Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

May 27, 2008 by Lisa Zyga weblog
Cold Fusion
On May 22, researchers at Osaka University presented the first demonstration of cold fusion since an unsuccessful attempt in 1989 that has clouded the field to this day.

To many people, cold fusion sounds too good to be true. The idea is that, by creating nuclear fusion at room temperature, researchers can generate a nearly unlimited source of power that uses water as fuel and produces almost zero waste. Essentially, cold fusion would make oil obsolete.

However, many experts debate whether money should be spent on cold fusion research or applied to more realistic alternative energy solutions. For decades, researchers around the world have been simply trying to show that cold fusion is indeed possible, but they´ve yet to take that important first step.

Now, esteemed Physics Professor Yoshiaki Arata of Osaka University in Japan claims to have made the first successful demonstration of cold fusion. Last Thursday, May 22, Arata and his colleague Yue-Chang Zhang of Shianghai Jiotong University presented the cold fusion demonstration to 60 onlookers, including other physicists, as well as reporters from six major newspapers and two TV studios. If Arata and Zhang´s demonstration is real, it could lead to a future of new, clean, and cheap energy generation.

In their experiment, the physicists forced deuterium gas into a cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide, which absorbed the deuterium to produce a dense "pynco" deuterium. In this dense state, the deuterium nuclei from different atoms were so close together that they fused to produce helium nuclei.

Evidence for the occurrence of this fusion came from measuring the temperature inside the cell. When Arata first injected the deuterium gas, the temperature rose to about 70° C (158° F), which Arata explained was due to nuclear and chemical reactions. When he turned the gas off, the temperature inside the cell remained warmer than the cell wall for 50 hours, which Arata said was an effect of nuclear fusion.

While Arata´s demonstration looked promising to his audience, the real test is still to come: duplication. Many scientists and others are now recalling the infamous 1989 demonstration by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who claimed to produce controlled nuclear fusion in a glass jar at room temperature. However, no one - including Fleischmann and Pons - could duplicate the experiment, leading many people to consider cold fusion a pseudoscience to this day.

But one witness at the recent demonstration, physicist Akito Takahashi of Osaka University, thought that the experiment should be able to be repeated.

"Arata and Zhang demonstrated very successfully the generation of continuous excess energy [heat] from ZrO2-nano-Pd sample powders under D2 gas charging and generation of helium-4," Takahashi told New Energy Times. "The demonstrated live data looked just like data they reported in their published papers [J. High Temp. Soc. Jpn, Feb. and March issues, 2008]. This demonstration showed that the method is highly reproducible."

In addition, researchers will have to repeat the experiment with larger amounts of the palladium and zirconium oxide mixture in order to generate larger quantities of energy.

via: Physics World and New Energy Times

Explore further: Wendelstein 7-X: Second round of experimentation started

Related Stories

Wendelstein 7-X: Second round of experimentation started

September 11, 2017

The plasma experiments in the Wendelstein 7-X fusion device at Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP) in Greifswald, Germany, have been resumed after a 15-month conversion break. The extension has made the device fit ...

Perspective on: The future of fusion

May 13, 2011

Stewart Prager, a well-known plasma physicist and fusion scientist with a distinguished career and a record of discovery at the University of Wisconsin, arrived in January 2009 as director of PPPL, the United States’ ...

Recommended for you

New silicon structure opens the gate to quantum computers

December 12, 2017

In a major step toward making a quantum computer using everyday materials, a team led by researchers at Princeton University has constructed a key piece of silicon hardware capable of controlling quantum behavior between ...

