----
 

REVIEW OF PROGRESS IN COLD FUSION

(Source: New Energy Times)
Douglas R.O. Morrison
CERN, Geneva 23, Switzerland.

ABSTRACT

Experimental papers published over a 12 month period are summarized and the theoretical papers are abstracted. What one would have expected to see is listed and compared with what was published. The conditions for good experiments are listed, in particular "try to prove yourself wrong". The list of four miracles required for Cold Fusion to be fusion are explained. The contradiction is noted between experiments which observe Cold Fusion effects with deuterium and as a control find no such effects with hydrogen, and those experiments which find Cold Fusion with hydrogen. Information is requested on the boundary layer between the inside of the lattice where Cold Fusion is claimed to occur, and the rest of the Universe where the normal laws of Science apply and Cold Fusion is not claimed. Since a claim in 1989 that a working Cold Fusion device existed, the time delay to such a practical device has steadily increased.

SUBJECTS
1. Introduction
2. Data Base for Review
3. Classification of Published Papers
4. What do we Expect to See?
5. Do Good Experiments
5.1. Do Not use Poor Detectors
5.2. Do Use Detectors that Discriminate
5.3. Do Look for Correlations
5.4. Do Use Adequate Data Recording Instrumentation
5.5. Design Experiments to Avoid Problems
5.6. Try to Prove Yourself Wrong
5.7. Do Experiments to Test Theories
5.8 Do Reproducible Experiments
6. List of Miracles if Cold Fusion is Fusion
6.1. D-D Separation
6.2. Excess Heat with Hydrogen
6.3. Lack of Nuclear Ash with respect to Excess Heat
6.4. Ratios of Nuclear Ash Components
7. Theory - General. Boundary Layer between Cold Fusion and Rest of the Universe
8. List of Theories published in last 12 Months
9. When a Cold Fusion Working Device?
10. Conclusions.

Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion,
6th to 9th December 1993, Maui, Hawaii.

1. INTRODUCTION

At the Third Cold Fusion Conference in Nagoya, October 1992, gave a Review of Cold Fusion[1]. For this Fourth conference, the papers published in the following 12 months are reviewed and a comparison is made between what we expected to see performed in these 12 months and what actually happened. With 5 groups reporting at Nagoya that they had observed excess heat and other effects using not deuterium but normal light hydrogen, new results were expected. The question of when a working device giving useful power, would be produced (or may already have been made) is discussed.

2. DATA BASE FOR REVIEW

A review should look at ALL the data, both positive and null experiments. ICCF meetings are unsuitable as very few of the experiments which find no effect (null experiments) are presented even though as shown in ref. 1, most published experimental results find nothing. Hence have taken all the published papers which are said to have been refereed, from the bibliography of Dieter Britz covering his period; October 1992 to September 1993. This is a continuation to the compilation presented at Nagoya [1] which covered his period of April 1989 to September 1992.

It is agreed by all that statistics of published papers alone are not decisive in any controversy and hence NO CONCLUSIONS WILL BE DRAWN FROM STATISTICS ALONE. However it is interesting to see trends.

3. CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLISHED PAPERS

During the Dieter Britz's period Oct. 1992 to Sept. 1993, 76 papers concerning Cold Fusion were published in refereed journals. 27 were experimental, 26 theory, and 22 were "Others". Of the experimental papers, 13 were null (i.e. no effect found), 10 positive (some effect found) and 4 with no decision. The theory papers had 3 predicting no effect, 20 predicting an effect, and three discussing a possible explanation of claimed effects.

Comparing with previous years, the rate of publishing is slightly higher than the first 9 months of 1992 (43 papers) but appreciable lower than 1989 (237 papers in 9 months), 1990 (305 papers) and 1991 (154 papers). Thus the rate is now about 6 papers per month (of which 2 are experimental) compared with a 1990 peak of 25 papers per month (of which 11 were experimental).

