PDF VERSION: http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET26.pdf
HTML VERSION: http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET26.htm

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

New Energy Institute gratefully acknowledges the generosity and support of our major sponsors:

New York Community Trust
Anonymous

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

EDITORIALS AND OPINION
  1.  Guest Editorial: The Change Has Been Given (Henri Lehn on ITER)
  2.  Correction
NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
  3.  Remembering Akira Kawasaki
ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES
  4.  The Widom-Larsen Not-Fusion Theory
  5.  An Interview with Dr. Edmund Storms
  6.  Interview with Irving Dardik and Alison Godfrey of Energetics Technologies LLC
  7.  PUBLICATIONS
  8.  SCIENCE AND ENERGY NEWS

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

EDITORIALS AND OPINION

1. Guest Editorial: The Change Has Been Given

By Henri Lehn

[Ed: French researcher Henri Lehn has an interesting brief critique on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project. Readers should be forewarned: Lehn's letter is not for the lay reader; it assumes that the reader knows about this subject.

In 1975 and 1976, Lehn worked as a supplier for the French atomic energy commission on the “Joint European Torus” thermonuclear fusion project in Culham, U.K. JET was a tokamak developed on the basis of a proposal by Igor Kurtchatov in the 1950s.]

It was said at the time the tokamak fusion reactor prototype was conceived that it should be able to be developed within 30 years.

Thirty years after JET and $20 billion later; the plans for ITER have been finalized: an experimental facility—soon to break ground—which will hopefully be able to demonstrate (Project name: DEMO) a working fusion reactor in another 30 or 40 years.

The Tokamak reactor is a project that has been continuing on a constantly changing delivery schedule. But significant engineering problems stand in the way of creating a stable plasma and in achieving breakeven.
The first wall torus is effectively a big problem: It must be completely leak-tight on the inside. However, it needs to be porous on the outside because of the production of helium in the material produced by activation by 14 MeV neutrons coming from the fusion reaction.

A Japanese lab will be in charge of the development of this material. I can't imagine what kind of material this will be: one which is leak-tight and porous at the same time. But they certainly appear to have some ideas.

I followed the development of the material for the Superphenix fastbreeder. Even under the influence of only 4 MeV neutrons, it is very difficult to maintain a stable steel envelope. Also, with 14 MeV neutrons, as are planned for ITER, nobody knows whether this problem has a viable solution.
 
Another problem is that the consumption of tritium by ITER will be larger than the world's total production of tritium. Where will the fuel come from?

The question of how to confine the tritium is a serious one, because confining such tiny atoms like hydrogen or tritium is impossible. The management of tritium is done through an air flow in a double envelope. The project managers are promoting the management of leaks; they are not so bold as to promise it will be leakproof. In the end, some tritium likely will be released to the atmosphere. Tritium is a beta emitter; it has a 12-year lifetime, not good for children and other living things.

Even if ITER is successful, the next step, DEMO, has basic problems that are far from solved.

To generate energy at 100 million degrees Kelvin is a good thing. But how do you plug your washing machine into such an energy source?

It will come as a result of blankets around the torus - blankets made by a mixture of lead and Lithium-6.

In fact, it’s the reaction neutron + 6Li that releases the energy.

A steam generator operated by a water tube going through the blankets will be necessary.

The possible physical (not chemical) reaction between liquid lead and water is extremely devastating. Such a reaction is more devastating than sodium on water. That's why the Russians have stopped development of fastbreeders using lead or lead-bismuth alloy.

Who will agree to manage a facility having many thousands of tons of liquid lead even if the facility is not in use?

How will they refurbish first wall blankets of hundred of tons of lead containing a huge quantity of diluted tritium and extract this tritium?

Tritium has to be reinjected in the torus to maintain thermonuclear fusion. To reinject isn’t a problem itself. A pump is enough, but the problem is how to extract the tritium that is lodged in the lead.
 
And who knows what will be the influence of the very powerful Greens? They killed our Superphenix fastbreeder project.

Fundamental questions remain unanswered even if the ITER researchers are able to obtain breakeven and stabilize the plasma in ITER.
 
Some years ago, I talked with Guenady Mesyats, vice president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, asking to him whether the Tokamak proposal for cooperation by professor Yuri Kurtchatov in the 1950s was a hoax.

He said, “The hoax is still running, but the Americans have played the hoax of Star Wars. That's the game. The change has been given.”

I think the U.S. government has made the right decision to get away from this Russian tokamak hoax. Congratulations.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Correction

Thanks to New Energy Times reader Tom Carey for alerting us to a technical error in the article "International Collaboration Advances LENR Frontier" in issue #25.

We wrote, "As well, the power consumption dropped as a result of the increased resistance inside the cell."
 
The correction should read, "As well, the power consumption dropped as a result of the decreased resistance inside the cell."

(Letters may be sent to "letters" at the New Energy Times domain name. Please include your name, city, and state or province.)
 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
 
3. Remembering Akira Kawasaki

By Peter Gluck
 
I recently learned that my good friend Akira Kawasaki of Los Angeles, Calif., passed away in August.

Unfortunately, the old soldiers of cold fusion are dying; they have not learned how to fade away. Gone is Chris Tinsley, at 54 a victim of a heart attack. Giuliano Preparata’s genius flame was extinguished by cancer. Gene Mallove was killed by dark forces; we never will know how powerful these forces were.

And now the lady with the scythe has taken my good friend Akira Kawasaki, who is perhaps less-famous and -known, but cold fusion, and his friends, including me, owe him a great “thank you.”

He was a most generous, enthusiastic, helpful, wise and charming man—and strong, because, like old age, cold fusion is not made for sissies. We have discussed everything cold fusion and more for eight years via the Internet.