Two holograms in one surface

December 12, 2017

A team at Caltech has figured out a way to encode more than one holographic image in a single surface without any loss of resolution. The engineering feat overturns a long-held assumption that a single surface could only ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3.8 / 5 (16) May 27, 2008
Awesome if it works. Don't hold you breath.
2.9 / 5 (17) May 27, 2008
LOL! I think I'll wait to see the neutron flux measurements. :-)
3.3 / 5 (11) May 27, 2008
Utmost respect to them for having the balls to do it, here in Europe it all self-censored out.
critically dependent on material type and purity - can you imagine getting a transistor to work before understanding doping?
4.1 / 5 (12) May 27, 2008
surprising that they've announced it without the neutron test.
2.8 / 5 (16) May 27, 2008
Good luck.
However who in their right mind would announce this without scientific confirmation. It is completely un-scientific even if they are correct. Worse yet, it is like one of those chain letters/emails. These are classified as a trojan horse virus. Until it has been scientifically tested this article should be treated as a computer virus.
3.4 / 5 (8) May 27, 2008
I definitelly agree that it is surprising that they don't announce the neutron tests(or that they didn't do one at all).

It is also highly surprising that so many suppossedly great Japanese professors with comfy jobs are willing to risk their reputations on this; all this suggests that unless your in a position to confirm/deny it, looks like a wait and see from over here!
4.6 / 5 (8) May 27, 2008
I'd be interested to see a real publication on this. It's not too hard to believe that it's just a chemical reaction. Deuterium is hydrogen, which is very reactive. Plus the use of a powder leads to all kinds of mechanisms for heating.

It would be pretty excellent if it was the real dea.
3.5 / 5 (15) May 27, 2008
Um. It can't just be a chemical reaction because they started with no helium and ended up with helium.

If helium was infact produced, then SOMETHING nuclear definitely happened.
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2008
It HAS to be replicable. I remember 1989 all too well.
2.8 / 5 (14) May 27, 2008
Um. It can't just be a chemical reaction because they started with no helium and ended up with helium.

If helium was infact produced, then SOMETHING nuclear definitely happened.

Actually, the statement re. the production of helium was that of an OBSERVER.

The true telltale, of which there is here strangely no mention, would be the production of NEUTRONS.

4.1 / 5 (8) May 27, 2008
Um. It can't just be a chemical reaction because they started with no helium and ended up with helium.

No where in the article do they say helium was produced. They just CLAIM the temperature rose because of fusion, but made no measurement of helium production.

Not 'cold-fusion' but pretty nifty fusion device you can make in your garage...
"Make your own neutrons, scare your friends, irradiate your cats, punch a hole in spacetime, etc."

I seriously want to build one though...

4.7 / 5 (14) May 27, 2008
For those of you who haven't followed the past 18 years of research there are 4 types of reactions which have been demonstrated in the laboratory.

1. d d > 3He(0.82 MeV) n(2.45 MeV)
2. d d > p(3.02 MeV) t(1.01 MeV)
3. d d > 4He (23.8 MeV) (No gamma)
4. n*d M > fusion or fission (transmutation)

#1 has been used by Schlumberger since 1955 as a source for neutrons for well logging.
#3 is what was demonstrated in Osaka.
#4 has been demonstrated at NRL, and elsewhere in the US, as well as Italy, Russia, China, and Japan.

If you want to duplicate the equipment there is plenty of information on LENR, just Google LENR.

In particular, there is a great set of slides and a lecture on YouTube by Dr. Storms (ret.) from LANL.
3.4 / 5 (13) May 27, 2008
There is nothing new here! Arata and Zhang have a much better public relations group behind them than others. Since the P and F announcement in '89 a myriad of researchers around the world have not only repeated the work but have figured out what it takes to get the reaction going. Though it is clear from the extensive data generated over the past 19 yrs (He4,Tritium, neutrons, and heat)that a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction is taking place, the problem is that the energy density is low and therefore not practical for anything, yet. However it appears that if the temperature is raised to >1000 deg then the energy density goes WAY WAY up ('62 USSR patent and jailed inventor)
2.4 / 5 (11) May 27, 2008
LIke I told some guy who said people up in Oregon or thereabouts had experimental confirmation of telepathy . . . o.k. so take over the world with it!
3.1 / 5 (8) May 27, 2008
If this works, any beaker with 2 electrodes in it will have to have a cut-throat price permit by the government, and palladium and the like will only be available to approved experimenter only,as a vital national resource. That's how humans politics works for the last few thousand years.

