Editorial comment

	Vol. 230 No.11
PERRY A. FISCHER, EDITOR

Unexpected interest in low energy nuclear reactions stems from new results

Let’s talk about the once-taboo subject of LENR—I refuse to call it cold fusion. Not to belabor the point, but, as I pointed out in my May editorial, I have never seen the future of a technology so jeopardized by a name. Thus, Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions, or LENR, is the better label. Fortunately, the science has survived its earlier crummy name and has even advanced—now including ideas that bear little resemblance to the original 1985 experiment by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann at the University of Utah.

There now exist hundreds of groups worldwide working on the science, more than 20 in the US alone. There are some 37 companies that hope to make money—most are quite serious but they also range to the seriously deluded—as well as many publicly funded universities and institutions, most notably in Italy, Japan and in the US. There are several annual conferences and symposia, complete with peer-reviewed papers and well-credentialed researchers, all of which are growing steadily. There are websites with many of the papers available (www.lenr-canr.org) and others with news and issues (www.newenergytimes.com).

The phenomenon of excess heat—sometimes a lot of excess heat—is becoming more common in these experiments. Of course, anything outside mainstream science attracts iconoclasts and a few goofballs, but for all of the LENR research (also called Condensed Matter Nuclear Science) to be wrong requires goofball deniability, as the likelihood of that much systematic error is beyond improbable. Here’s what we know, or at least think that we know, expressed as simply as possible.

The original Pons and Fleischmann experiment was based on the well-known fact that the metal palladium is comprised of a lattice with certain dimensions. That spacing should allow hydrogen atoms to pack into it rather snugly. So, that’s what they did—pack hydrogen (in the form of deuterium, which has a neutron added onto it) by applying an electric current to force the packing. Hopefully, given the dimensions, if the hydrogen packing became dense enough, something “nuclear” might happen. Many, but not all, of the experiments still use these ingredients and ideas.

Repeatability, while it does occur, is still far from routine. It is somewhat agreed that this is at least partly because of something not understood about the palladium’s source history, contaminates or some other attribute. Some “batches” of palladium have produced much higher repeatability than random off-the-shelf palladium. Also, the chance of repeatability—that is, producing “net energy” heat—improves the longer the experiment runs (weeks to months).

Many folks think that the experiments done by the US Navy researchers at the China Lake Naval Weapons Laboratory, the Naval Research Laboratory and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWARS) have broken new ground. Experiments by S. Szpak and P. Mosier-Boss et al. use external high voltage or magnetic fields to pack the hydrogen even tighter, and also use an old technique—a thin plastic called CR-39—to detect high-energy particles. The CR-39 is placed close to the electric cathode and it shows (etched) the telltale traces of subatomic particles—different from what might be expected from “conventional” fusion, but, nonetheless, proof of some sort of atomic reaction. These experiments can and have been reproduced. There’s even a video at the websites mentioned above showing the atomic “explosions” spreading from a few specks to a heat spot.

Another interesting and repeatable experiment comes from  A. De Ninno et al., scientists with New Technologies Energy and Environment in Italy. It provides new evidence that supports production and control of LENR by demonstrating the simultaneous production of both excess heat and helium gas, the latter of which is “classic” evidence of nuclear reactions.

The excess heat from these LENR experiments may not require a complete upheaval and further years of infighting to explain. In fact, these processes might not be fusion or fission at all; many think they are a weird form of chemical-plus-nuclear reaction previously unknown.

Several scientists have now proposed explanations of the excess heat in terms of mainstream quantum physics (e.g., Widom-Larsen); a discussion of any of them is well beyond this column. But the fact that they are offering such explanations shows that, rather than being openly derisive or ridiculing as they have in the past, some scientists are trying to explain what has become an undeniable reality: LENR experiments often produce excess heat.

Regrettably, researching LENR is still not good for one’s career, but the situation is changing rapidly. Energy issues such as these strike an emotional chord in some folks. I’m not exactly sure why, but it seems to be some sort of curmudgeonly longing that results from age—knowing that the world you leave will not be too different from the one that you helped create—is comforting. So, if for some reason any of this pisses you off, take heart: There is still a tiny chance that all of this LENR is wrong, or at least will go away.

For the rest of us, be you youthful, gullible or, as I am, skeptically optimistic, the future of energy just might be extraordinary. Try imagining all of the fuel your car will need for five years carried in a lunch pail. Or a laptop computer that comes charged with all of the power it will ever need. (OK, let’s not get carried away with “irrational exuberance” optimism.)

The point is, while some folks in 1890 were projecting how many wagon wheels and bushels of oats would be needed for transportation during the next 30 years, a few diehard optimists (Benz, Levassor, Daimler, et al.) were hard at work making the first automobiles. And similarly, while hot-air balloons were a wonderful, although impractical, diversion, Wilbur and Orville plugged away in Ohio to disprove that divine journalistic admonition: If men were supposed to fly, God would have given them wings.

So let’s give these iconoclasts, wingnuts and entrepreneurs the benefit of the doubt. Do not be too surprised if these LENR liberals, these deuterium dilettantes, discover an extraordinary energy source and prove the naysayers wrong; history is on their side. Wilber and Orville, Wegener and Du Toit, Edison and Tesla, they all did it with dogged determination—which is the most potent form of energy in the universe.