, pp. 14-18) and later published in the Japanese
Journal of Applied Physics has now been reproduced by the A. Takahashi
group at Osaka University, and reconfirmed by MHI's lab in other
ways. In this experiment, deuterium (heavy hydrogen) gas is made
to flow through a palladium membrane onto which another element,
such as cesium or strontium, has been deposited. With no energy
input (other than the pressure of the gas) the deposited element
transmutes to another element. For example, cesium declines and
the rare earth element praesodymium appears and grows. Or, strontium
declines and molybdenum grows. The term "grow" is appropriate,
since to make the new elements it is necessary for the starting
nuclei to "absorb" four deuterium nuclei! Obviously, this
flies completely in the face of every cannon of basic chemistry,
but the evidence for the result is now overwhelming. It is nothing
short of modern alchemy.
3. The Oriani-Fisher Bombshell: One of the most paradigm-busting
sets of papers that were presented at ICCF10 is by Drs. Richard
Oriani and John C. Fisher. Using CR-39 particle track detectors
immersed in Li2SO4 dissolved in heavy or light
water, and using Ni and Pd cathodes, they conclude: "There
is a causal relationship between electrolysis and energetic charged
particles and that neither Pd nor D2O is essential for
the generation of a nuclear reaction." In John Fisher's separate
theoretical paper concerning this experiment he reports, "A
theoretical basis is offered for the remarkable observation by Oriani
and Fisher of a shower of about 250,000 energetic charged particles
that occurred in the vapor of oxygen and hydrogen evolved from electrolysis.
The shower was localized in space and time, originating a few millimeters
above the surface of a plastic detector chip and lasting for a few
seconds. The responsible nuclear reactions must have been sustained
by the vapor." Fisher's polyneutron theory, which suggests
that polyneutrons are omnipresent in the environment, has this implication,
Fisher says: "The theory suggests that a single polyneutron
can ignite a chain reaction that is sustained by 18O
as fuel." The paper has been submitted to a prominent mainstream
journal; it will surely be rejected outright, for no good cause.
To me, this experiment looks bullet-proof, though the theory may
not be correct. In this experiment we are far removed from the notion
of lattice-based nuclear reactions are we not? Why not then
consider even more radical theoretical medicine than the metal lattice
dynamics that have been the staple of so many "mainstream"
The foregoing constitute merely my view of the three
highest scientific peaks, among many other towering mountains. Now
to proceed a bit deeper to discuss other remarkable happenings at
The Short Course Kick-Off
A useful introduction for newcomers to LENR, and a productive review
session for old-timers, was the "Short Course on LENR"
that was held in a jam-packed smaller conference room all day Sunday,
August 24. Most appreciated were the compendious paper hand-outs
that were provided by the "Cold Fusion Professors": John
Dash, Peter Hagelstein, Mike McKubre, George Miley, Ed Storms, and
Akito Takahashi. The concisely stated course objective: "To
provide an introduction to the field for persons interested in gaining
a basic background in the science and technology aspects. Both theoretical
and experimental topics will be covered for deuterium and proton
Participants later segued into the traditional Sunday
evening welcoming reception, which was made complete with a pleasing
view of the famous Charles River that separates Boston from Cambridge.
The very fuel of the future water which was the subject
of this and past ICCFs, was thus again an immanent backdrop to the
deliberations. One could imagine the yachtsmen and women cruising
by, their world view deeply vested in conventional energy, but few
of whom could suspect what was being contemplated a mere tens of
meters from their water-sprayed windshields.
The Return of Steve Jones
Those who recall the history of cold fusion understand the major
role played by physics Professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young
University. It was he and his colleagues at BYU who had long had
an interest in the generic possibility of "cold fusion"
occurring within the body of Earth, and in so-called muon-catalyzed
"cold fusion," which had even been the title of a Scientific
American article by Jones in July 1987. Jones et al., in parallel
with Drs. Fleischmann and Pons at the University of Utah (only some
45 miles away), had performed electrochemical experiments that led
in the spring of 1989 to public reports of scientific anomalies
from electrochemical cells, after the somewhat pre-emptive announcement
by the two University of Utah professors of excess thermal energy
production. Whereas Fleischmann and Pons had focussed their attention
on precise calorimetric measurements of excess heat from pristine
heavy water-LiOD cells with Pd/Pt electrodes (though they had also
announced neutron and tritium measurements), Jones at that time
was using a "Mother Earth Soup" of materials in a Pd/Pt
electrolytic cell in an effort to mimic conditions within the Earth.
He dealt exclusively then with nuclear measurements, specifically
the signatures of neutrons emanating from his cells. Neither Jones
nor Fleischmann and Pons were believed by most mainstream physicists
then or now, but Jones' claim being the "more believable,"
fared better in the press in the early days. Bitter rivalries emerged
and Jones, in particular, became an outspoken opponent of excess
heat findings, but he never went back on his belief that his cells
were giving off low-level neutrons. It turns out that both Utah
groups were basically initially on the right track.
It was thus an honorable form of "closure"
that Steve Jones attended ICCF10, after a long absence (since roughly
1993) from such gatherings. He was given the great privilege of
giving the first plenary session talk at ICCF10, and he did not
disappoint us. He produced what appear to be nearly unassailable
scientific evidence of nuclear emanations from presumptively chemical
systems. Even these very low-level nuclear radiations charged
particles as well as neutrons are still regarded as impossible
by establishment physicists. Later during ICCF10, as others presented
their astonishing work to complement that of Jones and also of Fleischmann
and Pons, it was evident from Jones' generous statements about the
entire conference that his horizons had been expanded. He remarked,
"I am learning that there can be many miracles. . ." Perhaps
his full public acceptance of excess heat results, in the context
of his own results, will eventually occur.