(Just like US Judges declared dioxin in Agent Orange is harmless to the poor Asians in VN War. They were too tought for it, apparently!...ha ha)
3.6 / 5 (7) May 27, 2008
Why would you expect the reaction D D-He would produce excess neutrons?
4 / 5 (6) May 27, 2008
D D -> He4 doesn't, D D -> He3 does.
3 / 5 (5) May 27, 2008
lets say it really works. How much palladium and zirconium oxide would you need to have one of these reactors at every house and car in the world?

do you have to refuel them only with water or do the palladium/zirconium also gets wasted after usage and you have to replace it?
3 / 5 (5) May 27, 2008
Wow: all the doubting Thomas's. It could be, maybe. Lets all wait for proof with duplication of the test by others.
2.2 / 5 (13) May 27, 2008
Most of you guys are jerks with an overactive prefrontal cortex, and youre all collapsing my wave function. Youll eat your words just like your ignorant predacessors, and youll eat them again when it turns out that everything you think you know is meaningless. This is nothing compared with what is possible. You need not wait long.
4 / 5 (6) May 27, 2008
Most of you guys are jerks with an overactive prefrontal cortex, and youre all collapsing my wave function. Youll eat your words just like your ignorant predacessors, and youll eat them again when it turns out that everything you think you know is meaningless. This is nothing compared with what is possible. You need not wait long.

You might want to start by eating the word "predecessor". Haha sorry just being a jerk myself.

I'm on board with the wait and see here though. I believe this is possible, and time after time what we know of science has been either proven or disproven. Why shouldn't this be one of those times? I am keen to see the data myself, but I see no real reason to simply disregard the reliability of this account.
2.6 / 5 (8) May 27, 2008
if helium is indeed present, i dont care if there is a neutron flux.

if this is real, then upgrades will increase energy output i am sure.

( ironman here i come ! )

3.7 / 5 (6) May 28, 2008
Fusion is really the only tech I can imagine that doesn't really fit into the whole nano/bio/AI/Moore's law singularity view of the future. If real fusion power can be developed it would give us raw power without the fine control of nanotech, which makes for a pretty exciting view of the future.

Here's hoping.
2.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2008
you can read an earlier(2003) paper by the authors here

it does menetion He4 wich would explain the lack even tryin to measure gamma radiation.
2.6 / 5 (5) May 28, 2008
As the DOE said, a new nuclear process would have to be invented to explain this. So, neutrons are not required to prove that something nuclear happens. They did report Helium production, although this Physorg article does not mention it.

Replication of a similar experiment has been presented to the DOE in 2004 (appendix C of Hagelstein's document).

You can find additional information on cold fusion on wikipedia.
2.7 / 5 (7) May 28, 2008
>However, no one - including Fleischmann and Pons - could duplicate the experiment, leading many people to consider cold fusion a pseudoscience to this day.

According to wikipedia article on Cold Fusion "There are over 200 reports of excess heat and 60 reports of anomalous tritium production". Although of caurse most remain sceptical there seem to be something there which certainly warants further investigation.
2.3 / 5 (4) May 28, 2008
Actually, within 3 months of F&P's announcement there were confirming experiments in India, at Texas A&M, and Japan. That having been said, understanding why and how the reactions occur has taken a lot of time. For those interested, I urge you to hit the library at The papers posted in the last three months are seminal for this area.
3.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2008
This is interesting not just from the Physics' point of view, but from the socio-psychological one as well. What's really behind this public announcement? Looks like only three explanations are possible.

