CFRL English News No.8 (January 10, 2000)
Cold Fusion Research Laboratory Prof. Hideo Kozima
A Happy New Year to you and your group working in the CF field.
May prevail Recognition of Cold Fusion Research as a Science on the Earth for its Prosperity without Hazardous Byproducts.
This is CFRL News (in English) No.8 translated from Japanese version published for friend researchers of Cold Fusion Research Laboratory directed by Dr. H. Kozima.
In this issue, there is following items.
1) Our paper submitted to Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy has been accepted,
2) Opening of CFRL-Homepage,
3) Fate of Miley’s proposal to NERI of DOE, and
4) On the theory of CF phenomenon.
1) Our paper submitted to Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy last August was accepted for publication:
Kozima, H. and Arai, K. “Local Coherence, Condensation and Nuclear Reaction of Neutrons at Crystal Boundary of Metal Hydrides and Deuterides”
ABSTRACT: Using a concept of the neutron Bloch wave in the one-body approximation presented previously, possibilities of following effects in boundary regions of crystals including hydrogen isotopes are pointed out: occurrence of local coherence, formation of neutron Cooper pair, condensation of neutrons, formation of neutron drop and an effective nuclear reaction of a nucleus with thermal neutrons. It is shown that these new states and reactions will have strong effects on solid state-nuclear physics in metal hydrides (deuterides). Stochastic occurrence of localized nuclear reactions observed in CF experiments is explained by these properties of the trapped neutron. Possible application of the nuclear reactions in metal hydrides is discussed.
2) CFRL-Webpage was open by the effort of MS K. Arai of CFRL. Web site is:
Lists of books and papers, back number of this News, and others related with CFRL are available in this site. We hope readers visit here easily and make communication with us freely to promote CF research.
3) The recent issue of Infinite Energy (No.28) sent to CFRL from Mr. H. Yamamoto of Yamaha Motors Co. reports
“Killing of Prof. G. Miley’s Contract”
Director Mr. W.D. Magwood, IV of Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology replied Inquiry of Senator B. Smith (cf. News No.6, Item 7) and explains the story of the “killing” as follows:
“The proposal in question, selected for negotiation of an award under the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) is entitled Scientific Feasibility Study of Low Energy Reactions for Nuclear Waste Amelioration. This proposal was first reviewed by a peer review panel in the field of nuclear waste technology as identified in the proposal. We believe this review was appropriate. However, the unique and crosscutting nature of this proposal prompted us to conduct a further evaluation of the proposal by six independent peer reviewers specializing in the fundamental sciences, appointed by the Department’s Office [sic] Science. This review, completed on September 7, 1999, did not recommend that this proposal be funded. As a result, there will not be a NERI award for this proposal in fiscal year 1999.” (Italicized by H. K.)
We, cold fusion scientists, understand from this and other facts (reported already in previous issues of this News and others) that a theme taken up by technological viewpoint was suppressed by fundamental scientists trapped in an old regime contradicting CF facts.
I remember a history in 1992 of Physical Society of Japan (PSJ). Its Board of Directors exclaimed critical opinion to ICCF3 held in Nagoya (Chairman, Dr. H. Ikegami) for its “Scandalous operation” based mainly on the Letter of a participant from Europe. They have not answered to protests against the exclamation from Dr. H. Ikegami and Dr. R. Ueda and rejected a comment by me submitted to the Journal “Butsuri” for Members of PSJ with nonsense reasons. As Prof. S. Akasofu of Univ. of Alaska told, “mathematical scientists in arrogance symbolize decaying time of physical science by neglect of facts inconsistent with established framework of physics at hand.”
Decrease of scientific mind in Japan and US expresses extraordinary situation of natural science on the end of the century even if we notice following facts of competition with hot fusion, the scandalous book by G. Taubes, the hasty Report to DOE written by J. Huizenga, and so on. There is a hope survival of scientific spirit at least in Europe, homeland of the Science. In Russia, the Annual Meeting on the Cold Fusion and Nuclear Transmutation has been held since 1992 now on. In Italy, scientists in National Laboratories and Universities have worked in science of cold fusion.
This tradition of Science has been symbolized in the organization of next ICCF8 held in Lerici, Italy in May 2000. The Chairman of the Conference, Dr. Franco Scaramuzzi, declared Scientific Heritage of Europe in the Invitation to the Conference as follows:
“I am pleased to inform you that in May 2000 the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF8) will take place in Italy, at Lerici, near La Spezia, in a beautiful spot on the Tirrenian Sea, and will be organized by the “Ente per le Nuove Tecnoligie, l’Energia e l’Ambiente” (ENEA).