The experimental papers were then classified according to the claim (neutrons, tritium etc.) so that a paper could give several entries. It was found that new classifications were needed, After each class two numbers are given, the first is the number of null experimental results and the second is the number of positives. They are;

3.1. New Classifications
Fracto-fusion 2 null ; 2 positive. Laser-induced 1 ; 0.
Transmutation 0 ; 1
Light Hydrogen (i.e. not deuterium) ? ; 1. Mossbauer 1 ; 0.
Black Holes ? ; 1 Gammas 2 ; 0
Excess heat but no input ("Life after Death") 0 ; 2

3.2. Previous Classifications
3He 3 ;1 4He 1 ; 3 X-Rays 0 ; 0 Protons 1 ; 0
Tritium 6 ; 2
Neutrons 12 ; 9 Excess Heat 3 ; 10.

It may be recalled that for 1989 to Sept. 1992, all the classes gave more null experiments than positive ones. Adding the new statistics does not change this - for all major classifications there are more null results, than positive ones, e.g. for Excess Heat the totals are 50 null results and 37 positive claims.

4. WHAT DO WE EXPECT TO SEE?

Previous meetings held in 1989 to 1992, gave guides for future experiments - these recommendations are hard to find as the meetings tended not to have summary speakers and the concluding Round Table discussions were not written up; so had to rely on notes taken. The advice for future work was;
4.1. Do Good Experiments
4.2. Make Experimental Results Reproducible
4.3. Theory that Fits All Data
4.4. Make a Working Model
We will now consider how far these requirements have been met.

5. DO GOOD EXPERIMENTS

The field might be expected to be mature now since it is more than four and a half years since the Fleischmann and Pons Press Conference of 23 March 1989, and over 10 years since Fleischmann and Pons started working hard experimentally on Cold Fusion (they claim that they began to work intensively five and a half years before their Press Conference). Also many groups have been well-funded for some period. The main points are;

5.1. Do not use Poor Detectors

Certain detectors are notorious for giving artifacts, e.g. BF3 counters which easily give false signals due to vibration, humidity etc., or X-ray plates which can be stained by many effects.

5.2. Do Use Detectors that Discriminate

Instead of using an X-ray plate that records a vague darkening, it much better to use an X-ray detector which can measure the energy of the individual X-rays - for example the observation of the 21 keV line from Palladium would be an important result. Steve Jones has made such a detector which is so small that it can easily be inserted into anyone's experiment. He himself has not observed the 21 keV line in his experiments. For over a year he has offered his detector free to anyone who seriously wants to measure X-rays, but no one took up his offer, though now at Maui, Prof. Oriani has accepted one. Similarly instead of simply counting neutrons, it would be more convincing to measure the energy spectrum and see if there is a peak at 2.45 MeV as expected - the original 1989 Nature paper of Steve Jones et al. [2] reported such a peak and even though its statistical significance was rather small, the fact that it was at 2.45 MeV was impressive; similarly the Turin group has recently reported [3] a peak at the desired value of 2.5 MeV.

5.3 Do Look for Correlations

It is unsatisfactory to measure only one effect, e.g. only neutrons, when many effects are predicted to occur simultaneously, e.g. excess heat is expected to occur with 4He on some theories and with 3He on others and with neutrons, tritons, protons, gammas, X-rays, 14 MeV neutrons on conventional models. By making measurements of these effects simultaneously, the value of the results is greatly increased. It may be commented that up to now when the better experiments have looked for several effects simultaneously, they have observed no effects at all [1]. In this connection it is interesting to recall the statement by Dr. Fleischmann "1992 must be the year of mass spectroscopy" so it is clear that he is in favour of seeking correlations but it is surprising that we are still waiting for such results.

5.4 Do Use Adequate Data Recording Instrumentation

Using a single thermister to record temperature changes in a fast changing environment as in the latest Fleischmann and Pons paper [4] is not satisfactory or convincing - it does not allow an adequate check on the detailed heat flow calculations such as the assumption that the heat loss is 100% by radiation whereas the original Fleischmann and Pons paper [5] emphasized that Newton's Law of Cooling was used and the heat flow was 100% conduction - it is the difference between assuming that the heat loss was proportional to the difference in the temperature to the fourth power or to the first power - vastly different assumptions.

Similarly in ref. 4, Fleischmann and Pons describe how the cell boils vigorously and about half-empties in 600 seconds - but this work only has a single temperature recording device and the current and voltage data are only recorded every 300 seconds which means that only about two (or three) readings were recorded during the crucial 600 seconds. This is highly inadequate and casts serious doubts on the claims of huge excess heat. Similarly with the claim that the cell stayed hot for some three hours after the electrolyte had boiled off so that it was believed that there was no input - now called "Life after Death" - it is hard to believe when there is only one local isolated measuring device. It is to be hoped that these experiments will be repeated with adequate convincing measuring instruments.