1) Falsification
It's really hard to imagine an elder Japanese professor, let alone one decorated by Emperor's medal, let alone one having a hall in his institute named in his honour etc. - to undertake such an adventure. What's the profit? Helping his nephew sell more ice-cream branded "Arata Corudu Fudjion"? On the other hand, his cost WILL be very high. Reputation in Japan still means more than money. Even if nobody proves it's a falsification but everybody fails to replicate the experiment - the professor will gain a very doubtful publicity at best.

2) Error
The guys were working for very long in the field. Dumb mistakes are very unlikely. The proof concept is pretty clever: since heat output measurement is prone to errors, they%u2019ve also measured He4 and made a control run with H2 instead of D2. How would you build a machine that, when you pump deuterium into it, emits helium and stays hot for 50 hours, but when infused with hydrogen (I guess they used same volume, pressure, temperature as for deuterium) %u2013 emits something different (say water vapour) and cools off fast??

3) Something real?...
2.8 / 5 (5) May 28, 2008
Well it looks like this is becoming more credible. The next question is how much energy is produced and is it more than required to produce D2 gas? Comparison of the ideal and experimental values would be useful. Of course once the process is understood it can be made more efficient.
1.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2008
There are answers in their presentation. They claim the produced He4 amount to be 3E 17 atoms and produced FUSION heat energy to be 29.2 KJ while chemical heat energy produced being merely 0.76 KJ. Not bad at all for 1.7L of D2 and 24.4g of ZrO2*Pd "catalyst" taken as ingredients. They don't say much though about laser, sonic or other "detonator" they've used, but supposedly this is not a big energy input comparable to the output. Also if we assume 23.8 MeV per each He4 atom created 3E 17 atoms would mean (if I'm not mistaken) more than 1 MJ of fusion-produced energy, much more than they've measured.
4 / 5 (4) May 29, 2008
It is not hard to imagine how the physics of this might work. Think of the chemical latice of the asorption metals as analogous to a crab or minow trap, the D2 atoms pop in through chemical weak points in the latice and then become traped as the majority of the latice surface area is resistant to D2 passage. As the density of traped D2 increases, so does the propensity for fusion reactions, as the atoms bounce around inside the molecular trap. Adding some heat or other enery would excite the D2 increasing the likelihood of reactions, which once begun, would provide their own heat to continue fusion. In standard physics, the energy levels would have to be much higher to overcome the columb force repulsion of the nucleus and this is one area where our understanding of this process has broken down because no molecular structure would be able to hold D2 atoms excited to the energies needed to fuse. However, if the D2 atoms retain their electrons or if the electrons also remain trapped in the molecular latice, then it may be possible the Columb force is statistically nuetralized or masked at certain points in the latice allowing for fusion reactions to occur at much lower energies. We do not really understand the processes that might be occuring at nano levels. Nature is such a big tease.

Detection of the fusion by product HE4 is a gold standard for D2 fusion while nuetron detection is much more difficult with a small scale experiment. HE4 production would involve two fusion reactions, the first with D2 and D2 forming T3 and the second with T3 and D2 forming HE4.

The energy estimates by SNSN are extremely exciting. If this technology can be replicated on a larger scale independently, there is little that will stop its commercial development. I agree with many of the skeptics that multiple independent verifications and repeat measurements of the expereimental results need to be made, but I cannot help but get excited by the possibilities here. Historically, man has often discovered natural processes that do not meet our standard models and the pyhsics eventually catches up. If this works, there will be some fun times in the physics departments around the world getting a handle on what is going on.
3 / 5 (3) May 29, 2008
These are not my estimates; all the data was taken from their slide summarizing experimental results. But if we calculate a little further, we can get to a truly exciting part. According to the same slide, only about 0.086% of D2 has been consumed during fusion reaction producing 29.2 KJ. The rest 99.914% of D2 has most likely just chemically "burned" producing 0.76 KJ. And here's the best part: these 99.914% are not lost for the fusion. I assumed it will take 5 times the "burning" energy to recover the fuel for the second cycle (i.e. 5 * 0.76 KJ). This leads to the estimate: by repeating the process, you can achieve UP TO F*****G 30MJ OF TOTAL NET ENERGY YIELD FROM 1.7L OF D2 EVEN WITH ARATA EXPERIMENT'S REACTIVITY RATE
4 / 5 (2) May 29, 2008
(Disclaimer: I am in no way, shape, or form a physicist. The piece of paper I got from Michigan State ~20 years ago says something about Chemistry... But I've been an armchair follower of fusion research for at least that long.)