Death used heavy artillery to defeat him: numerous, intense chronic illnesses. Throughout the ordeal, his body became lethargic, but his soul remained bright and his optimism indestructible. Akira believed and, I hope, now knows for sure that eventually cold fusion will win and prosper and give energy to mankind. Perhaps he knows now how this will be done and when, too.

Most of us will remember him taking photos and making video recordings at conferences and workshops. Those on the front line, the staff of Infinite Energy magazine, and other underfunded researchers, know how Akira generously helped them—morally and financially—in an unforgettable manner.

But only a few know that Akira was a formidable, self-made cold fusion experimenter, and he obtained some very interesting results. I enjoyed his hospitality in the autumn of 2000 and saw his PC-controlled setup in the garage; it was working for months, continuously.

Akira conceived and built it alone, based on the results and ideas of Arata and Les Case: gas-phase, high-vacuum alternating with deuterium gas—a mixture of very fine palladium and carbon graphite, as I recall, at high temperatures.

And he had an original system to vibrate the catalytic bed. He measured nuclear particles, but he thought he also saw episodes of local thermal runaway: a logical, bright approach.

I do not know more. He kept the details of his experiments secret, and he intended to publish them in Infinite Energy magazine.

Akira Kawasaki has a place in the Pantheon of cold fusion. Please remember him when the good days arrive.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES

4. The Widom-Larsen Not-Fusion Theory

By Steven B. Krivit

[Note: This article is about 32 pages in length and contains about 12,000 words. Readers may skip to the end if they would like a summary of my observations and conclusions. Readers may go to this Web site for a brief technical overview of the theory or this Web site for a more detailed review of the theory.]

Contents
1. A Controversial Theory
2. Approach 1: Other Viable CMNS Theories, Part 1
3. Approach 1: Other Viable CMNS Theories, Part 2
4. Approach 1: Other Viable CMNS Theories, Part 3
5. Approach 2: Critique of Widom-Larsen Theory From CMNS Community
6. Approach 3: Critique of Widom-Larsen Theory From Scott Chubb
7. Observations and Conclusions of CMNS Community Response
8. Approach 4: Brief Critique of Widom-Larsen Theory From Richard Garwin
9. Resources

1.   A Controversial Theory

Allan Widom, a condensed matter physicist with Northeastern University, and Lewis Larsen, president and CEO of Lattice Energy LLC, have taken bold steps to suggest that they have figured out the mysteries of cold fusion.

I, through New Energy Times, have taken the bold step to pay attention to the Widom-Larsen theory, despite advice to the contrary.

Only one little problem. They say it ain't fusion, folks.

Many researchers within the CMNS community have suggested that Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen—and anybody who pays any attention to their ideas—are being foolish and risking embarrassing themselves and even harming the image of the field with such nonsense.

Let's rewind just a bit. I began looking into "cold fusion" seriously seven years ago. Just about every single person who knew me thought I was a little kooky to begin with, but that didn't keep them from laughing. My friends and family humored me, and bless their souls, they were all very polite about it.

In 2004, I wrote a book with Nadine Winocur, at the time my wife, and we said that cold fusion was real. As expected, Bob Park sneered at us, and I consider his snide comment about me in his "What's New" a place of honor.

But some people looked deeper. I am now in India, I have been here for 12 days. For the first time in 17 years, members of the Indian atomic energy community are considering resuming LENR experiments, and they have asked for an update on the field.

But let's get back to this kooky nonfusion theory by Widom and Larsen. It won't be the first time I've been willing to embarrass myself, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

First, however, I should offer my standard disclaimer. I'm not a physicist, and I don't even play one on TV. I don't even have a science degree. So how can I possibly talk intelligently about nuclear physics theories?

Well, mostly I can't. But I know people who can, and this is the core of my investigative journalism process.

I am grateful to have learned the basics of nuclear physics, from university professors and nuclear engineers, in the course of my journalism, and I can follow a general conversation about the matter. Don't ask me to calculate anything that requires more than 10 fingers, but I, like most adults, do have a good idea of at least two of the four fundamental forces; electromagnetism and gravity. I'm just beginning to learn more about the strong force and the weak force.

I began looking at "cold fusion" in detail after attending the 10th international conference in Cambridge, Mass., in August 2003. I couldn't make heads or tails of the various theories, and being ignorant of nuclear physics didn't help much either. Some folks said that "cold fusion" worked by the joining of the centers of two hydrogen-type atoms. In science-speak, this is the fusing of two deuterium nuclei. A deuterium atom is like hydrogen; it has a single proton, but it also has a neutron. If you strip the single electron from the hydrogen atom, you have the nucleus. And some folks said the answer to the mystery of the heat-producing reaction announced in 1989 by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah was from the joining of three, four or more deuterium nuclei.

Some people said it didn't even require deuterium (a special form of hydrogen). They said that regular hydrogen could explain some of the phenomena, but they didn't suggest that regular hydrogen was creating fusion reactions, because that was really pushing it. Proposing how two deuterium nuclei can come together and fuse is hard enough, so nobody that I know even suggested that two hydrogen nuclei could fuse together. The improbabilities are way too high.

The fusing thing happens like this: Picture two magnets with similar poles; they do not like to come together. Funny thing, though—if you have super-human strength and somehow you can push two deuterium nuclei close enough together, you'll overcome their natural repulsion because, when they are in short range of each other, another force takes over. That's called the strong force.

I was aware of a dozen proposed fusion theories as well as a few spin-off ideas from each of these. The funny thing was that everyone who had a theory thought that his or hers was right and that the other theories were wrong. Even with my meager math skills, I could see that this didn't add up; in fact, mathematically I suppose one could say they canceled each other out.

That led me nowhere, and I paid little attention to theory for quite a while.