It is normal experimental practice to make redundant measurements and to have more than the strict minimum number of detectors - this allows checks of assumptions. Unfortunately many Believers in Cold Fusion follow Fleischmann and Pons in under-equipping their experiments - more detailed comments on their recent Physics Letters A paper is given in ref. 6. The conclusion is; make redundant measurements to check and to avoid theoretical assumptions such as whether the heat loss is 100% conduction or 100% radiation.

5.5 Design Experiments to Avoid Problems

The design of some experiments is such that a large number of assumptions are needed to analyze the data and many calibrations are required - an example is the open cell calorimetry with no measurements of the out-going gases, of Drs. Fleischmann and Pons where the make assumptions such as (1) that there is no recombination of the deuterium and the oxygen although the anode and cathode are very close, (2) that the heat outflow is 100% radiative or alternatively is 100% conductive, (3) that no lithium is carried out of the cell, (4) that the gas escaping does not carry any liquid with it or is blown out near boiling temperature, etc. Many of these doubtful assumptions (and which are doubted [7]) are treated by calculations. However it would be better if they could be largely avoided by using standard electrochemical technique e.g. employing a closed cell with a catalyser inside and the anode and cathode well-separated. Best technique is to use a null measurement method as in the Wheatstone bridge. Here one could use three baths at temperatures kept by heaters at temperatures of say 30, 40 and 45 degrees C. If there is excess heat produced by a cell in the inner bath, then its heater is turned down and this excess heat measured - this system is easy to calibrate. All is with no change in the temperatures of the three baths so that complicated calculations and doubtful assumptions are not needed.

Since Fleischmann and Pons often use small specks of palladium (e.g. 0.04 cm3 of Pd in ref. 4), they then only observe a small effect at lower temperatures and have to multiply by a large factor - it would be better technique to use a larger piece of palladium so that it could be seen if the effect is larger than the background and error assumptions. Note in Polywater, all the experiments produced very small quantities of the controversial water, less than one cc, and the authors did not try to use large samples, thus they did not try to prove themselves wrong.

5.6. Try to Prove Yourself Wrong

"The easiest person in the World to deceive, is yourself" is a well-known warning in Science and one is taught by good professors, such as Phillip I. Dee in my case, to go out and actively try and find ways to prove yourself wrong.

If one wishes to assume there is no recombination of the hydrogen and oxygen, then one should not do it by calculation, but do clear active experiments to try and prove yourself wrong, e.g. by varying the distance between the anode and cathode. This has in fact been done by Prof. Lee Hansen at BYU [8] who varied the separation of the anode and cathode. He found that assuming no recombination, there was an calculated excess heat but this disappeared when the electrodes were separated suggesting that the origin of the calculated excess heat was recombination. To check this further, he blew in nitrogen gas from the bottom when the electrodes were close together, and again the calculated excess heat vanished. It is surprising that after ten years intensive work, that Fleischmann and Pons have never published any such experiments to test their assumption that there is no recombination.

The actual excess heats claimed by Fleischmann and Pons in their 1989 and 1990 papers [5, 9] are small, but they are then multiplied up by dubious assumptions e.g normally one uses the well-known fact that the power used to separate the deuterium and oxygen is (1.54 Volts times the current), but in their 1989 paper, Fleischmann and Pons use (0.5 Volts times the current). It is this and other assumptions that allow Fleischmann and Pons to use the of-repeated claim of "one watt in and four watts out". This number of 0.5 Volts seems to be unknown apart from this paper and it is surprising that experiments to justify such a crucial number have not been done. This story of Fleishmann and Pons's unusual excess heat calculations, is clearly explained on pages 351 to 353 of Frank Close's book "Too Hot to Handle" [10].

The contradiction between Fleischmann and Pons' 1989 and 1990 papers as to whether the heat loss is 100% by conduction [3] or 100% by radiation [8] could be resolved by experiment, but seems not to have been done (they silvered the top part of the cell later but as it was claimed this changed the heat loss from 100% radiative to 100% radiative (i.e. no change!), this can hardly be considered a decisive experiment). The estimate of the heat losses is critical to calculations of the xcess heat.