Examining several abstracts presented to ICCF10, and listening to
some of the pertinent talks, suggests that uncertainty remains about
whether the helium production rate in heavy hydrogen experiments
is strictly commensurate with excess energy. One of the very best
investigators, Dr. Melvin Miles, writes in his abstract1:
"Furthermore, the rate of helium-4 production was always in
the appropriate range of 1010 - 1012 atoms
per second per watt of excess power." The "yes or no"
helium correspondence with excess heat production cannot be denied;
he puts the chance that it is in error at 1/750,000-a fantastic
experimental accomplishment. But the failure to pin down commensurate
4He with excess heat within less than two orders of magnitude
is troubling. We also have the ICCF10 abstract of the Italian group
of A. DeNinno et al., "4He Detection in a Cold Fusion
Experiment."2 The researchers indeed appear to have
found anomalous 4He (by "a factor of about 20 out
of baseline"), but they appear not to have an accurate assessment
of its correlation with excess heat for they can only "estimate,
at the present time, a lower bound for the produced energy."
Dr. Emilio DelGuidice, who presented the wonderful results for an
absent Dr. DeNinno, nonetheless had to make some hand-waving arguments
about why the 4He measured was low by a factor of about
The Letts-Cravens Effect
At ICCF10, Dennis Letts gave an historic, live conference demonstration
of laser-triggered excess heat in a palladium-heavywater cell. But
the active Letts-Cravens cell actually resided in the Austin, Texas
laboratory of EarthTech International (ETI), and was witnessed by
the conferees via an Internet web camera link projected onto a large
screen. It was a moment of high drama.
We were told by Dennis Letts that this may be the
first over-unity experiment that the famously skeptical Scott Little
of ETI may eventually "bless," after Little performs the
test with his very own apparatus. He is said to be quite satisfied
already with the Letts equipment. We shall see whether any kind
of formal support for this important result will be given by this
facility, whose director Dr. Hal Puthoff (a "zero point energy"
theorist) claims an association with potential supporters of such
over-unity technologies (believed to be in Europe), who have, in
Puthoff's words, "very deep pockets."
Ed Storms has not only reproduced the Letts-Cravens
effect in his own lab, measuring it with a sensitive Seebeck calorimeter.
He has also discovered that reversing the Pd cathode and Pt anode
in Fleischmann-Pons cells enormously enhances the reproducibility
of the phenomenon! He acknowledged that stating this was as "heretical
as saying 'cold fusion is real' at an APS meeting." He commented,
"Since I reversed the electrodes, it is almost impossible not
to get excess heat. . .The irony here is overwhelming." He
presented graphs which showed that the Letts-Cravens excess heat
effect and the Fleischmann-Pons excess heat effect seemed to be
independent of one another. He also found that the effect was insensitive
to variation of the laser light over the wavelength range 680 to
Dr. Mitchell Swartz, independent of Letts-Cravens,
has been performing his own laser-triggered excess heat experiments
for years, so there is every reason to accept the viability of this
new direction in LENR studies.
Excess Heat Demonstrations
Dr. Mitchell Swartz's Fleischmann/Pons-type electrolytic palladium
Phusor/low-electrolyte conductance heavy water/palladium cell performed
flawlessly in Prof. Hagelstein's lab at MIT. Its excess power ranged
from 167% to 267% as Dr. Swartz altered the experimental conditions.
This excess heat, as measured by his precision calorimeter, persisted
from August 24 to August 30, longer than ICCF10 itself. The excess
heat was interrupted on the last day only to bring the equipment
back to Wellesley, Massachusetts otherwise it would have continued
much longer. In my view, Mitch Swartz's unique work with highly
purified heavy water and no added salt is among the most commercially
promising approaches in the field. Relatively high power ratios
now circa 1 watt in, 3 watts out or higher come easily to
Prof. John Dash of the physics department at Portland
State University in Oregon and his summer high school student interns
also put on historic demonstrations of excess heat at Prof. Hagelstein's
lab. They used simple but effective calorimetric apparatus, which
allowed observers to check the level of excess heat for themselves.
Large numbers of ICCF10 conferees drove or walked to MIT to participate
in these demonstrations. It was a really boisterous "happening"
as one might have said in the late 1960s. Unfortunately, urgent
calls to the local press to view and report this remarkable and
historic event had no effect. The press was not interested. A tragedy,
The New Patterson-Thompson
Dr. James Patterson of Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. has been
one of the most prominent and creative of LENR scientists. At ICCF10,
he and his colleagues who work in Sarasota, Florida revealed a stunningly
simple, robust, and ingenious gas-phase cold fusion reactor, which
has produced apparent excess heat for months on end. First Dr. Patterson
described the history and evolution of his metal film-coated bead
excess heat cells, which were electrolytic water flow-through cells.
These have been put aside in favor of a new design that will not
be subject to the metal film damage problems of the bead cells.
John Thompson then discussed their new deuterium gas cell, which
was initially based on a ceramic and palladium matrix, but which
then evolved to a diatomacious earth/palladium structure. The silicon
dioxide skeletal structures from ancient microscopic life being
used for twenty-first century power! These direct current-activated
cells appear to produce about 50% or higher excess power, which
is inferred from temperature measurements on the cell casing, when
a fixed charge of D2 gas is infused into the cell. This
is compared to the temperature when air infusion of the same cell
is employed as a control. The team agrees that actual calorimetry,
not merely comparative temperature measurements, should be performed,
and it will do this.