The first data point on this trail occurred on May 29, 2005. Vincenzo Valenzi, coordinator of the Centro Studi di Biometeorologia of Rome, included me on a distribution that reported a seminar given by Widom that was held at the University of Rome-3 on May 27, 2005, titled "Weak Interaction and Cold Nuclear Reaction." Francesco Celani also sent an e-mail to his colleagues encouraging people to attend the Widom seminar.

Valenzi said the seminar had been organized by himself, Gianni Degli Antoni and Flavio Fontana of Milan, Paolo Manzelli of Florence and Fulvio Bongiorno of University of Rome-3.

Valenzi said the reaction from Bongiorno, professor of mathematical analysis, was that the "presentation of Widom was very important and rich of possibility to develop something like a new Manhattan Project."

But I didn't pay any attention to this matter until June 2005, when David J. Nagel, a professor at the George Washington University encouraged me to look at the Widom-Larsen paper. Nagel, a physicist who worked for 36 years at the Naval Research Laboratory, considered the Widom-Larsen paper worthy of serious attention, and he thought that it might prove to be a viable mechanism for "cold fusion." I told Nagel that it looked Greek to me, and he helped me understand a few of the basic concepts.

In November, I got wind of another small conference in Italy on Oct. 14 that featured Widom. I also saw a flurry of lively e-mail exchanges with many Italian scientists and a few Japanese scientists. 

I read an optimistic quote about the Widom-Larsen theory from Lino Daddi, a physics professor with the Italian Naval Academy.

"Perhaps we have a theory that explains all the anomalous phenomena," Daddi wrote.

"The transmutation observed from Yasuhiro Iwamura [Mitsubishi Heavy Industries] are explained without the problematic multiple reactions" of others' theories, Daddi wrote.

I also received an e-mail from physics Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, who looked at the first Widom-Larsen paper.

Josephson wrote that he considered their work “highly significant, since the physics may well be sound.”

I looked back at my notes and found this report by Valenzi, translated by Yogi Srivastava, which I had not read in detail at the time, from the day after the Widom seminar.

At around this same time, I began to hear a few comments from some CMNS researchers that the Widom-Larsen theory was wrong, but they failed to come forward and voice their dissent directly and publicly. Some people also discouraged me from paying attention to the theory.

I learned that the Widom-Larsen theory cited some light-water experimental work by George H. Miley et al. at the Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering of the University of Illinois. So I asked Miley for a comment.

"I've taken a brief look at it so far," Miley said, "and from a first look, this theory agrees with the distinctive multipeak reaction product data from my experiments amazingly well. Testing against experimental data is an essential step that any serious theory in this field must face up to, but very few have to date."

Widom and Larsen appear rather confident about their theory. They have published one paper so far, in a prominent European physics journal, and they appear to have submitted four others, each dealing with different aspects of their theory. With each paper, they have distributed a brief announcement which introduces each paper. We have published most of these in New Energy Times. Links to our articles with these announcements and other related information can be found at this Web page.

Initially, one critic of Widom-Larsen (a "cold fusion" theorist himself) told me why he didn't give the theory much credit.

"They're outsiders,” he said. “They have not come up through the ranks of the CMNS community, and therefore they have the disadvantage of not really understanding what they are talking about."

The rumor mill is in utter chaos with regard to this theory. I have heard people speculate that the Widom-Larsen theory is absolutely wrong and that it is being used to raise money disingenuously with a promise that the theory will lead to success. I also have heard that people at the Department of Energy are enthusiastic about the theory.

CMNS theorist Akito Takahashi responded, "What is your belief that you always pick up only one extraordinary theory by Widom-Larsen among so many theories? I do not understand how it is fair."

Takahashi, Storms and other CMNS researchers have wanted to know why I've given more attention to Widom and Larsen. The answer is simple. I've heard positive comments and seen positive critiques about the Widom-Larsen theory from third parties, not just the self-promotion of other theorists. As far as any other CMNS/LENR theory, nobody but the theorists themselves has gone out of the way to tell me that any other CMNS/LENR theory could be correct. Not one.

I began a quest to seek commentary from wherever I could, within the CMNS community, with physicists I met at the American Physical Society meeting, and elsewhere.

I had heard from the SPAWAR researchers that a particle physicist colleague of theirs had a look at one of the papers and that, after a critical review, he was unable to find an error in it. Needless to say, this grabbed my attention. Heretofore, I understood that all other CMNS theories either were incomplete or relied on imaginary physics. This Navy review and others of the Widom-Larsen theory are published at this Web page.
 
"The paper looks good to me," the physicist wrote. "It's a clever idea, I think (clever ideas are always obvious in hindsight)."

My attention on the Widom-Larsen theory lapsed until September 2007, at which time Widom and Larsen produced their fifth paper as well as an update to their fourth paper.

I began to take a more serious look into the Widom-Larsen theory. As well, I looked for signs of other theories that showed signs of hope. I embarked on a series of approaches.

In the first, I attempted to learn more about other viable CMNS theories.

In the second, I sought critique of the Widom-Larsen theory from the CMNS community.

In the third, I engaged in a detailed critical discussion of the Widom-Larsen theory with Scott Chubb, a theoretical physicist with the Naval Research Laboratory.

In the fourth, I engaged in a brief discussion of the Widom-Larsen theory with one of the most prominent physicists in the United States, Richard Garwin of IBM.

2.   Approach 1: Other Viable CMNS Theories, Part 1

On Sept. 28, 2007, I sent out a query to the CMNS researchers (I have 260 active researchers listed in my database).

I asked only one question: "Is there any one of you who will state, on the record, that any CMNS/LENR theory, besides your own, is a) correct and b) complete?"

Naturally, I did not expect any of the theorists to give any of the other theorists credit. But I did expect that perhaps others in the community would be willing to vouch for the merits of some of the other theories. 

Here are all of the responses:

3.   Approach 1: Other Viable CMNS Theories, Part 2

Having received no suggestions from the CMNS community to my Sept. 28, query, on Nov. 2, I sent out another query, this time expanding the search for any theory that "is in any way correct." As before, I requested comments from anyone but the authors of their own theories—no self-promotion permitted. I received no replies. 