The message is, do more experiments, vary parameters and seriously try to prove yourself wrong.

5.7. Do Experiments to Test Theory

There are many theories and it is surprising that people do not seriously design experiments to make critical tests of the theories. For example the crucial point about Nobel Prize winner Julian Schwinger's theory[11] is that pd fusion is much more likely than dd fusion. And pd fusion would give 3He rather than 4He in the electroweak mode. Hence one would have expected that someone would have varied the hydrogen to deuterium content and looked for the excess heat and for 3He and 4He as a function of the H to D ratio. For example one could try the following mixtures in the electrolyte;

H2O 1% 25% 50% 75% 99%
D2O 99% 75% 50% 25% 1%.

5.8 Do Reproducible Experiments

So far the only reproducible experiments that have been achieved are by those who find no Cold Fusion effect. Those who find positive Cold Fusion effects do not claim 100% reproducibility.

6. LIST OF MIRACLES IF COLD FUSION IS FUSION

6.1. D-D Separation

The great problem of D-D fusion is the difficulty of overcoming the Coulomb potential barrier. This can be overcome by using fast deuterium nuclei as in the Sun (keV energies), or in tokamaks, or ion implantation, energetic arc or glow discharges, etc. but these are called Hot Fusion and well appreciated. For Cold Fusion the thermal energies are too small and the probability is very, very small, e.g. Koonin and Nauenberg [12] have calculated that for a separation of 0.74 Angstroms, it is only 10 E-64 fusions per dd pair per second - that is negligible as can be seen that if the mass of deuterium was as large as the solar system mass, there would be only one fusion per second which would give a power of a million millionth of one watt.

Under normal conditions, in D2 gas or deuterium liquid, the separation of the deuterium nuclei is 0.74 A. As explained the probability is negligible except when a thermal muon (effectively almost zero velocity) with a mass some 200 times greater than the electron mass, approaches the dd pair and displaces one of bound electrons and this causes the dd pair to be pulled closer together giving a separation of about 0.035 A when fusion can occur - this is called muon-catalyzed fusion. However with the very short lifetime of the muon it can easily be shown that this is not an economic process but it does indicate how the fusion probability varies very steeply with the d-d separation.

There is an enormous literature on hydrogen and deuterium in palladium and other metals - see for example, Fukai at the Third Cold Fusion Conference [13]. The basic fact is that palladium is normally a face-centred crystal with a side of about 3.9 A - if hydrogen is forced into it, the crystal expands slightly e.g to 4.03 A for a D to Pd ratio of 0.8. The normal separation of d-d particles is 2.85 A - this is when they are in the orthohedral sites. When the deuterons are forced into the palladium e.g by ion implantation, then tetrahedral sites can be occupied and the separation is reduced to 1.74 A, but this value is still much greater than the normal 0.74 A.

Thus the deuterium nuclei are further apart in the Pd lattice than normal - it goes the wrong way for Cold Fusion, to put deuterium into metal lattices.

There are thousands of experiments, papers and many books on hydrogen and deuterium in metals and there is a unifying theory which fits the data - except Cold Fusion data. To claim excess heat from Cold Fusion is Miracle Number 1.

6.2 Excess heat with Hydrogen

If one observes fusion with D-D then one does not expect to observe it with H-H as the rate is many orders of magnitude lower. Thus one would then observe it with D2O but not with H2O. In the period April 1989 to 1991, Fleischmann and Pons and others claimed to have observed D-D fusion but not H-H fusion so they used H2O as a control and stated that the excess heat claimed was from D-D fusion and was a nuclear process. However at the Third Cold Fusion conference in October 1992, five groups claimed to have obtained excess heat using hydrogen. Further some produced theories stating that the excess heat was not from a nuclear reaction, e.g. Vigier [14] who said it was quantum chemistry. At this fourth conference seven groups have reported experimental data supporting the claims of excess heat with hydrogen - (and still living under the banner of Cold Fusion).

There is an enormous contradiction here - most of the Cold Fusion community claim that Cold Fusion is deuterium fusion and the excess heat has a nuclear origin and this is confirmed because it is NOT observed with light hydrogen, but there is a strong minority which claim excess heat with light hydrogen and sometimes say it is not nuclear. Surprisingly this contradiction was not discussed at the Third meeting and seems to be being ignored here at the Fourth.

