http://pesn.com/2004/12/02/6900056_Rethinking_Cold_Fusion_Zeal/ You are here: PureEnergySystems.com > News > Dec. 3, 2004

Rethinking Cold Fusion Zeal -- Is it Warranted?

The fact that various cold fusion phenomena are scientifically reproducible has been well established.  What is not established is that cold fusion has the potential of delivering significant usable energy in a cost-effective manner.  Should we be so adamant about promoting it?

Pure Energy Systems News
Opinion | Feedback

My observations regarding Cold Fusion might not be welcomed by the true believers, as this is something of a sacred-cow topic, but I feel that my comments need to be broached nonetheless.

Admittedly, I am not deeply immersed in the literature on the subject, and am operating from a fairly cursory exposure. Nevertheless, at least one well-known Cold-Fusion professional has heard the key component of my assessment and has confirmed its legitimacy. Hence I am confident bringing it before my esteemed colleagues.

It seems to me that the fixation on cold fusion within the FE/new energy community is more romantic than anything. It appears to be based more on a martyr syndrome than on foundational validity. To meet the basic criterion for a clean-energy future, this process must lead to cost-competitive technologies that can provide viable answers to the world's energy needs.

The problem goes like this. Mainstream science has turned cold fusion into an anathema science, an ersatz field of study.  Asserting that there have been no consistent replications of the phenomenon, its critics conclude that it does not qualify under one of the primary criteria of science: consistent reproducibility.

Meanwhile, the cold fusion underground reports a myriad of consistent replications of various cold fusion phenomena. They are equally convinced with diehard certainty that cold fusion is not bogus science.

However, in my opinion, the real question is not whether or not cold fusion is a real phenomenon. I am confident that it is real, and that mainstream science is unfair in not at least acknowledging that much. The real issue, in my opinion, is whether or not cold fusion has the potential of providing significant power output for nominal device expense.

Is it capable of at least meeting -- if not surpassing -- the cost efficiencies per unit of energy output found in the solar or wind industries, bearing in mind the advantage of not having down time due to darkness or lack of wind?

The recent Washington Post article basically acknowledged that the science is real, but then came forward with the challenge that no one has yet even been able to boil a cup of tea.  The cold fusion professional with whom I communicated confirmed this.

That is the real issue.

So, my question is this. Are we fixated on defending a concept that yes, works, but no, is not capable of providing significant power output?

If the answer to this question is "no," then I would urge the FE community to drop cold fusion as a pet project that must be defended with personal honor, and move their efforts to technologies for which the output capability question is answered resoundingly in the affirmative.

My guess is that the problem is in pursuing cold fusion as the primary mode of energy generation, whereas the ultimate role of cold fusion may be more supportive.  Its role may be analogous to a transistor in a circuit: serving as one component of a multi-faceted system.

For example, it is likely that cold fusion is occurring in the unique electrolysis process of the Brown's Gas systems. As another example, perhaps the radiant energy technology Bedini is generating involves a cold fusion reaction in the batteries.

While these speculative examples may be off-base, they are intended merely to illustrate the “servant” role which I’m proposing that this cold-fusion phenomenon may be quietly playing in working technologies that are overtly based on other concepts.

We further our cause better by not being so fixated on cold fusion as a potential primary energy solution -- at least until someone demonstrates its applicability. Instead, let us adopt a strategy of seeking to get mainstream science to acknowledge that there is such a thing as cold fusion – and that it is reproducible according to their standards.

I think emotionally the reason that mainstream science treats cold fusion as taboo is because when it first came out, the mass media pumped up the same expectation of superabundant energy for cold fusion as what they have projected for hot fusion. We note in passing that after all the billions spent on that concept, there is still no commercially-operating hot-fusion power plant. Yet it remains the “holy grail” of conventional energy science.  A double standard to be sure.

The let-down on cold fusion amounted to major egg on the face of its supporters and the media, and to immodest gloating on the part of its opponents.