4.   Approach 1: Other Viable CMNS Theories, Part 3

Among a few discussions I read regarding my search, theoretician John Fisher wrote a comment that I thought was appropriate and wise.

"People never agree in advance on a good or proper hypothesis for the theory of a new field of science," Fisher wrote. "The test of an hypothesis is the extent to which it explains and predicts observed phenomena, not its initial popularity. Only when a theory provides successful explanations and predictions will people come to agree that it was based on a good hypothesis."

Consequently, I sent out another query to the CMNS community on Nov. 26, as follows: "Can any of you point to any experiment that shows a match for your theory? If so, can you please provide me with the related papers and identify the specific experiments for me?"

We received replies from Akito Takahashi who directed us to one of his papers, John Fisher, Xing Zhong Li, John O'Mara Bockris, K.P. Sinha and Andrew Meulenberg. Julian Brown did not answer the question but provided an interesting answer. 

In 2005, I and Dr. Peter Gluck, a retired chemical engineer in Romania, performed a related investigation of views of "cold fusion" among the people involved in the field. We sent out a survey to CMNS researchers asking for their answers to four questions:

The results of the survey can be viewed at this Web page.

5.   Approach 2: Critique of Widom-Larsen Theory from CMNS Community

In the second approach, I sought critique of the Widom-Larsen theory from the CMNS community. I referred to the second version of their fourth paper, "Theoretical Standard Model Rates of Proton to Neutron Conversions Near Metallic Hydride Surfaces" for many of the questions. All of their papers are listed and available for download at this Web page.

On Nov. 1, 2007, I asked 21 specific questions in an attempt to get explicit, objective critique on the paper.

I received a variety of responses, some brief, some formal. Only one person elected to answer all of the questions. Because some responses either were sent in PDF or they include mathematical formulas, we have published the following critiques in PDF rather than HTML:
Rod F. Gimpel
Jacques Dufour
K.P Sinha and Andrew Meulenberg

MIT professor and cold fusion theorist Peter Hagelstein sent a critique to New Energy Times but he only granted us permission to publish it anonymously. On that basis, we declined to publish his critique.

The other responses are as follows:

Per Stringham's request we note the recent paper: Vlasov, Alexander N., Ryazan State Radio Engineering University, Russia, "Experimental Researches of Electrical Explosion of the Wire Spiral Turned in the Torus and Dipped in Water."

6.   Approach 3: Critique of Widom-Larsen Theory From Scott Chubb

In the third approach, I engaged Scott Chubb in a detailed critical discussion of the Widom-Larsen theory. Chubb is the author of a theory that purports to explain LENR phenomena as a form of nuclear fusion.

Chubb has been one of the most vocal critics of the Widom-Larsen theory and has said that they have committed ethics violations.

I took Chubb's concerns about ethics seriously, particularly because he had been the editor of the important special publication by Taylor and Francis titled "Accountability in Research Dealing With 'Cold Fusion" in 2000.

Chubb has made multiple references to the work of other theorists from whom he has suggested that Widom and Larsen have taken ideas. In Infinite Energy magazine, Chubb wrote, "Professor Yeong Kim mentioned that he had thought of a similar idea in the past but had concluded that the effect probably would not account for most of the phenomena. … Widom and Larsen appear to have made use of ideas that were also suggested by former University of Tennessee Professor Lali Chatterjee."

Chubb also wrote in Infinite Energy that Widom and Larsen's "theory is incomplete. ... The theory does not explain how the resulting reaction ... would lead to observed byproducts, at rates commensurate with experiments."
 
I explored these and other issues with Chubb in a series of e-mail exchanges over several weeks.

Chubb had provided New Energy Times with a formal critique of the Widom-Larsen theory in March 2007. One paragraph caught my attention.

"On the other hand, Widom-Larsen have failed, abysmally, to cite earlier work related to similar 'theories.' For this failure, at best their presentation of their 'theory' can be viewed as being misguided. At worst, what they have done should be viewed as being unethical. I hope that, in the future, they will refer appropriately to earlier work by others in the field."

I thought it was interesting that Chubb was so concerned about giving proper credit to prior authors, considering his rejection of their theory. Who fights over a consolation prize?

Our exchange is below:

As we went to press, this was as far as I got with this discussion with Chubb.

Anderman, 83, still has an office at the University of Hawaii, and he says he is working fast and furiously with a patent application for his cold fusion theory.

He had not seen or heard of the Widom-Larsen theory. I faxed him the papers per his request. I asked him whether he thought Widom-Larsen should have cited and credited him in their work.

"No, they approach it very differently," Anderman said. "There is no connection between their theory and my theory. I'm working on cold fusion; they're working on something else."

I took a close look at the paper Chubb referred me to, "New Physical Effects In Metal Deuterides," which he said showed the evidence for 23.8 MeV energy per helium-4 atom.

I was unable to find a reference for an experimental value that showed 23.8 MeV. However, I did find an experimental value of 31 MeV per 4He atom with an error bar of +/- 13 MeV. The way I read the report, the actual value could be anywhere from 18 to 44 MeV.

The authors measured excess heat with precision mass-flow calorimetry and performed careful helium measurements. The authors state that there are no other "energetic reaction products." That is, no tritium, helium-3, alphas, protons or neutrons were measured; the only nuclear reaction product is helium-4, according to the authors. So based on the ratio of calorimetrically measured excess heat and the observed quantities of helium-4, the calculation of the reaction energy per helium-4 atom comes in at 31 MeV with a stated experimental error bar of +/- 13 MeV. This gives an experimental uncertainty of 42 percent.

