Cold Fusion Fleischmann Pons

Cold Fusion: Past, Present and Future: Martin Fleischmann

In 1983, Stanley Pons and I posed ourselves the following two question:

i) Would the nuclear reactions of deuterons confined in a lattice be faster (and different) from the fusion of deuterons in a plasma?

ii) Could such nuclear reactions be detected?

In the first part of this paper I will outline part of the background which led us to pose these seemingly senseless questions. This background can be summarized by the statement: "the behavior of ions in condensed phase systems above absolute zero (of which D^{+} in a Pd - type lattice is an example) can only be explained by Quantum Field Theory, Q.F.T.." (it is likely that this statement applies even to gas phase systems). It has frequently been asserted that the explanation of Cold Fusion would require a Paradigm Shift. I believe that this is incorrect: the Paradigm Shift is well-known; the real difficulty lies in the application of this shift to the Natural Sciences.

We therefore believed that the two questions were sensible but, nevertheless, we expected the answers to be "Yes" and "No". At that time we listed possible systems for study under five headings:

(a) Systems based on the electro-diffusion of D^{+} in host lattices (especially Pd wires);

(b) Systems based on the electrochemical charging of host lattices (especially of Pd electrodes);

(c) Chemical Systems based on superacid/highly oxidizing conditions: the link to "Hot Fusion";

(d) Chemical Systems based on superbasic/highly reducing conditions;

(e) Hydrides of these systems.

We started work on (b) as a preliminary to (a).

As is well-known the outcome of our experiments was radically different from our expectations. It became evident that there were markedly enhanced rates of nuclear reactions as shown by the generation of excess enthalpy at levels far above those which can be accounted for by chemical reactions. Moreover, this generation of excess enthalpy was not accompanied by the expected levels of the "nuclear ashes", tritium and neutrons.

The present state of knowledge of this section of the field can be summarized as follows:

1) Excess enthalpy generation can be detected provided "correct" electrode materials are used;

2) The early development of excess enthalpy generation can be detected provided experiments are carried out with adequately high levels of precision and accuracy;

3) In the normal conditions of operation, the systems show "negative feedback"; at longer times one can detect the onset of "positive feedback" which exceeds the effects of "negative feedback" (as shown, for example, by the increase in the rates of excess enthalpy generation with increases of temperatures);

4) "Positive feedback" appears to be associated with regular or chaotic oscillations;

5) "Bursts" in the production of excess enthalpy can sometimes be detected, during such "bursts" the rates of excess enthalpy generation far exceed the rates of enthalpy input even for the energy inefficient systems in current use;

6) The performance envelope is different before and after the onset of "positive feedback";

7) "positive feedback" leads to the generation of high levels of excess enthalpy provided the systems are driven sufficiently rapidly through the region of the onset of "positive feedback";

8) High levels of excess enthalpy generation can be maintained for prolonged periods of time;

9) He is the principal "nuclear ash"; tritium and neutron generation can be detected especially under non-equilibrium conditions;

10) The systems in use have been diversified to include the use of powders and electro-diffusion in fine wires; the latter systems are especially promising. (this survey will exclude investigations using light water.)

Aspects of the Sociology of Science will be considered. While Cold Fusion is certainly interesting from the point of view of Science, it may now be appropriate to devote more effort to other topics which can only be explained in the framework of Q.F.T. in an attempt to ensure the required Paradigm Shift.

Finally, the Social Implications of this field of research will be considered. While it is still too early to say whether (and, if so, how) excess enthalpy generation can be maintained and used, it is clear that Cold Fusion could become a significant energy source in the next century provided identifiable technological obstacles can be resolved.

Source: Discovery of Cold Fusion told by M. Fleischmann
The abstract of a paper by M. Fleischmann on the history of his CF research was presented at ICCF7, Vancouver, Canada on April 1998.

Cold Fusion Theory Experiment

COLD FUSION: An Objective Assessment. By Edmund Storms PhD.

In stark contrast to the impression given by the popular press and by a recent book (Voodoo Science), the phenomenon called 'cold fusion' has been duplicated hundreds of times in laboratories throughout the world and the subject has been discussed in over 3000 papers, many in peer reviewed journals. The reviews and articles listed below give a partial insight into what is known and the direction taken by experimenters and theoreticians over the years. This work is now being done in at least six countries. Unfortunately, because of the rejecting attitude of conventional scientists, much of this information is not available in scientific journals. However, a serious student can obtain most of this information from myself or from Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. The readers can decide for themselves how much truth is in the often heard statement that "cold fusion" is nonsense and has not been duplicated.