Israeli Company Launches
Intense LENR Program
A very big surprise at ICCF10 was the unexpected presentation by
Dr. Arik El-Boher of Energetics Technologies Ltd., which is based
in Omer, Israel. El-Boher was one of about a half-dozen individuals
who were representing the company at ICCF10. It was obvious from
the lavish equipment displayed and the multi-system parallel-cell
testing approach being taken that a very intense program of research
aimed at power generation is underway. El-Boher revealed that the
company was pursuing four basic approaches: glow discharge heavy
hydrogen gas systems; electrolytic cells; gas loaded catalytic cells,
and high-pressure cells with ultrasonic wave excitation. The research
has already led to substantial excess power generation in gas discharge
cells, encountering the heat-after-death phenomenon, and the production
of tritium. One of the company's cells had been producing significant
excess heat continuously from June 2003 to the time of ICCF10 and
beyond! All this was especially surprising, since the Israeli group,
several of whom had attended ICCF9 in Beijing, seemed at that time
to be only at the exploratory stage. The work is funded by a group
of U.S.-based investors. One of the group's driving members is an
American physician, Dr. Irving Dardik of Califon, New Jersey, who
has made a name for himself in the treatment of various illnesses
using special "SuperWaveTM" or "wave within
a wave," multi-spectral stimulations. According to El-Boher,
this type of input power waveform was being used to good effect
in the LENR experiments being carried out in Israel. The company
has already cooperated technically with the government-funded ENEA
group in Italy, and there is evidence that cold fusion researchers
in the U.S. are also beginning collaborations with Energetics Technologies.
This appears to be a multi-million dollar private new energy effort,
matched in organization and financing, only perhaps by New Jersey-based
BlackLight Power Corporation.
Transmutations in Biological
We must take note of the increasing appearance of reported and reproduced
transmutations of elements in biological systems. At least one such
paper was in fact given at ICCF10 by an experienced team.3
This work must be taken very seriously now the researchers
at ICCF10 presented a technique that looks very promising for reducing
the radioactivity of nuclear waste. The biological transmutation
phenomenon has profound implications for LENR theorists, most all
of whom have preferred to ignore it. Dr. Ed Storms, to his credit,
embraces it objectively. He wrote in December 2001 in his "Cold
Fusion: An Objective Assessment": "Transmutation is claimed
to occur in living systems where the process becomes especially
difficult to believe or understand. Indeed, people have advised
me not to discuss this subject, as if the potential reader would
be too immature to handle the intellectual conflict this discussion
might cause." The research in biotransmutation suggests that
biological systems have discovered something in nature which they
make use of to carry out nuclear changes; and using that "something"
most definitely does not require the loading of or presence of Pd
or Ni cathodes or any metallic lattice within a living system, which
apart from prosthetic devices in people do not exist. Could
it be that our basic atomic and nuclear physics models are flawed
at their foundations? Could it be, perhaps, that those many researchers
in medicine and in biology, far removed from the LENR field
who have found other kinds of anomalous behavior in biological systems,
are in truth observing the signal of a pervasive medium that is
ignored not only in medical and biology texts, but in physics as
well? Indeed, that seems to me to be the essence of what is befuddling
us all we are ignoring most of the physical universe in attempting
to explain LENR with incomplete and obsolete physics. And, friends,
that will just not work. It may "work" for academic speculators
about "dark matter" and "dark energy," who endlessly
bend their theories to conform to the latest fashion and who have
no ability or intention to discover world-changing technologies.
But for researchers in LENR, ignoring what constitutes most of the
universe may be nothing less than suicidal.
This has been but the tip of the iceberg of the "anomalous
within the anomalous." In other words, this is clear evidence
from the LENR field itself that what I have begun to call the "Mainstream
Cold Fusion Hypothesis," the MCFH paradigm (see below), must
be reconsidered. Not that that paradigm is completely unworkable
in all systems examined to date. Folks like Peter Hagelstein, Scott
and Talbot Chubb, and Akito Takahashi have made valiant efforts
to refine it. I personally do not believe, however, that the current
metal lattice-based theories cannot constitute a generalized explanation
for all the phenomena even within LENR proper.
Ludwik Kowalski Shakes Up
the Physics World!
Unknown to LENR researchers, a thoughtful physics professor at Montclaire
State University in New Jersey, who attended ICCF10, had a significant
change of mind on the matter of "cold fusion" about a
year ago. He had set out then to learn the truth about the subject.
He knows now that it is not "voodoo science." Now he is
making waves with his provocative website devoted to cold fusion/LENR,
in particular as it relates to what teachers of physics should say
about the subject. Marvelous! Check out http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/index.html.
Previously, Kowalski had bought onto the views of
Dr. John Huizenga, after having read his anti-cold fusion book,
Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century. There is great
irony here. Dr. Kowalski had been a respected colleague and co-worker
of Dr. John Huizenga years ago. Huizenga later had become a prominent
anti-cold fusion critic, who as Co-chair would drive the 1989 DOE
ERAB Cold Fusion Panel in a negative direction, and Kowalski had
been influenced by Huizenga's deadly book. Kowalski still does not
fully accept the claims within the LENR field, he says it
is too new and astonishing to him. He wonders whether Huizenga knowingly
set up what Kowalski now knows to be the "straw man" of
the hot fusion physics model, in order to attack cold fusion. But
after attending ICCF10 and being a vocal participant, Kowalski is
impressed with what he has seen, and he has tried, so far unsuccessfully,
to politic for a reconsideration of the field. In his ICCF10 presentation,
he advocated various strategies to deal with neutrals and the negativists.