I did see the statement in the text: "The Q value of 31 +/-13 and 32 +/-13 MeV per 4He atom measured is also consistent with the reaction D+D >4He + 23.8 MeV (heat)." I find the usage of the term "consistent with" to be wishful thinking at best, and perhaps even disingenuous. They don't mean to suggest that 31 equals 23.8. What they mean, according to McKubre, is that the value 31 is within the range of what they might possibly see if, in fact, the reaction is producing helium- 4 atoms at 23.8 MeV, given the error range and the inability to gather all the helium-4 into the gas phase for analysis. So on close examination, it would be inaccurate to say that they obtained 23.8, or even 24 MeV relative to this experiment. However, they could say the actual experimental value was possibly within that range.

McKubre also pointed out to me another experiment from the same paper, (SRI M4) from which they drew several sequential samples of helium-4 and compared them to the value of 23.8 MeV. One sample showed 62 percent, another 69 percent, and another 104 percent of 23.8 MeV per helium-4 atom. This translates to 22.9* MeV with a 10 percent error, giving a range of 20.6 MeV to 25.2 MeV. They achieved this value only in the last sample from this one experiment. McKubre explained that the difference between the last sample and the first two samples is because they "shook the lattice, thermally and by repeated absorption/desorption cycles of D, to remove loosely bound 4He" so they could measure it." Tritium and helium-3 were measured in both experiments and found not to be enhanced above background. The values for these energy calculations are accurate assuming there were no other nuclear reaction products such as neutron emissions or transmutations.

[*  McKubre states that in the end they obtained slightly more helium than they expected so that the mean value of Q was 4 percent less.]

I suppose it is possible that the reaction could in fact be producing 23.8 MeV helium-4 atoms, but I'm not quite sure how one gets from that possibility to the assertion that this D+D > 4He +23.8 MeV (heat) is the underlying process, particularly when there is so little support for Hagelstein's model. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the Department of Energy reviewers had difficulty with the McKubre, Hagelstein, Nagel, Chubb and Hekman paper.

I also don't know how they know that the experimental values dictate that D+D > 4He +23.8 MeV (heat) is the only possible nuclear reaction, either. It's appealing, of course, but it still seems like the assertion is unsupported by the data.

I sent several of the previous technical paragraphs to the authors for fact-checking.

Hekman deferred to the other authors on the technical data but he provided the most surprising comment, considering the fact that he was a co-author on this "New Physical Effects..." paper featuring Hagelstein's "cold fusion" theory, and that Hekman was a key player who facilitated the Department of Energy's second look at "cold fusion" in 2004.

"I am personally increasingly impressed with the work of Lew Larsen and Allen Widom," Hekman wrote. "If I were a betting man, I'd say they are likely to make some major advancements in the field in the coming days and months."

McKubre responded that they did, in fact, check for neutrons and transmutation and they found none that could account for any significant levels that would change the claimed energy measurements. He also suggested the remote possibility that some sort of exotic products, previously unmeasured in LENR experiments, may have gone undetected.

In the course of this investigation, I found that some people are misstating the branches of deuterium-deuterium thermonuclear fusion. The branches are as follows:

Hagelstein and other theorists in the CMNS community suggest that in LENR a variation of the third branch of thermonuclear fusion explains the LENR "cold fusion" phenomena:

D + D > 4He + heat (23.8 MeV) 

For the record, this is not a third branch of thermonuclear fusion as some people have erroneously stated in the CMNS community, or even a variation of the third branch. If this equation truly represents reality, it is a novel reaction. 

I also had a conversation with Ed Storms, who said that LENR experiments indicated examples of the second branch of thermonuclear fusion. However, he could direct me to only one experiment, by Aiello et al., that suggested 3.02 MeV protons.

In the paper by Aiello et al., it is not clear to me whether they performed a direct measurement of the proton's energies or made an inference or whether the value they obtained and their interpretation are rigorous. I am left with the opinion that there are no rigorous reports of a single experiment of LENR that shows any branch of thermonuclear fusion.

The good news is that something nuclear is clearly going on. Something is producing energy in an environmentally benign manner. The bad news is that I feel somewhat uneasy about the theory claims by some LENR researchers, particularly because I had suggested in "The Rebirth of Cold Fusion" that the proposed theory D + D > 4He + heat was "how cold fusion works."

7.   Observations and Conclusions of CMNS Community Response

Before I get to reporting my exchange with Garwin, in which he, one of the most critical of the "cold fusion" critics, failed to tell me of any error in the Widom-Larsen theory, I would like to make a few observations about the Widom-Larsen controversy and the response from the CMNS community.

In a former life, I was a senior technical specialist in the field of data networking. I remember many times, typically over a few beers, sitting with my colleagues and arguing about many inane and hair-splitting details about the merits of frame types, packet sizes and transport protocols: which ones were better, faster, etc. The thing I found most interesting is how clever and vociferous enthusiastic technical people can be when they (we) are arguing a point. 

As I stated at the beginning of this article, I am not a physicist, and it is impossible for me to make my own technical evaluation of the Widom-Larsen theory. I understand that even being a physicist may be insufficient to fully evaluate the Widom-Larsen theory; one may need a background in either astrophysics or particle physics to follow this theory.

After going out of my way to seek balanced comments about the Widom-Larsen theory, I notice the following trends:

1. The responses are all over the map. Some people say the theory is without error; some say it violates basic concepts. I find this spectrum most interesting.
2. With rare exception, the outspoken people within the CMNS community do not appear to see the potential value in the fact that this theory has correct math, it lacks imaginary assumptions and has at least some matches to experimental data.
3. Many people within the CMNS community seem to be willing to tell me about character issues that they see with Widom and Larsen. I have declined to publish most of these, though Scott Chubb has published his personal comments about Larsen, so this is not new ground. I have provided Larsen with an advance copy of Chubb's critique and afforded him the opportunity to respond in this article.
4. I notice an element of suppression among some of Widom-Larsen's critics. For example, one of them wrote about my pending investigation, "Perhaps the answers you obtain will finally eliminate this distraction."