This the second miracle.

6.3 Lack of Nuclear Ash with respect to Excess heat

If Cold Fusion has its origin in nuclear reactions as Fleischmann and Pons and others have claimed, then there must be some nuclear particles produced - called the Nuclear Ash by Frank Close [10].

Thousands of experiments have established what this nuclear ash is, both at high energies (hot fusion) and at thermal energies (cold fusion - in muon-catalyzed fusion). The conclusion is that for one watt of power, the products are;

10 E12 particles per second of tritons, neutrons, protons, and 3He

10 E7 particles per second of 4He and gammas of 24 MeV.

Such numbers of particles are not observed. For watts of power, the above numbers would give fatal doses of radiation but no such casualties have been reported and it appears that most scientists and laboratory assistants or cleaners do not take radiation precautions or do radiation monitoring by wearing film badges.

This is miracle number three.

6.4. Ratios of Nuclear Ash Components

The ratios of the nuclear products given in 6.3 above are very well established, e.g see Cecil et al. [15] in the proceedings of the Second Cold Fusion conference where he shows that the (neutron plus 3He ) channel is equal to the (tritium plus proton) channel as would be expected from charge symmetry, while the (4He plus gamma) is indeed a factor of ten million lower. This is not observed in experiments making Cold Fusion claims, and indeed the tritium to neutron ratio is said to be between 10 E4 to 10 E9.

This Cold Fusion miracle number four.

For many, four miracles is a bit too much, especially before breakfast, as Alice would say.

7 THEORY- GENERAL. BOUNDARY LAYER BETWEEN COLD FUSION AND REST OF THE UNIVERSE

There are many experiments on fusion and there is a well-established theory [13] which fits fusion data and many other aspects of Science. However it is remarkable (a miracle) that this theory is claimed not to apply to Cold Fusion experiments when performed by Fleischmann, Pons and some others but does apply to the larger number of experimenters on Cold Fusion who find no effects. There are a large number of theories which have been proposed to account for the Cold Fusion claims. They concern the behaviour of deuterium (and sometimes hydrogen) in a lattice.

In such theories it is remarkable that this lattice in which Cold Fusion is claimed to occur, is not defined. Questions such as can Cold Fusion occur in ice, are not given clear answers. Some such as Dr. Preparata use their theory that justifies Cold Fusion, to support the claims of Dr. Benveniste et al. [16] that water has a memory and that after diluting it many times (up to 10 E120), this memory is retained. One would then expect their theory of Cold Fusion would also apply to water - do they then predict that Cold Fusion should occur in water? It may be noted that Hirst et al. [17] have tried to reproduce the findings of Benveniste et al. using dilutions from 10 E2 to 10 E60, but could no reproduce the results of Benveniste et al.

In general it is good that theorists try to prove themselves wrong by applying their theories to other applications as Preparata has done for the memory of water, and this scientific approach is to be encouraged.

A further important question that does not seem to have been considered, is what happens at the boundary of the lattice? Outside the lattice the normal laws of Science seem to apply but on entering the lattice, the four miracles listed in section 6, come into operation. It would be important to study and understand this transition layer - it may be a way to distinguish between the very different theories of Cold Fusion.

8. LIST OF THEORIES PUBLISHED IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS

In the period of 12 months of Dieter Britz, given in section 2, a variety of theories that might explain Cold Fusion have been published in refereed journals (references and author list are in Dr. Britz's bibliography). These are summarized;

a). Gerlovin; New unified field theory. The Earth's movements with respect to the vacuum of space are important and best results should be obtained at 10.00 hours, 11.00 hours, and noon.

b). Hagelstein; coherent and semi-coherent neutron transfer with increased phonon coupling. Under some conditions, gammas should be observed.

c). Matsumoto; new elementary particle, the Iton which gives di-neutrons and higher neutron assemblies. The theory explains the gravity decays and transmutations observed.

d). Mendes; ergodic motion. Three-body collisions dominate, especially dde.

e). Bockris; high fugacity (as Fleischmann and Pons [5]) giving 1026 atmospheres. Electron capture by deuterium.