The current status of cold fusion (CANR) in a nutshell.
A variety of nuclear reactions, including fusion, have been demonstrated to occur spontaneously in special chemical environments at very low levels. Some of these reactions produce detectable heat. Occasionally, these reactions can be made to occur at potentially useful rates, but the reasons are not yet known. Until the necessary environment is identified and can be produced in large quantity, the field continues to have only scientific interest to a few people. However, once the novel environment has been identified, normal engineering methods can be applied to make the material in quantity for use in a suitable power plant.

This scientific interest has discovered thirteen different ways to initiate the reactions and has demonstrated different aspects of the effect hundreds of times in many laboratories world-wide. These demonstrations include production of anomalous energy, helium, tritium, and a variety of elements not previously present in the experimental container. Clearly, the phenomenon is not limited to fusion. Because the novel chemical environment is largely produced by chance, many efforts to replicate the effect fail. Such failure frustrates an understanding and emboldens skeptics.

Explanations for the effect are being provided by dozens of theoreticians, with growing success. The major problem has been that present understanding rests on observing such nuclear reactions after applying high energy - a brute force method. Naturally, this approach and resulting theory do not apply to the conditions being explored in this work. Subtle forces and process are overwhelmed by this large energy and made invisible. Indeed, many people noticed that when the applied energy is reduced, more fusion is observed than "theory" would predict. This behavior has been frequently ignored because the intent of conventional work is to make fusion happen at the highest possible rate. The CANR effect has shown that if the environment is optimized, the required energy can be minimized. Consequently, the phenomenon is just a natural extrapolation of conventional studies, but with the environment no longer being ignored.

The phenomenon demonstrates that within the correct chemical environment, a wide variety of nuclear reactions can be initiated without producing harmful radiation and with few radioactive products. This phenomenon provides a potential way to generate clean, inexhaustible energy as well as to reduce radioactive waste obtained from fission reactors to nonradioactive elements.

Although the effect is now being studied and the results patented in at least six countries, work in the U. S. is minimal , can not be patented, and can rarely be published in conventional scientific journals. An official bias against the phenomenon exists in the U. S. government that inhibits both public and private financing.

For complete article see;
Edmund Storms: LENR
(Edmund Storms obtained a Ph.D. in radiochemistry from Washington University (St. Louis) and is retired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory after thirty-four years of service. His work there involved basic research in the field of high temperature chemistry as applied to materials used in nuclear power and propulsion reactors, including studies of the "cold fusion" effect.)

Cold Fusion - Research Theorists - Dr Hideo Kozima

Kozima's Cold Fusion Research Laboratory was established by Dr. Hideo Kozima, Professor Emeritus at Shizuoka University, in April 1999 with his collaborators mainly graduates of Shizuoka University to promote researches in cold fusion phenomenon (CFP).

Cold Fusion Phenomenon(CFP)means nuclear reactions and accompanying events occurring in solids with high densities of hydrogen isotopes in ambient radiation.

Researches of CFP in CFRL is based on modern physics especially quantum mechanics of solids and nuclei.

A model (the trapped neutron catalyzed fusion (TNCF) model) was proposed based on characteristics of experimental data of CFP and used to analyze more than 60 experimental data sets. Results of these analyses until 1998 were summarized in a book 'Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon – Development of Solid State-Nuclear Physics and the Energy Crisis in the 21st Century' (1998) Works after the publication of this book are published in papers presented at several Conferences and published in several Journals.

A news letter, The CFRL News, has been published almost monthly to communicate with CF researchers and friends from July of 1999.

The TNCF model (Trapped Neutron Catalyzed Fusion model) is a phenomenological model with a single adjustable parameter that was applied to CFP and given unified explanation for them. Success of the model to give unified explanation of various events in CFP shows the premises assumed in the model have some physical reality.

Recent works in our Laboratory are concentrated in quantum mechanical investigations of the premises assumed in the TNCF model and are giving insight into physics of low energy neutrons in solids with high-density hydrogen isotopes. (Revised on August 14, 2002)

Cold Fusion DOE

Department of Energy (DOE) to Review Cold Fusion

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Will Review 15 Years of "Cold Fusion" Excess Heat and Nuclear Evidence

Exciting news that has circulated for about a month in the low-energy nuclear reactions field (LENR, a.k.a. "cold fusion") has now been confirmed. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has agreed to perform a review of the entire "cold fusion" (LENR) question. The DOE has made a startling reversal of its past refusal to evaluate with a fresh look the large body of experimental evidence that now supports highly anomalous non-chemical magnitude excess heat phenomena in some hydrogen systems, plus associated nuclear anomalies. The details of how the review will be conducted and when it is to begin have not yet been released formally, but it is expected to be completed by the end of 2004.