After reading people's comments above, I see I'm not the only one who thought, "Oh, God...another Fleischman/Pons deal..." And the arguments seem to be the same. "Where are the neutrons? Where's the radiation?" The one thing everyone seems to agree upon, though, is that if--by ANY mechanism--you are physically fusing D2, your reaction product must necessarily be some isotope of He. Otherwise it's not really fusion, is it?

However, now it seems there are folks who have the more charitable view of "Hey, so maybe it's not 'fusion' per se, but an energy source is an energy source." So much the better! (Assuming, as someone above pointed out, that this isn't simply heat generated by pressure or the D2 "dissolving" into the Pd.)

My limited understanding of such things, though, suggests that the solution for proof would be simple: HOOK UP A GC/MS TO THE WHOLE D*MN THING!!

Mind you, I haven't been out of school so long to know that setting up such experiments can often be a dodgy process under even the best of circumstances. There may be practical/procedural obstacles of which I'm not aware, but assuming whatever difficulties could be overcome, it doesn't seem like it'd be a huge stretch to have a GC right there or a mass spec. nearby when you do the reaction. From there I would think it'd be really easy to say "OK, see here? Pure deuterium in...OK, now we run the reaction for a little while (some number of hours)...And now we open this wee valve, run it through our handy GC/MS here and...Voila! Look at that! Helium!!"
3.7 / 5 (3) May 29, 2008

I'm telling you, it's either a very stupid hoax ('cause it will not pay) or the beginning of mankind's new era.
2.5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2008
Here's a intro to a paper which may help get everyone more up to speed on what's going on today in CMNR. The full paper is on LENR-CANR in the Library. The paper was added on 5/5/2008.

Hora, H., G.H. Miley, and K. Philberth. Radiochemical Observations for Comparison of Uranium Fission
with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR. in American Physical Society Meeting. 2008. New Orleans.
Radiochemical Observations for Comparison of Uranium
Fission with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR
Heinrich Hora1, George H. Miley2, Karl Philberth3
1Department of Theoretical Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052,
2Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois,
Urbana, IL 61801, USA
3Thanning, 82544 Egling, Germany
The discovery of nuclear fission by Hahn and Strassmann was based on a very rare microanalytical result what initially could not indicate the very complicated details of this
most important process. A similarity is discussed for the low energy nuclear reactions
(LENR) being proved from analogies of measurements of uranium fission. The
distribution of the elements with uranium fission is similar to the element distribution
with LENR. This was observed repeatedly and reproducibly with high density deuteron
concentration in palladium. This discussion is specifically focussed to the Maruhn-
Greiner local maximum of the distribution within the large-scale minimum if the fission
nuclei are excited. The consequences of the complications in uranium fission are
discussed in comparison with LENR with respect to the studies of a hypothetical
fissioning compound nuclear reaction via a concluded element 306X126 with double magic
3.3 / 5 (4) May 30, 2008
It is somewhat amusing to observe that all those people who just "know" that Prof Arata's experiment is an embarrassing example of pseudoscience always seem to base their arguments on the classical notions of the 19th century. Of course, any argument founded on the classical premise of point particles will rapidly come to the brilliant conclusion that deuterons can not fuse at room temperature owing to the huge mutual Coulomb barrier. Well isn't that just a crying shame ?
In fact, as Julian Schwinger argued several years ago, the most obvious explanation for Fleischmann-type anomalies is some sort of QUANTUM process like collective dipole-dipole interaction between deuteron sites in the metal.
If you dont understand this, you are probably not aware of the spatial extension (c. 0.3Angstrom ) of a hydrogen nucleus in the (approximately 3D-harmonic well) interstitial sites in transition metals.