He wondered why "hundreds of sophisticated research scientists
have not developed (yet) a 100% reliable demonstration in thirteen
years." Good question. He remarked, "Even a 70% repeatable
demo would be useful." Though I did not agree with all the
remarks of this newcomer, it is refreshing to encounter the voice
of an outspoken, energetic, and well-placed "convert."
Wake Up Call to the U.S.
Department of Energy
Conference Chair Professor Peter Hagelstein of MIT is not one to
engage in any direct attempts to rock-the-boat at official levels
on the matter of cold fusion, but the results of ICCF10 were so
solid, in his view, that it prompted him to write on September 12
to U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (see text
of letter in this issue, p. 45). The Hagelstein letter has already
caused a stir at the highest levels of DOE, and though I remain
pessimistic about its prospects for turning around the mostly hostile
DOE bureaucracy, it is a matter of record that the letter has been
received by DOE (via Federal Express delivery) and is under consideration
there. The letter asks for something that is thoroughly reasonable,
but this is also anathema to an immobile and opposed bureaucracy.
In Hagelstein's words to Abraham: "I propose that you consider
the possibility of convening a new review panel to provide an updated
recommendation based on the initial tasking provided by Admiral
Watkins [in 1989]." And why now rather than at any time in
the past decade-and-a-half of struggle? From Hagelstein, "The
conference was technically very strong, and has been considered
by many to be the best of the ICCF series to date. The evidence
for nuclear emissions from metal deuterides in a variety of experiments
presented at this conference, and at previous conferences, is very
strong. The experimental evidence in support of an excess heat effect
that has accumulated over the years is very compelling, certainly
strong enough that it should be of interest to DOE and the scientific
community in general. . ."
Almost No Press Coverage!
Though there was an open invitation to press people prior to ICCF10,
and I made an attempt to encourage specific members of the press
core who might have had their eyes opened if they had come, only
one outside journalist attended the meeting sessions and actually
did some reporting. That honor goes to Sharon Begley of The Wall
Street Journal. (A few others did arrive, but flitted in and then
out as fast as fireflies.) Ms. Begley came at my urging and wrote
a fine commentary in her September 5 "Science Journal"
column, which I have described elsewhere in this issue (p. 45).
Her piece was bannered appropriately: "Cold Fusion Isn't Dead,
It's Just Withering from Scientific Neglect." In summary, she
wrote: "What these claims need is critical scrutiny by skeptics.
That is how science normally functions. But in Cold Fusion, it isn't.
And that's the worst pathology of all." At another point she
wrote, "But the real pathology is the breakdown of the normal
channels of scientific communication, with no scientists outside
the tight-knit cold fusion tribe bothering to scrutinize its claims."
The Military Research Presence
Though the press, by and large, has not been very good at covering
LENR developments, some circles within the U.S. military have continued
to focus some of their wide-ranging attention on LENR developments.
The U.S. Navy has funded research in LENR and has published an official
report on its work in the field, which advocates more research funding
(see IE #44, pp. 54-55). And the U.S. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency) has in the past quietly funded work at both SRI
International and at MIT (via Peter Hagelstein).
Here, very briefly, is a capsule of the military research
presence at ICCF10:
- Physicist Dr. Lowell Wood of Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory and the Stanford, California conservative think tank,
the Hoover Institution, attended not only ICCF10, but also ICCF7
(in Vancouver, B.C. in 1998) and ICCF8 (in Lerici, Italy in 2000).
He missed ICCF9, in Beijing, 2002, presumably for reasons, in
part, having to do with his high-level security clearance and
travel to China. In my mind, and having spoken to Dr. Wood on
an earlier occasion (at ICCF8), there is not the slightest doubt
that Dr. Wood who is better known for his association with
the late Dr. Edward Teller (see obituary, p. 67) and his advocacy
of anti-ballistic missile defense understands very well
that the bulk of the important results being reported at the ICCFs
are real and incontrovertible. He accepts that a new class of
nuclear-reactions has been discovered, with implications that
could be rather profound. And, I would think, the possibility
or probability of military implications cannot be far from his
consideration. It is his style to orchestrate initiatives for
the furtherance of LENR "behind the scenes," but so
far there is no evidence that any of his advocacy has led to tangible
policy changes. We shall see what the future may bring.
- Mechanical engineer Dr. Frank Gordon of the U.S.
Navy attended ICCF10. He has been an advocate for the research
within the U.S. Navy. From his ringing statement of endorsement
in the U.S. Navy report on LENR, he would like to see official
funding for the field.
- A research scientist with the U.S. Army attended
ICCF10 on "his own ticket," but he would prefer to remain
- Dr. David Nagel is now a Professor at George Washington
University, but he formerly managed LENR efforts at the U.S. Naval
Research Laboratory (NRL). He has attended all of the ICCFs, as
far as I can recall. He continues to be an advocate for the field
and provided a bold overview and endorsement of the field at an
evening session of ICCF10 (August 25), that was open to the public.
Nagel has advocated at least a $10 million official research budget
for the LENR field.