News of this major DOE reversal comes at a time of growing concern about present and future energy resources, as well as debate over funding for controlled thermonuclear fusion research, that is, "hot" fusion. It also comes at a time when much discussion of the "hydrogen economy" and fuel cells fills the media. LENR research suggests, by contrast, that orders-of-magnitude more powerful energy reserves are associated with hydrogen than conventionally understood chemical energy models would allow. This ought to please open-minded environmentalists and others concerned about the future of the energy-environment problem and potential impacts on the global climate.

Just as after the the original announcements by chemists Drs. Martin Fleischmann and B. Stanley Pons at the University of Utah on March 23, 1989 and by physicist Steven E. Jones at Brigham Young University subsequently, this disclosure by the U.S. DOE is certain to prompt intense controversy and expectation. The great difference this time, however, is that a much larger body of excellent published experimental work now exists from researchers around the globe, which the DOE should be compelled to examine in its review. By right, this review should have happened a decade ago— but better late than never. In our view, the body of supporting evidence for large magnitude excess heat and nuclear products in "cold fusion" is so solid at this time that it would essentially be intellectually impossible for an objective DOE panel to come to other than a very positive conclusion about the evidence and the prospect of technological applications. Of course, it is quite possible that bureaucratic, unethical machinations will again occur that will preclude such a reasonable outcome. We hope that does not happen.

Another difference between now and 1989: there are now operational experimental electrolytic and other excess energy cells in various laboratories in the U.S. and abroad; these are producing repeatable, verifiable excess energy that cannot possibly be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. In some cases, for example, one watt of electrical input power goes into a closed cell and an output power of 3 to 4 watts of heat occurs for a prolonged time. Much more powerful cells have also been operated. There is evidence of helium-4 and helium-3 production, tritium production, low-level neutron emissions, charged particles, light emission spectral anomalies, the formation of unusual chemical compounds, and even the transmutation of heavy elements in what seems to be a mix of fusion- and fission-like reactions. Laser radiation, ultrasonic activation, and magnetic fields, among a variety of other stimuli, have been found to enhance LENR reactions. It appears that an entirely new realm of physics and chemistry is suggested by the expanding body of experimental evidence. There are almost certainly implications for biology and medicine too. Many of the scientific papers from the LENR field and other historical materials can now be freely downloaded from the websites: and from

The confirmation of the DOE review came first in a draft article by Physics Today science journalist Toni Feder. This draft was circulated to several LENR scientists, critics, and others who gave input to Ms. Feder. New Energy Foundation provided input to Ms. Feder and welcomed receipt of the draft article from her. The article is to appear in Physics Today's April 2004 issue, which should be out by the first week of April. Physics Today is published by the American Physical Society, an organization which by-and-large has not been open to the study of LENR phenomena, though it has allowed small sessions on the subject to be organized at its national meetings. In fact, the late LENR theorist, Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger, resigned from the APS in the early 1990s because the APS journals refused to publish his theories about the possible mechanisms of cold fusion.

The first popular journal to publish the news of the impending DOE review is, however, the UK-based New Scientist. In its March 20, 2004 issue (which was received in the mail on March 20 at New Energy Foundation) freelance journalist Ben Daviss reports in a short article in the "Upfront: News in Perspective" section (p. 6), that James Decker, deputy director of the DOE's Office of Science, "has pledged to review evidence from the past 15 years of research in the controversial field." Daviss also writes, "The study could be completed by January 2005 and might open up the possibility of funding for cold fusion research projects."

There is additional high-level scientific support for the DOE review: Former DOE Office of Science Director, Dr. Mildred Dresselhaus (an MIT Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) is quoted in the Physics Today article: "I think scientists should be open-minded. Historically, many things get overturned with time." Prof. Dresselhaus was on the original ERAB (Energy Research Advisory Board) Cold Fusion Panel in 1989, which rendered a highly negative and very premature report on November 1, 1989. Though over the years she has not been one of the highly antagonistic critics of LENR with which that panel was packed, she did not assist approaches to the DOE for LENR reconsideration, during her brief position at the DOE in the Clinton Administration years. This is a welcome turn-around for MIT Prof. Dresselhaus, for which we commend her.