The person who said this explained it to me later. The rationale focused on protecting the public from spending its money on bad science. Chills went through me as I recalled a comment by Steven Koonin (at the time with Caltech) to reporter Tom Gieryn on Nov. 16, 1989, when Koonin was asked about his role in the JASONS.

"I would just start to make sure nothing dishonest is foisted on the public," Koonin said. "[The JASONS] are a group of physicists who advise the government. One of the things they do very often is to debunk crazy schemes that somebody wants the government to fund."

Gieryn was, as I am now, alarmed. He asked Koonin whether his actions with the JASONS weren't a conspiracy to suppress.

That was 19 years ago. Who knows? Considering the failure of Garwin (at one time JASONS’ chairman) to find a flaw in the Widom-Larsen theory, perhaps the JASONS are taking a second look at LENR.

After all of the issues Chubb brought to me about Widom and Larsen, he was unable to show me anything that was technically wrong. He said that Widom-Larsen failed to cite Kozima. In fact, they cited Kozima in the second release of their fourth paper. Chubb stated that Widom-Larsen should have cited Fisher. Wrong: Chubb later contradicted himself and said Fisher's theory was unrelated. Chubb said that Widom-Larsen failed to cite Anderman. However, when I spoke to Anderman, he didn't agree. Chubb said that Widom-Larsen failed to cite Chatterjee. I spoke with Lali Chatterjee. She didn't have enough time to read and comment on the papers. However, she has not kept up with the subject and did not recall whether her paper depicted any viable mechanisms; she did not have any problem being forgotten in the history of this subject matter.

Chubb used McKubre's helium-4 measurements to say that Widom and Larsen were wrong. At best, Chubb used circular logic and unintentionally may have exposed a long-standing myth in the CMNS field. 

I am aware of at least two other researchers in the CMNS community who have privately said they thought of the Widom-Larsen ideas first. I do not doubt that other people may have had similar or identical ideas. After all, it is well-known that many innovative ideas surface spontaneously.

Unfortunately, history, the Nobel prize committee and the patent office give out only first prizes. Perhaps Widom and Larsen have put the whole thing together coherently and published it first. After all the huffing and puffing, what appears to be left are ego battles and envy.

Certainly, Widom and Larsen appear to be withholding intellectual property secrets about their theory, and some people will, understandably, be angry about this. If Widom and Larsen are correct, then it would be in everyone's best interest to make haste and to figure out what they've figured out and get it into competing applications.

If Widom and Larsen have a partial or complete answer to "cold fusion," as they claim, and it turns out that it's not fusion, does it really matter? Sure, I published a book proclaiming the reality of cold fusion. So what if I was wrong about what I accepted and believed as the underlying mechanism for Fleischmann and Pons' excess heat? Big deal. The theories were speculative to begin with.

What convinced me, and many other people, of the reality of this field was the experimental work. We analyzed the experimental studies, cross-referenced them among various laboratories around the world over many years, found no significant errors of procedure or data analysis and saw unmistakable correlation among the data. If a viable theory explains 19 years of an experimental mystery, this should be cause for celebration, not bitterness.

"Cold fusion" has followed a true path of the scientific process. It began with experiment, observation. If Widom and Larsen are partially or fully correct, bravo to them! If other theorists are partially or fully correct, bravo to them, as well. But show me the math, please.

There is one more observation I wish to make and the coincidences of this one are curiously ironic. When Fleischmann and Pons sent their manuscript to Nature in March, 1989, it landed in the hands of Garwin's daughter, Laura. She sneered and scoffed.

"It didn't have the elementary control experiment," Garwin wrote. "The obvious thing you see when you look at that paper is, Why didn't they do it with H2O? Any high-school student could've refereed it, because of that obvious ingredient of the scientific method."

Knowing full well that the science community would flush the discovery down the toilet if Garwin's idea of a control showed positive results, they courageously performed such an experiment. And most remarkably, it showed some positive signs of excess heat. Pons reported this in an April 17, 1989 press conference, it was reported in Nature on April 27, 1989. Certainly Fleischmann and Pons can be criticized for many things. But the courage and integrity required of Pons to report what he observed, in the face of such adversity, should not be forgotten.

I will permit Richard Garwin to have the last word in this article.

8.   Approach 4: Brief Critique of Widom-Larsen Theory From Richard Garwin

Richard Garwin has had a long and interesting relationship with the "cold fusion" field.

He had been one of the first to take a shot publicly at Fleischmann and Pons.

"Somebody is going to have to eat his hat," Garwin wrote on April 20, 1989, in Nature. "Within the next few weeks, experiments will surely show whether cold nuclear fusion is taking place; if so, it will teach us much besides humility."

Throughout the 19-year history of "cold fusion," Garwin continued quietly to keep tabs on the subject. In the 1990s, after Caltech "disproved" cold fusion, he visited the SRI International cold fusion laboratory in Menlo Park, Calif., to audit its alleged successful "cold fusion" experiment. He later also visited another laboratory, in Paris, France.

He was none too pleased when he learned that I obtained, and published on the Web, his report from SRI International. He and Caltech's Nate Lewis held a cold fusion cell in their hands there, and their report to the Pentagon said that the cell had produced excess heat with a 10-1 signal to noise ratio.

Some time after that, I challenged Garwin when he wrote a few derogatory and unscientific comments about the French LENR researchers to Washington Post Magazine reporter Sharon Weinberger.

He appears to have gone to great lengths to reject the experimental results of the field. Thus, I've learned from him some of the best possible arguments that people have come up with to justify calling it a nonscience.

After communicating with him over the telephone and e-mail, I finally had the chance to meet him on Feb. 16, 2007.