If there is anything more ludicrous about the Establishment
reaction to LENR, it is the obvious military implications of LENR
discoveries that quite clearly are being discussed behind closed
doors (and definitely still being attacked both openly and privately
by members of the "Jasons" military advisory group, which
includes negativists Steven Koonin and Richard Garwin), while in
open sessions for over fifteen years the proofs from a huge new
body of technical evidence is discussed, as though there were no
possible military consequences of understanding:
A. How fissionable isotopes of uranium have apparently
been created on electrochemical cell cathodes. The work of John
Dash and Dan Chicea on the apparent production (enhancement) of
235U from natural uranium foils via either glow discharge
in hydrogen atmospheres or in electrolytic production is truly remarkable.4
This high-Z transmutation, if it is validated, will show how "easy"
and omnipresent the transmutation phenomenon is.
B. How tritium, a key ingredient in thermonuclear weapons, has been
produced in many different types of cold fusion cells.
C. How mild laser light can apparently stimulate nuclear phenomena
at the surfaces of active electrolytic cathodes.
D. How from the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries transmutation work and
other results, the possibility emerges that virtually any element
or isotope might eventually be produced by very benign conditions,
with virtually no energy input.
History will, I am sure, eventually record this preposterous
upside-down world of reactions to these overarching discoveries
in LENR. The now somnolent science journalists will then indulge
in a feeding frenzy over "Who knew what when?" and "How
could they (the culpable scientists) have been so stupid as not
to recognize the reality of a vast new source of nuclear activity,
which was potentially very dangerous?" Just a look in the mirror
will tell them how this happened, though they surely will not acknowledge
their own reflections.
A New Electronic Journal
As ICCF10 concluded on Friday morning, Peter Hagelstein announced
the founding of a peer-reviewed electronic journal for the LENR
field, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. This is a title that had
been approved by the ICCF organizing Committee at ICCF9 in Beijing
(May 2002). The journal already has a website, http://cmns.mit.edu,
on an MIT-run server. The editors of the new journal are, For North
America: Peter Hagelstein, Michael McKubre, George Miley, and Ed
Storms; For Europe: Jean-Paul Biberian and Francesco Scaramuzzi;
For Asia: X.Z. Li and Akito Takahashi. Editorial correspondence
may be sent to the editors at CMNSEditor@aol.com.
Hagelstein remarked that he anticipated that the strict standards
of unbiased, fair review would lead to an acceptance rate of 50%
for submitted papers. He welcomes especially "focussed theory
papers on new phenomena."
The Mainstream Cold Fusion/LENR
Paradigm: Its Limitations
The astonishing results presented at ICCF10 have sharpened a fundamental
issue that has been lurking in the background in the "cold
fusion" field since its early days. We all know that our tortuous
path began with the assertion by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley
Pons (F&P) that evidence for previously unknown kinds of nuclear
reactions and excess heat of large magnitude could be observed in
certain electrochemical cells with heavywater-based electrolyte.5
They wrote, ". . .the data on enthalpy generation would require
rates for reactions (v) and (vi) in the range 1011 -
1014 atoms s-1. It is evident that reactions
(v) and (vi) are only a small part of the overall reaction scheme
and that other nuclear processes must be involved." (Reaction
(v) was D + D --> T + H and reaction (vi) was D + D --> 3He
+ n.) They reiterated this in the discussion section of their controversial
paper, "The most surprising feature of our results however,
is that the reactions (v) and (vi) are only a small part of the
overall reaction scheme and that the bulk of the energy release
is due to an hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes (presumably
due to clusters of deuterons)." Indeed, it was very reasonable
for them to presume that a class of nuclear reactions might ultimately
explain cold fusion since some nuclear products had already
been detected (tritium generation and low-level neutron emission,
which were later confirmed in more exacting ways) and the magnitude
of the excess energy was far too large to be explained by conventionally
understood chemical reactions.
This set the stage for the battle that has now waged
for fourteen-plus years, with the critics denying the existence
of any evidence in support of the F&P nuclear reaction
hypothesis either from excess heat measurements or from measurements
of nuclear products. From the results presented at ICCF10 and all
previous ICCFs, the evidence for large magnitude excess heat production
in the LENR field is overwhelming, as is the evidence for a variety
of nuclear products and emissions. The critics are profoundly wrong.
That leaves the hypothesis posed by F&P initially that the "bulk
of the energy release is due to an hitherto unknown nuclear process
or processes." Can that hypothesis be adequately defended,
as so many in the LENR field maintain?
The first experimental indication that F&P's hypothesis
might be correct came in early-1991, when Miles et al. found a correlation
between the excess heat from F&P-type cells (or the lack of
excess heat thereof in cases that were null) and the presence or
absence of 4He signature in the gas evolved from the
F&P cells in their lab.6 They reported this formally
in the scientific literature in 1994.7 But while these
remarkable results were being readied for publication, several new
directions or offshoots had emerged from and within the CF/LENR
field. In the spring of 1991, Dr. Randell Mills et al. reported
significant excess heat from ordinary water cells with nickel electrodes,
an energy which they deemed to be coming not from nuclear reactions,
but from a new form of catalyzed shrinkage reaction via a drastically
remodeled form of the hydrogen atom and a re-write of quantum mechanics,
which is now called by Mills "Classical Quantum Mechanics"
(CQM).8,9 These explanations (and even the claim of excess
heat in ordinary water-based electrochemical cells) did not go over
well either with the CF/LENR community or the hard-line Establishment
critics of table-top anomalous physics. CF/LENR scientists, themselves
outcasts from the Establishment, strangely enough have not paid
much attention to Mills' experimental work. This is most unfortunate,
because it is compendious and strongly supportive of excess heat
but also of non-standard, highly anomalous, spectral anomalies from
hydrogen systems. This stance can be explained because of the very
strong resistance by CF/LENR theorists to exploring foundational
flaws in Standard Quantum Mechanics (SQM). Mills' CQM work could
shed considerable light on the problem of LENR these are results
that cannot and should not be logically separated from efforts to
understand LENR results proper.