Neither extreme is correct. As long as the established group condemns the newcomers’ work as completely false, and the opposing groups makes exaggerated claims of complete validity, the likelihood of reconciliation is daunting.

If we budge, they will probably budge too. If we back down from claiming it as a potential solution to the world's energy needs, and if they too step back from rejecting cold fusion outright as not a real science, then the door would be open at least to balanced and open-ended research.

Then, when someone mentions "cold fusion" in a scientific paper, they will no longer be jeopardizing their credibility in the field.

Taken down from the pedestal it probably did not deserve in the first place, and put in its proper perspective, cold fusion can then finally become the tool that it is intended to be -- a scientific phenomenon that shows up in certain conditions, and which contributes to this or that other process.

I realize that I am being a bit presumptuous in offering such a far-reaching solution in a field where I have so little experience. I beg your pardon for my boldness in presenting what I believe may be the key to an olive-branch strategy which would allow science to move forward.

Let us forge a bridge of understanding between two extremes that have hitherto been at odds -- unnecessarily.

Sincerely,

Sterling D. Allan
Executive Directory, PES Network Inc
http://pureenergysystems.com
http://freenergynews.com
http://peswiki.com
http://pesn.com 

With editorial assistance from Mary-Sue Haliburton

Responding to

From: "aq093" <aq093{at}freenet.carleton{dot}ca>
To: "Sterling Allan" <FE_updates@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: [snip]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [FE_updates] flash: DOE Cold Fusion Report Out; Lee Bowman friend;ZoneWater.net; Spain Surpasses U.S. Wind; Carbon Sequestration


Good Morning, Sterling:

Re:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:DOE_ColdFusion

On the Cold Fusion report from the DOE, to say the least,
I'm damned angry
(pardon my English). [snip] I say the DOE has **LIED**
to the public if it has continued to pan the actuality of
Cold Fusion. I strongly suggest that the DOE knows at least
that Cold Fusion is very real. My fear is that it will give
the present Administration reason to come down hard on Free
Energy inventors and developers with charges of fraud.

[snip].

All the best, Sterling,

Hal Ade
Treasurer, UTI Inc.
Ottawa, ON
(613)225-1626.
*********************
> Free Energy News wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> FEATURING:
> Cold Fusion > US DOE Report on Cold Fusion is Out
> "While significant progress has been made
> in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of
> this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the
> reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989
> review." (PESWiki; Dec. 1, 2004)
>
<snip>

Article Feedback

Low Energy Yield Now, Doesn't Mean High Energy Yield is Not Possible

Dear Sterling,

I would like to address your issue because it is important and because I think it represents some confusion about cold fusion.  Your major point is that if cold fusion can not be scaled up to useful levels, which has been hard to do over the last 15 years, it would have value only as minor player in some other application.  I believe that energy production occurs only in special material, which I call the nuclear active environment (NAE).  This material is difficult to make, exists only on the nanoscale in size, and at present is created by random processes on the surface of a cathode.  It can also be made as palladium black, but even in this form the NAE is only a small fraction of the total. I suggest you consult www.LENR-CANR.org for evidence supporting these beliefs.

If this is correct, once the material can be made on purpose and in large amount, heat production will go up.  I might point out that when lasers were first discovered, they were very weak.  Now they are used to cut steel. 

I suggest the issue of small power production is a strawman that only has importance to skeptics.

Regards,
Ed Storms

Looking Down the Road

From: "aq093" <aq093{at}freenet.carleton{dot}ca>
To: "Sterling D. Allan"
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Q. Are we fixated on defending Cold Fusion,which works but cannot deliver significant power?

Thanks, Sterling.

From my review of the literature on the Net and in Infinite
Energy Magazine, I agree that C-F is too sporadic and
unpredictable, with all we now know, to be of much use in
the short term as a Free Energy supply system. I do think,
however, that it will eventually prove, with more knowledge
of the phenomenon's theory, and better materials, as Dr.
Storms has said, an excellent source of heat, from which we
could do much better than make a cup of tea.