BTW, the other "impossible" aspect of cold fusion claims, namely the absence of short-wavelength radiation is also easy to explain; any quantum amplitude distributed over many atomic sites forbids quanta with wavelengths much shorter than the coherence length.
2 / 5 (2) May 30, 2008
This is indeed a cold fusion.

The absense of neutrons may be explaned by its absorbtion at the place of origin. Neutron decays to proton and electron (i.e. hydrogen).
Neutron in cold reaction is cold too. It can't leave the place of fusion.
There is a myth in modern atomic physics that fusion requires high temperature.
It is an error. Fusion needs in hyperpressure for particles merging. It is neccessary to keep Rudolf Clausius's virial condition.
DT-fusion occurs not due to high temperature but despite it.
That is why "TOKAMAKs" are the clothes of naked king.
Cold super fusion was realized some years ago in Kiev, Ukraine, PROTON-2 nuclear lab (Vasili Adamenko group), the making of atomic nuclei having 1000 - 10000 a. u. mass by means of electric field hyperpressure.

Karim Khaidarov, physicist from Kazakhstan
many interesting papers on physics you can find on
2.3 / 5 (3) May 30, 2008
Ah yes, GLORIOUS KAZAKHSTAN! just kidding. Im hoping to be dazzled here. now we need a way to generate mass ammounts of electricity in a small package without a boiler and a cooling tower. And of course large packages with a boiler and cooling tower. can anyone speculate what kind of resources this process would require if proven? and can anyone speculate what the environmental impact might be? If I were to make a prediction, i would guess that if the process was completely understood, someone would come up with other ways to do it. Of course, this is all to tie us over untill the great paridigm shift, when fusion like this might become obsolete. Thats what I think.
2 / 5 (2) May 30, 2008
An orthodox physicist in a jewellery store, looking at a Breitling watch:
"Well I don't know, it does look cool, but there's no proof it's a real thing... I'll wait until few independent manufacturers manage to replicate it."
1.5 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2008
Elemental transmutations are not that big a deal, unless one's mind is confined to believing what they're taught, as gospel. Dayton Miller of CWRU proved Michelson-Morley wrong. For transmutations, look at the work of the famous Louis Kervran. I have myself transmuted acetylene into iron, repeating the work of others. So, what's the big deal with a D2 to He transmutation ? We know the Frascatti effect using Ti produces neutron bursts, and that is done well in the cold. It's documented and has been repro'd over and over. As I see it, with D2, using the gas presents problems relative to producing high concentrations owing to having to work with partial pressures. The Pd - deuteride system provides high concentrations of D, better than any gas compressor, and there are many documented incidents of H2-charged palladium rods suddently and unexplainedly going nuclear and getting red hot instantly. Problem with Pd is that a durable reactor would run into metal fatigue and whatever magical properties are necessary for the fusion would not likely be maintainable, due to hydrogen embrittlement which repeatedly stretches the lattice. If you want to know more about room-temp fusion, check out the work of Philo Farnsworth (inventor of TV, who blew his own vacuum tubes) who achieved and patented his device, which is like a vacuum tube, that produces a sustained fusion. The technology is known, it's the politics and power of your oil companies that won't tolerate such advances, since it would effectively destroy the entire global oil dependency economy they've created. If you don't understand that people have been murdered to maintain this empire, then you're living under a rock. Why do you think Rudolf Diesel was found floating in the English Channel after he introduced his new engine, that ran on vegetable oil, in competition with petra-oleum ?