Randell Mills, for his part, wants nothing to do with
the "cold fusion" field, in part because of the bad "PR"
that cold fusion has acquired. But Mills, while accepting that his
"shrunken" (sub-ground state) hydrogen atoms ("hydrinos")
may well cause nuclear reactions due to their more charge- neutral
presentation to other nuclei, does not believe that the excess heat
being reported in LENR experiments is of nuclear origin i.e.
the direct result of nuclear reactions with a mass-deficit of m,
with an energy equivalent output found by E=
mc2. This latter hypothesis within mainstream cold fusion we should
designate for brevity the MCFH the Mainstream Cold
Though Mills' CQM theory may itself have significant
flaws, it does have two characteristics that recommend it: A) It
seems to have very significant predictive power to suggest
what hydrogen systems are likely to evolve excess heat, and which
ones may not (more such predictive ability than most CF/LENR concepts),
and B) CQM is not beholden to the "mainstream cold fusion hypothesis"
(MCFH) i.e. at least it allows the possibility that
many instances of excess heat are not of nuclear origin per se.
In this latter "Point B" Mills is likely closer to the
truth (but possibly for the wrong reasons!) than are champions of
MCFH theories. One only has to examine the 100% repeatable excess
energy work of Peter and Neal Graneau in water arc explosions and
air arc phenomena (see References 21-26) to realize this. Neither
the MCFH nor Mills is likely to be able to explain these phenomena.
In the early 1990s there also began to be increasing
reports of heavy element transmutation phenomena in low-energy experiments;
some of the most remarkable initial results came from John O'M.
Bockris et al. at Texas A&M (see the Bockris story in Reference
10). I well recall the extreme resistance to accepting these heavy-element
transmutation claims in the period 1992-1994, expressed to me by
some prominent cold fusion theorists, such as the late Julian Schwinger
and Talbot and Scott Chubb. Today, heavy element transmutations
are in general very well accepted in the CF/LENR field. Some of
the most remarkable and definitive results that support such transmutation
phenomena have been published by a group at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Advanced Technology Research Center.11,12 Talbot Chubb,
for his part, believes he can explain such transmutations via an
extension of his earlier theoretical framework that predicts 4He
formation in or on metal lattices.13 I believe that this
proposal is grasping at straws and represents an ad hoc proposal
to preserve loyalty to conventional SQM. Talbot admits that his
theory in which a "many-body wavelike deuteron system overlaps
with a localized cesium-133 atom" to produce praesodymium may
be a stretch. He writes, "I know the above sounds fanciful.
It requires that quantum mechanics obey previously unexplored rules
when applied to a many-body ion system bound within a multiplicity
of shallow wells. These rules are not tested when a many body system
is bound within a single potential well." Better that he should
consider that SQM just cannot handle this powerful form of blatant
"modern alchemy" in which no special electrical energy
input or loading is evidently required. To me, the Mitsubishi work
strongly suggests that there is something deeply wrong with our
understanding of atomic and nuclear structure-i.e. SQM has a Big
Of the many CF/LENR papers that report excess heat
as well as nuclear products, one stands out for showing a quantitative
relationship between excess heat and nuclear products, i.e. rough
obedience to the MCFH. This is work that was reported first in 2000
at ICCF8 by McKubre et al. at SRI International.14 The
group performed multiple tests of Dr. Les Case's "catalytic
fusion" process, which employs heated palladium-coated carbon
catalysts in deuterium gas atmosphere. The replication team cross-checked
its results with two types of calorimetry and it published data
which shows the increasing evolution of 4He on multiple
runs. Moreover, the group was able to correlate the quantity of
helium produced at different times during each run with the excess
energy produced. The regression lines for each form of calorimetry
gave: Q=31±13 MeV/4He atom (for the gradient calorimetry
method) and Q=32±13 MeV/4He atom (for the differential
calorimetry method). The authors were careful to state: "Although
these Q values include that of reaction  within their assigned
uncertainties, the mean values for the 4He presented
directly to the gas phase for analysis is only ~75% of that predicted
by Equation ." Equation  referred to is, of course, D
+ D --> 4He + 23.8 MeV (lattice), which corresponds
to the hot plasma fusion D + D fusion reaction yielding a 23.8 MeV
y ray. Error bars aside, it is very tempting to suggest that
this data is highly suggestive of a kind of net D + D fusion reaction
that produces 4He, but we must be cautious because: A)
There isn't highly accurate measurement of the energy-per-atom release
and B) Because of the possibility that other nuclear change phenomena
connected with alterative fundamental physics theories might eventually
be found to yield the same net reaction results.
It is most disappointing that there has not developed
more firm evidence to support the MCFH. There is a dearth of other
results like the SRI data. There are also prominent experiments
within CF/LENR that cast doubt on the rigor of the MCFH but
not, I repeat, against the basic validity of the large-magnitude
excess heat and nuclear changes and emissions.
My colleague Dr. Scott Chubb (the technical chairman
of ICCF10) with whom I have an "agreement to agree to disagree"
on matters of the acceptable breadth of the CF/LENR field, was properly
frank and up-front in one of his ICCF10 abstracts15 when he wrote:
". . .it is not at all clear that key features associated with
many LENR processes have been identified. For this reason, it is
plausible that most ideas associated with LENR's must be viewed
as speculative." Indeed, the central problem exhibited by CF/LENR
theorists as heroic as they have been is that they have
failed to comprehend or admit two glaring facts: A) The breadth
of the CF/LENR evidence proper is so stupendous and Alice-in-Wonderland
that there appears little hope for SQM/relativity to deal with it
and B) LENR theorists are ignoring deliberately so excess
energy and other phenomena that are right at their doorstep.