I was attending the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting. The speaker, John Holdren, let me and the other 2,000 people in the room know that Garwin was there. It wasn't subtle. Holdren flashed larger-than-life portraits of physics luminaries on the projection screens. Most of them were from the past; a few were still with us. And he told us that Garwin, a man whom he had much admiration for, was right there in the room with us, gracing us with his presence.

As luck would have it, shortly before the end of Holdren's presentation, I spotted Garwin heading for the exit, and the paparazzi in me took over. I rushed over to him as he was on the way to the escalator and introduced myself. He told me that he didn't have time to stop and talk, but I rode with him down the escalator and walked with him to the door, to his apparent irritation.

I asked whether he had seen the Widom-Larsen theory. After a moment, he said he had. This immediately piqued my curiosity, and I asked my normal question, "So, what errors have you found in it?"

I had only 60 seconds with Garwin before he left the building. During this brief time, he said something about a problem with gamma shielding which I didn't completely follow.

I sent Garwin a follow-up e-mail right away to seek clarification.

"When I spoke with you the other night I was not clear about your comment," I asked. "Were you referring to an error in their theory or something that was missing from it?"

I also copied Widom and Larsen on my message. Widom and Larsen jumped into the conversation and sent Garwin this response on Feb. 19, 2007:

"We have heard that you think that the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs is 'wrong.'

"Could you please elaborate in writing on the specifics as to exactly where you think that we are in error? If the above attribution is accurate, we are very curious about how you came to such a conclusion.

"By the way, have you read all four of our papers?"

Garwin replied to Widom and Larsen on Feb. 19, 2007, and copied me.

"I didn't say it was wrong. I said that I had not received a reply [from you] to my question/suggestion about using such a material as a shield against high-energy gamma or x-rays.

"I had told [Krivit] that I had written you and not received a reply and that, if the theory were correct, there should be this shielding capability.

"Did you ever reply to my letter of Oct. 10, 2005?"

Garwin provided the text of his Oct. 10, 2005, e-mail to me:

"I suppose you have calculated the effectiveness of these materials in shielding against external x-rays and gamma rays.

"Could you send me those calculations and the results of any experimental measurements?"

Widom and Larsen responded on Feb. 19, 2007, to Garwin:

"You are correct - we have not responded to your prior questions about the LENR gamma shielding application.

"We did not answer those particular questions because of underlying intellectual property issues.

"Nonetheless, we thank you again for your interest in our work."

After providing the above messages to me, Garwin replied to me on Feb. 19, 2007.

"Dear Steve Krivit,

Now you have a story.

R.L. Garwin"

9.   Resources

Widom-Larsen Chem Forums Letter
New Energy Times Widom-Larsen Page
Institute of Science in Society "How Cold Fusion Works"
Institute of Science in Society “From Cold Fusion to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science”
Institute of Science in Society "Transmutation, The Alchemist Dream Come True"
Chicago Tribune "Nuclear Reactions May Produce Phones' Power"

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

5. An Interview with Dr. Edmund Storms,
      Author of The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

By John Allen Rudesill
(Excerpted from and with permission of Infinite Energy)

We are visiting with Dr. Edmund Storms, who recently published his first book on cold fusion, titled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations About Cold Fusion.

Storms has crowned his 34 years as a radiochemist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and 18 years in cold fusion science with this solidly convincing review of the field. The work is written in a narrative style and is replete with tables and figures to support the text. Extensive references and bibliography enable the reader to identify the primary sources, many of which are available on the e-library Web site, www.LENR-CANR.org.

The book has forwards by two distinguished scientists who have long been active in the cold fusion effort. Both Dr. David Nagel, a professor at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and Dr. Michael McKubre at SRI in Menlo Park, Calif., regard this work as a benchmark guidebook that will serve scientists and students interested in cold fusion as a must-have reference for many years.

I agree with them and highly recommend the book for people interested in the subject. They will find the book well-written and accessible to nonscientists while challenging to serious academics. I commend Storms for the serious effort made to produce this important book. The book is published by World Scientific Publishing Co.; Infinite Energy hopes to offer the book in its catalog soon.

Readers of Infinite Energy will recognize Storms as a contributor over the years and as having served on the magazine’s editorial board. This interview was conducted mainly by e-mail, given the geographic separation and time-zone difference.

The Q&A begins with background on and insight into Storms the man from his early years (not covered in the book). It then highlights key technical information that he has concluded is critical to the successful replication of cold fusion phenomena.

John Allen Rudesill: Your landmark book, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, provides some career biographical information that gives insight into your adult years. It is always fascinating to know what, if any, experiences from a person’s formative years helped steer them toward the path that they later followed. Can you recall any particular experiences or events from your youth during the end of the Depression and war years that shaped your ideals and ignited your passion?

Edmund Storms: Like many people who made science their career, I was interested in how nature worked from as early as I can remember. All through high school, I had a laboratory in the basement in which I did those things modern children are no longer permitted to do, like making explosives and rockets.

I taught myself glass blowing so that I could make a Geiger counter to search for uranium. In fact, in those days I had to even make the vacuum pumps because what little equipment that was available was much too expensive for a kid to buy. Nevertheless, I could buy all the chemicals to make all of the common explosives.

Because our house was near the edge of town, the explosions raised no alarm. If I had grown up now, I would be looking forward to a long prison term instead of a productive life in science. Back then, chemistry was the science that held a kid’s attraction because all kinds of neat stuff could be made, sometimes with the added advantage of getting the parents’ attention when smoke filled the house.

JAR: Something beyond smoke and bangs happened in your youth. How did the development and use of the atomic bombs affect your outlook in your early years?

ES: I found the atom bomb to be a horror and I wanted nothing to do with its refinement, even though I eventually worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory on nonweapon programs. Some efforts are too dangerous for all mankind to be developed, no matter what temporary justification is used.