Cold Fusion, which some prefer to call “New Hydrogen Energy”, is still having difficulties as far as communication with the traditional scientific community is concerned. This has not prevented research on this subject from making progress, witness the seven preceding Conferences. The scientific features of this field are highly exciting, from the production of excess heat of most probably nuclear origin to the fascinating field of “transmutations”, to the theoretical interpretations in terms of collective and coherent phenomena in condensed matter. The prospect of potential future applications adds more charm to the field.
In this Conference an effort is made to improve communications between the Cold Fusion community and the scientific world at large. This is the significance of the important sponsorships that have been secured to it: the Italian Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), the Societa Italiana di Fisica (SIF).”
In this sentence, we read clearly enthusiasm to clarify CFP (Cold Fusion Phenomenon) scientifically and establish a New Science of Solid State-Nuclear Physics if it is necessary to explain the curious phenomenon of cold fusion.
4) A speculation on Theories of Cold Fusion and New Sciences
The strange nature of events in CF phenomenon induced various reactions to it from the overall denial of the phenomenon inexplicable by the present frame of Science to denial of Quantum Mechanics to make short-cut explanation of the phenomenon. To the reader abroad, the situation in Japan will be less interesting and we skip the talk about it in this English version. Only one thing to cite here is that even the Physics Today magazine of the American Physical Society is more open and tolerant for CF materials than the Butsuri magazine of the Physical Society of Japan, which rejects any article with words Cold Fusion in its title.
It is possible to speak generally that there are authorities in a juubako (established framework) who judge value of a work done and the reviewer system adopted in many journals in science now works effectively. It is impossible by definition to have such an authority in the case of trials to create a new juubako. An idea far from conventional juubakos has raison d’etre as far as it’s meaning is clear in relation with old juubakos.
In the case of CF phenomenon disclosed explicitly in 1989, confusion induced by the curious experimental data inexplicable in old juubakos of solid state physics and nuclear physics has lasted more than ten years until now. The confusion could be resolved by following discrimination of the problem. A) There is a group who denies experimental data, which are inexplicable by established principles with known conditions. There are two subgroups in other group who accepts reality of experimental data. B) The first is a subgroup that tries to explain the data by New Principles over Quantum Mechanics well established in the science of atomic and subatomic regions. C) The second is a subgroup who tries to explain the data by Quantum Mechanics with new conditions to apply it. In this case, the long history of material science since 1925-6 is taken up with appropriate weight as far as possible. The cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) is a small part of the material science developed in these 70 years and it is natural to try the data in CFP to reconcile with more various data in the material science.
There is, unfortunately, many scientists who have been in the group A) due to their interest related with vested rights or due to ignorance in experimental data biased with second class information. We have heard monotonous repetition of denial of experimental data by a criterion deduced from simple assumption of d-d reactions and read such articles as that in the Science magazine introduced in the News No.6 (Section 7).
As has been explained often, the TNCF model belongs to the group C) and the new condition not noticed before is taken as “the existence and behavior of thermal neutrons trapped in solids with peculiar property and structure.” The Bohr model of the hydrogen atom is, on the other hand, belongs to the group B) reforming principles of old electrodynamics and induced Quantum Mechanics finally.
We notice there are some trials in the group B) to explain CFP without explicit recognition of their standpoint. Anyway, a model or theory should be explicable whole feature of CFP with clear recognition of its standpoint whether it belongs to B) or C).
It is written in Infinite Energy No.28 that Dr. Steven Chu of Stanford University (Nobel laureate) made following comment on the theory of R. Mills: “It’s extremely unlikely that this is real, and I feel sorry for the people who are backing this.”
The editor of Infinite Energy write in reply: “To that we reply, with an out-of-context take-off on one of Dr. Robert Park’s lines, “As far as new energy is concerned, a Ph.D. and a Nobel Prize is no inoculation against foot-in-mouth disease or a guarantee against uttering foolishness.”
It is, however, not the problem of Nobel Prize laureate or simple Ph.D. but scientific consistency of facts and theories. The critical point is consistency of the conclusion of Mills’ theory belonging to the above group B), ”His theory of “classical quantum mechanics” that allows sub-ground state hydrogen atoms”, and Quantum Mechanics (Q.M.). The “classical quantum mechanics” which concluded “sub-ground state hydrogen atoms” contradicts with the conclusion of Q.M. and has to find a new fundamental principle over that of Q.M.
Similar discussion is applicable to the theory of E. Conte in the group B) concluding proton-electron fusion to make a neutron in cathode. It is, however, necessary to feed more than 782 keV to make the above fusion feasible which is the energy liberated by the beta-decay of free neutron into proton and electron (and anti-neutrino) in addition to overcome the small reaction probability inherited by weak interaction.