CFRL English News No. 19 (December 10, 2000)

 Cold Fusion Research Laboratory     Prof. Hideo Kozima.


   This is CFRL News (in English) No. 19 translated from Japanese version published for friend researchers of Cold Fusion Research Laboratory directed by Dr. H. Kozima now in Portland State University. The e-mail address in PSU is

In this issue, there are following articles,

1)   A new paper published in J. New Energy Vol. 5 (2000),

2)   On the “Coulomb lattice” of neutron and proton clusters,

3)   G. Miley’s Comments in Fusion Technology Vol. 38 (2000).

Details of Russian Conference announced in the preceding issue will be given in the next issue.


1) H. Kozima, “TNCF MODEL-A Possible Explanation of Cold Fusion PhenomenonJ. New Energy Vol. 5, p. 68 (2000).


The TNCF model with a single adjustable parameter for the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP), a complicated phenomenon composed of various events occurring in complex systems, is explained as an example of the phenomenological approach with several Premises based on experimental facts. Applied to many selected data sets, the model has given consistent explanations of CFP and therefore the Premises of the model may be taken as reflections of some phases of physics in the materials where occurred CFP. Selection of more than 60 data sets explained by the TNCF model has a statistical meaning even if each data set may include some faults or errors in it. Physical bases of the Premises are investigated upon physics of neutrons in solids.


In this issue of J. New Energy, there is another paper by Japanese researcher R. Notoya the title of which is as follows;

R. Notoya, T. Ohnishi and Y. Noya, “Products of Nuclear Processes caused by Electrolysis on Nickel and Platinum Electrodes in Solutions of Alkali-metallic Ions” J. New Energy Vol. 5, p. 88 (2000)


2) About “Coulomb lattice” of neutron and proton clusters in neutron star matter and in solids.

   In the study of neutrons in solids, I have studied two papers written about 30 years ago, which suggest important properties of neutrons at sub-nuclear densities.

[1] G. Baym, H.A. Bethe and C.J. Pethick, "Neutron Star Matter" Nuclear Physics A175, 225 - 271 (1971).

[2] J.W. Negele and D. Vautherin, "Neutron Star Matter at Sub-nuclear Densities” Nuclear Physics A207, 298 - 320 (1973).

i) Neutron Star Matter

   In these papers, formation of clusters including neutrons and protons in neutron matter (how it resembles to the formation of neutron drops proposed by me in the paper appeared in Fusion Technology Vol. 37, p. 253, 2000, last Spring) is proved by variational calculation. First of all, following sentence shocked me ([1] p.249):

“----- This modification of A (nucleon number in a cluster of neutron and proton) due to lattice interactions strikingly illustrates the subtle interplay between nuclear and solid-state physics that takes place in neutron stars.”

   These papers appeared when the neutron star had been recognized as reality for the first time tried to determine the stationary state of neutron matters by variational principle. Spatial distribution of neutrons, formation of clusters with N neutrons and Z protons (and Z electrons) with definite ratio of Z/N, stability of neutrons against beta decay are discussed. Main interactions between particles are the nuclear interaction between nucleons and the electromagnetic interaction between charged particles.

   At first, stability of neutrons against beta decay is proved. Then, it is shown the “Coulomb lattice” of neutron and proton with a definite ratio of Z/N (<<1) is more stable than a uniform distribution of the neutron star matter at sub-nuclear density. This “lattice” is similar to crystal lattices composed of atoms and the sentence cited above was written by the authors of the first paper [1].

   In the Coulomb lattice (crystal lattice), clusters (atoms) are in a lattice with a lattice constant a, which depend on the density of the neutron matter (radius of atoms). In a cluster, Z/N is smaller than 1 and reaches less than 0.1. Distribution of neutrons in the cluster is wider than that of protons more pronounced but similarly to that in exotic nuclei. In the limit of large density, the lattice constant a becomes zero and the Z/N also approaches zero forming a neutron star.

   Applicability of this calculation for lower density seems to about 10^{30} cm^{-3} or less. This is interesting for the investigation of CFP from our point of view.

ii) TNCF Model

   Now, we turn to our TNCF model.