This and other examples have convinced me that human society is eventually doomed because increasingly lethal weapons will be developed under one pretense or another. Mentally corrupt people will find reasons to use them for what seem to be good reasons at the time. I have no doubt that cold fusion will be used to enhance the power of weapons, but meanwhile it can do some good for mankind.

Therefore, we in science can only expect to make life temporarily better for ourselves and one another because we need more energy, yet every energy source has the potential to destroy.

JAR: You have made a very clear and powerful statement against weapons of mass destruction - in particular, nuclear devices. What was the main reason you chose a Ph.D. in radiochemistry, given your aversion to nuclear weapons mentioned in the previous answer?

ES: I got interested in radiochemistry only because I was interested in studying under Professor Joseph Kennedy at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. He started the field of radiochemistry and was a great teacher with ideas well beyond the field. The field became even more interesting to me when weapon testing dumped a lot of radioactivity on St. Louis. Ordinary people had no idea what was happening to their environment and bodies. My studies gave me a much better idea of what to fear and what to ignore.

JAR: During your early years at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the late 1950s, did you ever imagine that there might be some remarkable, even astounding, possibilities for peaceful fusion energy and, further, that you would become an important participant?

ES: Neither I nor anyone I know had any idea such nuclear reactions were possible. Yet many people at Los Alamos tried to make the claims work once they heard about the claims of Fleischmann and Pons. I and a few others succeeded, which gave us a reason to continue our studies. Once I was sure the claim was real, I knew it would have a great effect on my life as well as on society. However, I’m sad that it took so long and that the energy problems had to get so serious before people woke up. In addition, the field has been good to me in the interval by giving me something worthwhile to do after I retired from Los Alamos. Other people who tried to stay in the field have not been as fortunate.

JAR: You have described in your book some of the events at Los Alamos in the wake of Fleishmann and Pons. What was it like for you at Los Alamos when the their announcement came out, and how did that change your career path at the lab?

ES: After the announcement, Los Alamos changed and became a very exciting place to work for a short time. Once the claims could not be easily replicated, unimaginative managers and politicians took over. At the same time, the Department of Energy was applying mindless rules to all work. As a result, a large fraction of the lab retired when they were given a bonus for leaving. Typically, the people in charge were surprised and had to hire many back as consultants, myself included.

Eventually, Carol and I completed a house in Santa Fe containing a cold fusion laboratory, which made even working part time at Los Alamos unattractive. Seeing how poorly the present laboratory has been treated by the government, I’m glad cold fusion came along when it did.

JAR: Eighteen years have passed since that announcement, and the world has gone through many changes, with the obvious overuse of resources by the growing human population and our appetite for better living conditions. How has your ongoing involvement in cold fusion and low energy nuclear reactions shaped your priorities and values over the last two decades?

ES: Studying and researching cold fusion has become my full-time job. Thanks to skeptics, competition for this job has not been high, making my small efforts significant. So, thanks to the skeptics, I have something to keep me busy. For this, I’m thankful.

JAR: Do you feel at this point like a man on a mission regarding getting the low energy nuclear reaction technology out of the neonate care and into the mainstream commercial pipeline?

ES: I have no mission except to get out of bed without too much effort and challenge my mind in the lab. Society will find cold fusion when the need is greater than the ignorance. Even then, the idea will be fought by established energy industries. I can only provide the facts, rather like scattering seeds with a hope that some will take root. Unfortunately, land in the U.S. is covered by rocks, allowing only a few seeds to grow. I’m too old to remove the rocks, so I just keep throwing seeds.

JAR: I see that you don’t see yourself advocating for the acceptance and development of the technology, at least in the vocal and ardent fashion of a Gene Mallove, whose influence continues through his writings and Infinite Energy magazine. What messages do you want your reader to get. Do you expect the reader to be convinced that cold fusion is real and that considerable data exist to support that conclusion?

ES: The book was written mainly to show the reality and to help people investigate the subject. I have no idea whether the effect can be made practical. It is premature to expect a practical application and unwise to promise such a result. Nevertheless, I think the probability that cold fusion can be made practical is so high that serious effort is warranted. Meanwhile, the need for clean energy has become so great that all possibilities need to be explored.

JAR: You recently made an analogy that describes the main challenge in doing cold fusion and low energy nuclear reaction experiments. You commented that, if the nuclear active environment was the Empire State Building, most experimenters would miss it because they do not know what city it is in! This means that well-designed and -conducted experiments often saw no evidence of LENR or cold fusion because the parameter space explored was in the wrong city, by analogy. Would you give the reader some highlights from your book that summarize how 18 years of collective work has narrowed the parameter space toward more consistent hits on the “Empire State Building”?

ES: This is a materials science problem, not a physics problem. Instead of asking what mechanism makes the effect happen, we need to ask what environment is required. A number of methods have been found to work. A search needs to be made to discover what environment is common to these methods. I believe the environment must contain certain critical elements, but unexpectedly palladium is not one of them. Obviously, the environment with its critical elements is rare, although it is occasionally created by chance.

The challenge is to increase the probability to 100 percent. Once the environment has been created, the mechanism works automatically without any additional encouragement. Just like fire, it is not necessary to understand the chemical mechanism to make material burn. An ignorant person only needs to make a spark and nature does the rest.

JAR: Much of your book reviews the challenges of both properly measuring heat via calorimetry and detecting nuclear reaction products. Do you think the methods you describe and reference can finally convince the more objective skeptics that measurement issues are beyond reproach?

ES: The evidence now is so overwhelming and internally consistent that disagreement about the reality would have vanished long ago in any other field. Only the psychological issues prevent acceptance in this field. Too many people will have to admit they were wrong about an important subject. In addition, some small-minded people find the field to be such a good way to describe poor science that they cannot give up the metaphor cold fusion has become.

JAR: You chide the pathological skeptics as being the alter ego