With sincere best wishes,

Hal Ade

Needs New Model to be Taken Seriously

From: Alfred P. Reaud
To: Sterling D. Allan
Cc: <aq093{at}freenet.carleton{dot}ca>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Q. Are we fixated on defending Cold Fusion, which works but cannot deliver significant power?


Hi Sterling,

Cold fusion is only a reality if you can overcome the electrostatic repulsion of the nucleus of an atom. The main issue with cold fusion, therefore, is that there is not enough energy available in motions of the reacting particles at cold fusion temperatures.

Kinetic energy is E= mv^2. Temperature converts to an equivalent energy by the relation E=Tk where k is Boltzmann's constant, and T is in degrees Kelvin. Energy converts to an equivalent motion by sqrt(E/m). To a first approximation, to overcome the electrostatic repulsion of, lets say, the hydrogen nucleus, and get the reacting particles close enough to react, you would have to overcome the force generated by the charge of that nucleus, multiplied by 2 ( 2 protons reacting, each with the same charge).

Normal temperatures, i.e 20 degrees C, correspond to very low energies, 4*10^(-21)J. Assuming that the binding energy is going to be very similar to the energy required to fuse the nuclei, the binding energy would be somewhere in the range of 13Mev ~ 2*10^(-12)J ~ 157*10^9 degree C under at temperatures. The process works in stars because some of this energy is provided by gravity, which packs the particles together very closely..

Science looks at the above, and says no way! Even less likely for an atom farther up on the table of elements. The particles have to come together close enough to react, and there seems to be no way that cold fusion can achieve this. If there is something going on in cold fusion, it's not in the realm of current quantum or statistical mechanics. New theories and experiments will have to explain the phenomenon, or it will be relegated to the back burner of science forever. However, I keep an open mind on such subjects. I just read a scientific paper on warp drives, no BS, "Fundamental limitations on 'warp drive' spacetimes." Lobo & Visser, 2004 Class. Quantum Grav. 21 5871-5892, so anything is possible!

Thanks for your time, Sterling and Hal. It's always a pleasure to receive e-mail from thinking individuals. Please have a nice weekend!

Sincerely,

Alfred P. Reaud
Independent Investigator

"Cup of Tea" Not True

From: "Mitchell Swartz" <mica{at}world.std{dot}com>
To: <sterlingda{at}pureenergysystems{dot}com>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 8:17 AM
Subject: Pure Energy Systems, Director of Administration contact


You said: "The recent Washington Post article basically acknowledged that the science is real, but then came forward with the challenge that no one has yet even been able to boil a cup of tea."

The last sentence is inaccurate. You might read, or link to, the COLD
FUSION TIMES for more information if you are seriously interested.
COLD FUSION TIMES - http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

Best wishes.

Dr. Mitchell Swartz

Progress Takes Time . . . But 15 Years and What Do We Have?

From: erickrieg {at} verizon.net
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Q. Are we fixated on defending Cold Fusion, which works but cannot deliver significant power?

My thoughts are:

The process of refining silicon for crystals, depositing different doping, insulating and conducting layers, photolithography and other steps to make integrated circuits were horrendous challenges. Early yields for integrated circuits were 1 in 100. But with the tools of science, people kept after it and now parts with 10 million transistors work about 95% of the time with very advanced processes including clean rooms, ultra pure materials, super accurate controls and so forth. My point is that plenty of other technology goes from barely repeatable experiments to cheaper than a postage stamp - I would think given the trillions of dollars of financial potential that CF would be brought forward. Even if you say that the US is controlled by closed minded skeptics like Bob Park and Eric Krieg - there are at least 2 dozen or more other first world countries with technology and resources and every motivation to get it to work. It's been 15 years since the Pons and Fleischman debacle - wouldn't you think someone would have a device at least capable of warming a cup of tea by now?

See also

• DOE Report on Cold Fusion
• Cold Fusion (Directory at FreeEnergyNews.com)
• Pure Energy Systems News
• This Week in Free Energy™ - Weekly five minute blurb.

Page composed by Sterling D. Allan Dec. 2, 2004
Last updated July 16, 2005