2.5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2008
Of course politicians stand in the way, They hire large lobbyist firms to do their dirty work. Also Rudolf Diesel invented his spin on the combustion engine to run on Peanut oil to be exact. Anyways lets not stray off subject this is irrelevant to the pertaining thread. Don't get the wrong idea I'm not trying to poke, you come to the table with some viable info. I get very upset at the same circumstances you're referring too.
1 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2008
No problemo jdmdaily, my underlying point is that since the US adopted constitutional gov't, an environment was created in which scientific achievements were being made faster than the political system was able to evolve, from the standpoint of maintaining freedom. So we have all this science, but a government that is way behind the times. The groups described by WJ Bryant, Charles Lindbergh Sr., and many others are firmly entrenched in controlling activities in Wash. DC. The constitution was intended to prevent private conscience from dictating public policy, but, no piece of paper can control men.

All the new technology in the world is of no practical use, if there are individuals or groups in control of the strings. Those practically-minded scientists will take these factors into consideration, as they are at least just as pertinent as are the technical aspects, of bringing a new technology to market. This is on-point to cold-fusion, because the successful scientists / group in this area will completely disrupt the existing global power structure, if it were to come to fruition in a replicable and practically-useful configuration. Those who neglegt this aspect are not Renaissance Men, but just science nerds. Renaissance Men will not be offended by that statement, but nerds may. I believe the chances are slim to none that even if a successful version were created, the technology would displace oil and gas. One of the reasons is the size of the automotive and other consuming industries. However, the downsizing of automotive makers may be a blessing because it decreases the resistance to adoption of the new technology. A global depression may be an opportunity in disguise. The best scientists are also students of history and politically-knowledgeable. Examples of politically-ignorant include Royal Rife, Thomas Henry Moray, Gerard Renault, and a long list of others.

2 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2008
I remember reading that palladium (being one of the precious metals) in a monoatomic, superdeformed, high spin, and low energy state, lose their chemical reactivity and metallic nature -- thereby resulting in a state of Superconductivity. I am no scientist but i wonder if this has anything to do with the effects of the experiment.
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2008
Agreed, Birdman.
3.5 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2008
Most of you guys are jerks with an overactive prefrontal cortex, and youre all collapsing my wave function. Youll eat your words just like your ignorant predacessors, and youll eat them again when it turns out that everything you think you know is meaningless. This is nothing compared with what is possible. You need not wait long.

This guy is my favorite
3.5 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2008
An orthodox physicist in a jewellery store, looking at a Breitling watch:
"Well I don't know, it does look cool, but there's no proof it's a real thing... I'll wait until few independent manufacturers manage to replicate it."

Very funny. The simple physics of a time piece are well documented. Hence most physicists could not care less about whether the watch is a casio or a Breitling. Hence physicists are generally not known for flashy watches or other cosmetic baubles. Now if you could get an atomic clock wrist watch then that would be something (and I don't mean one that tunes into the broadcast atomic time)!

Thanks for the energy numbers by the way! It more than makes up for the joke.
3.5 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2008
I note that #3 under wsbriggs, 5/27, doesn't produce neutrons.
3 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2008
Any news?
A new experiment was planned for july, 10th.
3 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2008
Sounds like the reaction has a ridiculously low chance of starting up, thus it is sometimes not found and other times occurs suddenly after a time. But if it is really happening, then the chain reaction is what is responsible for making the temperature change occur so suddenly, but in every successful experiment it is reported to raise up to 50*C and then die off. Either the equipment becomes damaged by this point or the lattice just will not hold the hydrogen correctly at this temperature. It seems to me the best way to prove such a tricky expirament would be to skip the calorimeter testing and try to prevent the temperature from approaching 50*C as soon as it starts to move in order to try and produce a home run continuous reaction.
1 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2008
BTW, the other "impossible" aspect of cold fusion claims, namely the absence of short-wavelength radiation is also easy to explain; any quantum amplitude distributed over many atomic sites forbids quanta with wavelengths much shorter than the coherence length.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.