  In the TNCF model, it was assumed existence of trapped thermal neutrons in solids and its nominal density has been determined using experimental data sets as 10^{8} - 10^{13} cm^{-3}.

Several questions raised to this model were as follows; a) Stability of trapped neutrons against beta decay, b) Appropriateness of the determined value of the density given above, c) Source of these trapped neutrons, d) Possible explanation of gammaless de-excitation in CFP by TNCF model, etc. etc. etc.

   It is clear that some of these questions have been resolved already by the calculations in the papers [1][2] in relation with stable composition of neutron star matter at sub-nuclear densities if we notice a possible existence of high-density neutrons realized by the local coherence at boundary region pointed out in one of our papers appeared in Fusion Technology (Vol. 36, p. 337, 1999)

  Here, we point out possible explanation for only one problem of gammaless de-excitation.

In the ordinary nuclear physics, the nuclei are isolated fundamentally and its interaction with another particle if any occurs in short limited time. Or, if a many body problem is taken up, a nucleus is a part of the system and has no identity as we can see in the papers [1][2] cited above.

Therefore, the situation occurring in CFP is so different from those treated in nuclear physics where nuclei keep their identity while interacting with others.

In CFP, there are several decay channels in the excited nuclei existing in the material used there and gammaless de-excitation is not special but usual modes of de-excitation.

Similar explanation of events in CFP is possible from our point of view while ordinary nuclear physics could not give explanation for such events as the decay-time shortening and fission barrier lowering assumed to explain nuclear products in CFP.

   The successful perspective given above is a merit of exchanging relationship between different branches to explore a new branch of science.


3) George Miley’s “Comments” Fusion Technology Vol. 38, p. iii (2000)

   “ It is with deep sadness that I retire in June 2001 as editor of Fusion Technology (FT). Despite the extensive time involvement, I have immensely enjoyed serving as editor. Discussions with authors and reviewers were continuously stimulating, and I always enjoyed a feeling of satisfaction from providing this service to the fusion community and to the American Nuclear Society (ANS). There were, of course, a few downsides, largely concerned with occasional financial struggles, debates over rejected manuscripts, and continued attempts to control paper backlogs that slowly oscillated back and forth from being either too large or too small as circumstances in the fusion community changed.


   “Inclusion of papers on “cold fusion” (or anomalous nuclear reactions in solids) in FT has been one of the more controversial decisions I made as editor of FT. Rather than rehash the issues involved, I would simply repeat my view expressed in an early preface that it is the “responsibility of a journal to publish scientific work related to its field of coverage that can pass through peer reviews.” Indeed, all papers on this topic in FT have undergone a rigorous peer review. In the early years (1987- 1990) following Pons and Fleischmann’s original announcement, reviewers ensured that the papers were technically sound but allowed speculations about mechanisms since the field was so new. However, starting in 1990, as the field matured, review standards reverted to the same guidelines as other papers in FT. Further, based on discussions in the FT Editorial Advisory Committee, an additional reviewer from outside the “cold fusion community” was typically added on these manuscripts. Readers who are interested in more detail about events during this period from my point of view as an editor are referred to an article titled “Some Personal Reflections on Scientific Ethics and the Cold Fusion ‘Episode’” that I prepared for a fall issue of the Journal on Accountability in Research’ Policies and Quality Assurance, Vol. 8, No. 1 (2000).”


   As was stated in the first paragraph in the above Comments, G. Miley is going retire from the Editor of Fusion Technology by June 2001. His successor will be Dr. Nermin Uckan. It is not certain yet but we would like to hope that the new Editorial Board would keep his policy for “cold fusion”.

It is true that ideas presented in the field of CFP is in full variety from using ordinary physics to those of new ones ignoring principles of physics easily or thinking similarly to UFO and supernatural phenomenon.

But, it is the undeniable fact that there occur events showing bio-nuclear transmutation in bodies of some plants and animals even if someone tries to explain bio-nuclear transmutation by assuming a micro-cyclotron in a living cell, which contradicts principles of physics.