The initiative that helped launch the impending review was a letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham from MIT Professor Peter Hagelstein, a cold fusion theorist since 1989. Prof. Hagelstein chaired ICCF10, the Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, which was held in Cambridge, MA and in part at MIT, August 24-29, 2003. Solid demonstrations of excess power in electrolytic cells were exhibited on the MIT campus by two scientific groups. It was shortly after ICCF10 that Prof. Hagelstein wrote to Spencer Abraham. New Energy Foundation's magazine, Infinite Energy, published Hagelstein's letter in its November/December 2003 issue (Vol.9, #52, p. 46).

Prof. Hagelstein told the U.S. Secretary of Energy that Wall Street Journal reporter Sharon Begley, who had attended ICCF10 for a few days, concluded in her "Science Journal" column of September 5, 2003, "that perhaps most problematic about the conference was not what was presented and discussed at the conference, but the lack of interest on the part of the scientific community." The Begley column was titled: "Cold Fusion Isn't Dead, It's Just Withering from Scientific Neglect." The door to the DOE was evidently further opened by Randall Hekman, who is an MIT graduate (1969), a former judge, and an energy entrepreneur (Hekman Industries). Hekman knows Spencer Abraham and Republican Congressman Vern Ehlers from Michigan, who is a physicist. Ehlers is quoted in the Physics Today article that it is time for a new review "because there is enough work going on and some of the scientists in the area are from respected institutions."

One potential minefield for an honest review of the LENR evidence, apart from the bias and well-known hostility of the pathological skeptics, is the raising of the straw man of the alleged "requirement" for comprehensive microphysical explanation of LENR phenomena before the experimental data can be accepted. That is a well-known anti-scientific tactic that the pathological skeptics have employed for years. There have been many proposed theories to explain the evidence— both the excess heat and the nuclear products— but no single theory appears yet to encompass all the evidence. That is not an unusual condition on the frontiers of physics and science in general, which the critics pretend to forget. So, our strongest advice for a fundamental ground rule for the DOE review is that the review should focus primarily on determining this key finding: the validity of the evidence for non-chemical magnitude excess heat and nuclear anomalies— as well as any other physical anomalies associated with the systems, such as anomalies in light emission. Involved judgments about how the verified phenomena operate should be reserved for the future.

In May 1991, Eugene Mallove, president of the New Energy Foundation, wrote in Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor (John Wiley & Sons):

After reviewing mounting evidence from cold fusion experiments, I am persuaded that it provides a compelling indication that a new kind of nuclear process is at work. I would say that the evidence is overwhelmingly compelling that cold fusion is a real, new nuclear process capable of significant excess power generation. ... There is yet no proved nuclear explanation for the excess heat. That excess heat exists is amply proved. (From the Preface, p. xv)

This conclusion of 1991, in the first book in the world which presented a positive evaluation of the discovery, was based on already very, very solid evidence. Now the DOE review panel has much more evidence to back up that same conclusion. It remains valid in 2004 as it was in 1991. Another excellent book, which reviews the entire cold fusion saga, is by MIT-trained engineer Charles Beaudette (MIT 1952), Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2002 edition, available in the on-line store).

As an additional assist to the prospective DOE review, a Memorandum to the White House from New Energy Foundation president Eugene Mallove (requested by President Clinton's staff in February 2000, following the urging of our supporter Sir Arthur C. Clarke) has been posted at Review panelists and concerned citizens should examine this document. It provides a concise historical and technical overview of the scientific problem of energy from water, titled "The Strange Birth of the Water Fuel Age." Unfortunately, neither the Clinton Administration nor the present Bush Administration acted on the suggestions of this Memorandum, until the present impending review, which was separately prompted by Professor Hagelstein's letter. We sincerely praise U.S. Secretary of Energy Spenser Abraham for facilitating this landmark decision to launch a review.

Concerned citizens (and especially MIT graduates) should also examine the 55-page report about the events at MIT in the early days of the cold fusion controversy - a downloadable pdf-file at

Editor: Haselhurst


1. - Official Cold Fusion website for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) and Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR)
2. - Edmund Storms obtained a Ph.D. in radiochemistry from Washington University (St. Louis) and is retired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory after thirty-four years of service. His work there involved basic research in the field of high temperature chemistry as applied to materials used in nuclear power and propulsion reactors, including studies of the "cold fusion" effect.
3. - Article on Department of Energy (DOE) - Pending Review of Cold Fusion. Phenomenon discovered by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, then disavowed by the scientific establishment, but subsequently confirmed worldwide in thousands of experiments, may finally be recognized as a revolutionary discovery of science.
4. - Wave Structure of Matter explains the importance of resonance and environment for Cold Fusion to occur.
5. - Non Profit New Energy Foundation
6. - Kozima's Cold Fusion Research Laboratory