A New Path for LENR?
My view is that we should adopt this position:
More progress will occur in LENR if it is understood by researchers
that the field can't remain contained within its usually defined
borders. The discovery of fission in the late 1930s offers a useful
analogy: Nuclear fission was serendipitously discovered during an
attempt to make transuranic elements via neutron bombardment of
natural uranium. The investigators did not realize initially that
it was fission fragments, not transuranic elements, that were being
observed. When they realized that nuclear fission was occurring
with neutron production as well, the path to a new chain-reaction
energy source opened. The discovery of fission contains a stark
warning to the LENR field today, which I had no way of realizing
when I wrote the following passages in Fire from Ice: Searching
for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor (Wiley & Sons,
Physicist Emilio Segre, who died at age 84 less
than one month after the March 1989 announcement in Utah, the
previous December had recounted the discovery of nuclear fission-on
its 50th anniversary-before a meeting of the American Physical
Society.* (*Emilio Segre, "The Discovery of Nuclear Fission,"
Physics Today, July 1989: 38-43.) Segre had worked with Enrico
Fermi in Rome in 1934 on experiments that bombarded uranium with
neutrons to attempt to produce what they thought would be the
first artificial element beyond uranium, element 93-one that by
prediction would be similar chemically to rhenium. But this strong
expectation of a result prevented the discovery of fission for
five years before Hahn and Strassman in Germany ultimately recognized
it. They too would make the same mistake by expecting what the
Fermi group had likewise anticipated. Segre also recalled other
lost opportunities: how another scientist had suggested the possibility
of fission happening in their work, but whose writing was ignored;
and Swiss researchers who may have seen the fission fragment evidence
but who instead thought something was wrong with their detector.
But the biggest problem was the expectation of seeing an element
heavier than uranium, and not paying attention to the possibility
of lower mass atoms that turned out to be the telltale fission
Segre said of writings by Hahn and Meitner on the
road to the discovery of fission, "Their early papers are
a mixture of error and truth as complicated as the mixture of
fission products resulting from the bombardments. Such confusion
was to remain for a long time a characteristic of much of the
work on uranium." Segre recalled, "My own feeling at
the time was that there was a mystery in uranium." In a remarkable
statement printed in the historic December 22, 1938, paper in
Naturwissenschaften announcing the fission discovery, Hahn
and Strassman wrote, "As 'nuclear chemists' working very
close to the field of physics, we cannot yet bring ourselves to
such a drastic step, which goes against all previous experiences
in nuclear physics." When the great physicist Niels Bohr
heard of the new insights on fission, he was reported to have
exclaimed, "Oh what idiots we have all been! Oh but this
is wonderful! This is just as it must be!" As Segre concluded
in his talk, "Above all, it seems to me that the human mind
sees only what it expects." Scientists who go far afield
to explore puzzles and anomalies often bump into obstacles, but
every once in a while they run into a remarkable phenomenon waiting
to be discovered. It was just so with fission; might it be true
also with cold fusion?
Concluding Summary, and a
During the past almost fifteen years since the announcements in
Utah by Drs. Fleischmann and Pons, and separately Jones, indisputable
experimental evidence has built up for substantial excess heat (far
beyond ordinary chemical energy) and also for low-energy nuclear
reaction phenomena in specialized heavy hydrogen and ordinary hydrogen-containing
systems. The primary theorists in the field that, indeed, should
properly be designated LENR have generally assumed that their group
of excess heat phenomena is fundamentally commensurate with nuclear
ash (such as helium), whether already identified or presumed to
be present but not yet found. That was an excellent initial hypothesis.
However, the strictly commensurate nuclear ash hypothesis
has not been proved, and appears to be approximately correct in
only a few experiments. During this same period, compelling evidence-although
not as broadly verified as data from cold fusion/LENR-has also emerged
for other microphysical sources of energy that were previously unexpected
by accepted physics. The exemplar of this has been the "hydrino"
physics work of Dr. Randell Mills and his colleagues at BlackLight
Power Corporation, which was a radical outgrowth from the cold fusion
field that emerged publicly in May 1991.16 Even more
far-reaching is the work in vacuum energy extraction pioneered by
Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa, which first became public in 1996.17
This vacuum energy experimentation began in the early 1980s and
has been reduced to prototype technological devices, such as the
patented PAGDTM (pulsed abnormal glow discharge) electric
power generator, as well as many published experiments that can
be performed in table-top fashion to verify the Correa "Aetherometry"
(non-luminiferous or non-electromagnetic aether measurement science).18
Furthermore, there also appear to be other experimentally verified
excess energy processes, some more substantially confirmed than
others, which have not generally been categorized into one of these
three research areas.
In an era when mainstream science and its media is
all agog about "dark matter" and "dark energy"
composing the vast bulk of the universe, there is a great need to
reconcile, if possible, the significant bodies of evidence from
these three major experimental and theoretical streams: "cold
fusion"/LENR, hydrino physics, and Aetherometry. I predict
that if scientific knowledge continues to be constrained artificially
by blinders to experimental results and theoretical formulations
in these inseparable fields, the road to success in any one of these
fields standing by itself, i.e. acceptance by means of coherent
scientific persuasion, as well as commercially available technologies,
will be very much longer than it needs to be. In particular, the
LENR field, which has moved forward experimentally in a mostly empirical
fashion, may continue to be held back from the more rapid progress
for which its advocates hope.
Onward to ICCF11. . .
We come full circle to prospects for the next ICCF. Since the first
ICCF in 1990, there has been a rotation of the conferences from
North America to Europe to Asia. Because ICCF9 was held in Beijing
and ICCF10 in the U.S., the informal organizing committee has selected
Dr. Jean-Paul Biberian of France to organize ICCF11. It will be
held in Marseilles, France in late September 2004 or sometime in
October 2004. We'll let readers know the exact date when it has
been set. ICCF10 had attendees from: Australia, Bahamas, Canada,
China, England, France, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Norway,
Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S. I expect that the diversity of international
participation will be even greater for ICCF11 than for ICCF10. Be
1. Miles, M.H. 2003. "Correlation of Excess Enthalpy and
Helium-4 Production: A Review," ICCF10 paper, abstract
2. DeNinno, A., Frattolillo, A., Rizzo, A., and DelGuidice, E. 2003.
"4He Detection in a Cold Fusion Experiment,"
ICCF10 paper, abstract at www.ICCF10.org.
3. Vysotskii, V.I., Shevel, V.N., Tashirev, A.B., and Kornilova,
A.A. 2003. "Successful Experiments of Utilization of High
Activity Waste in the process of Transmutation in Growing Associations
of Microbiological Cultures," ICCF10 paper, abstract at
4. Dash, J. and Chicea, D. 2003. "Effects of Hydrogen Loading
By Aqueous Electrolysis On Radioactivity of Uranium," ICCF10
paper, abstract at www.ICCF10.org.
5. Fleischmann, M. and Pons, S. 1989. "Electrochemically
Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium," J. Electroanalytical
Chemistry and Interfacial Electrochemistry, Vol. 261, April 10,
301-308; Errata: Vol. 263 (May 10, 1990), 187-188.
6. Pennisi, E. 1991. "Helium Find Thaws the Cold Fusion
Trail," Science News, Vol. 139, March 23, 180.
7. Miles, M.H., Bush, B.F., and Lagowski, J.J. 1994. "Anomalous
Effects Involving Excess Power, Radiation, and Helium Production
During D2O Electrolysis Using Palladium Cathodes,"
Fusion Technology, Vol. 25, July, 478-486.
8. Mills, R.L. and Kneizys, S.P. 1991. "Excess Heat Production
by the Electrolysis of an Aqueous Potassium Carbonate Electrolyte
and the Implications for Cold Fusion," Fusion Technology,
Vol. 20, August, 65-81.
9. Mills, R.L. 1999. The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum
Mechanics. The current edition can be ordered in hard copy or downloaded
in full from www.blacklightpower.com
(1999 edition, 1,022 pages).
10. Mallove, E.F. 2000. "The Triumph of Alchemy: Professor
John Bockris and the Transmutation Crisis at Texas A&M,"
Infinite Energy, 6, 32, 9-24.
11. Iwamura, Y., Itoh, T., Sakano, M., and Sakai, S. 2003. "Observations
of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Induced by D2 Gas Permeation
Through Pd Complexes," Infinite Energy, 8, 47, 14-18.
(Also in Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Cold
Fusion, Beijing, China, May 19-24, 2002, Edited by X.Z. Li.); also,
see their ICCF10 paper.
12. Iwamura, Y., Sakano, M., and Itoh, T. "Elemental Analysis
of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation,"
Japanese Journal of Applied Physics A, Vol. 41, p. 4642.
13. Talbot Chubb, T. 2003. "Transmutations and Fusion-Based
on Ion Band State Physics," Infinite Energy, 8,
14. McKubre, M., Tanzella, F., Tripodi, P., and Hagelstein, P. 2000.
"The Emergence of a Coherent Explanation for Anomalies Observed
in D/Pd and H/Pd Systems: Evidence for 4He and 3H
Production," Proceedings of the 8th International Conference
on Cold Fusion, Lerici, Italy, May 21-26, Italian Physical Society,
15. Chubb, S.R. 2003. "Concerning the Roles of Theory, Computation,
and Experiment in LENR's," ICCF10 paper, abstract at www.ICCF10.org.
17. Infinite Energy, 2, 7, March/April 1996.
19. Azevedo, R., Graneau, P., Millett, C., and Graneau, N. 1986.
"Powerful Water Plasma Explosions," Physics Letters
A, Vol. 117, p. 101.
20. Ruscal, L.J., Swallom, D.W., Pappas, P.Y., and Graneau, P. 1988.
"Electrodynamic Water Arc Gun," Proceedings of
the 4th Symposium on Electromagnetic Launch Technology, University
of Texas at Austin.
21. Graneau, P. 1996. "Gaining Solar Energy from Ordinary
Water," Infinite Energy, 2, 10, 59-60.
22. Graneau, P. 1997. "Extracting Intermolecular Bond Energy
from Water," Infinite Energy, 3, 13/14, 92-94.
23. Graneau, P. 1999. "Why Does Lightning Explode and Generate
MHD Power?" Infinite Energy, 5, 25, 9-11.
24. Graneau, P., Graneau, N., Hathaway, G., and Hull, R. 2002. "Arc-Liberated
Chemical Energy Exceeds Electrical Input Energy," Infinite
Energy, 8, 44, 39-45.
25. Graneau, P., Graneau, N., and Hathaway, G. 2003. "Evidence
of Thunder Being a Chemical Explosion in Air," J. Plasma
Copyright © 2004. All rights reserved. E-mail: email@example.com