f). Matsumoto; Nattoh theory. Collapse of neutron clusters giving Black Holes.

g). Swartz; Quasi-one-dimensional model of loading. Crystal structures are important (defects, dislocations, shape, small surface features - spikes).

h). Yasui; Fracto-fusion, cracks.

i). Fisher; polyneutrons.

j). Yang; D captures electron giving D plus a di-neutron. Theory explains neutron bursts (this claim now withdrawn by Steve Jones).

k). Cerofolini; Binuclear atoms (dd)ee, capture thermal neutrons giving D, T, 4He, tritium enrichment, neutron bursts.

l). Matsumoto; double iton explains warming for three hours afterwards. Could this be the theoretical explanation of the "Life after Death" claimed by Fleischmann and Pons who about a year later also said they had observed a similar three-hour effect?

m). Takahashi; high loadings give 3-body and 4-body fusions.

n). Bracci; Collective effects ruled out (contrary to Hagelstein and to Preparata, Bressani and Del Gudice). Explains by high effective electron masses, 5 to 10 times greater.

o). Lo; Densely coupled plasmas.

p). Stoppini; Superconductivity, < 11oK.

q). Hora; Dense plasma. Transmutation by neutron swapping, e.g Pd + D ---> Rh + 4He.

r). Filimonov; Deuteron soliton coherent with palladium anti-soliton - should coat electrode with palladium black.

s). Lipson; Super-condensates - fracto-fusion mechanism is improbable.

t). Chatterjee; stochastic electron accumulation.

u). Gammon; Negative Joule-Thompson effect.

v). Granneau; Ampere force.

w). Hagelstein; n-transfer, 3-phonon.

x). Ichimark; coherent plasmas. One to two fusions per year per cm3.

Note - in reply to a question as to whether Cold Fusion could be observed in water, Dr. Preparata declared that he had never written a paper applying his theory of Cold Fusion to Benveniste's work. Dieter Britz has written "We have an article from an Italian Magazine, where Preparata and Del Guidice describe their theory of long-range effects in water, and relate this to both cold fusion and homeopathy (i.e. Benveniste claims)".

It is interesting that there is a rather wide spread of journals - not just Fusion Technology (10 times here) and Physics Letters A where J.-P. Vigier is an Editor (quoted twice here).

9. WHEN A COLD FUSION WORKING DEVICE?

8 December 1993; the previous speaker, Dr. H. Fox, giving he said, a business man's point of view, declared he expected a working Cold Fusion device in TWENTY YEARS.

November 1993. Dr. S. Pons said that by the year 2000 there should be a household power plant - SIX YEARS.

1992. Dr. M. Fleischmann said a 10 to 20 Kilowatt power plant should be operational in ONE YEAR.

July 1989. The Deseret News published an article by Jo-Ann Jacobsen-Wells who interviewed Dr. S. Pons. There is a photograph in colour, of Dr. Pons beside an simple apparatus with two tubes, one for cold water in and one for hot water out. This working unit based on Cold Fusion was described as; " 'It couldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but it certainly could provide them with hot water year-round' said Pons".

Later in the article it was written "Simply put, in its current state, it could provide boiling water for a cup of tea". Time delay to this working model - ZERO YEARS.

Thus it appears that as time passes, the delay to realisation of a working model increases.

10. CONCLUSIONS

No conclusions are presented - everyone can judge for themselves. However some questions can be asked;

Are Cold Fusion results consistent in claiming Cold Fusion effects in Deuterium but not in normal Hydrogen, while other groups claim Cold Fusion effects with hydrogen?

Is the ratio of tritium to neutron production about unity as Fleischmann and Pons originally claimed [5] or is the ratio in the wide range 104 to 109 as most other workers claim?

Are transmutations, Black Holes, Biology [18] part of the normal world of Cold Fusion?

To explain the null experiments there is one theory - the conventional theory of Quantum Mechanics, but there are a wide variety of theories to explain positive Cold Fusion results - can they all be valid simultaneously - if not, which should be rejected?

When can we have a cup of tea? Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank Dieter Britz for the use of his Bibliographic compilation.

REFERENCES
1. D.R.O. Morrison, Cold Fusion Update No. 7, Email.
2. S.E. Jones et al., Nature 338(1989)737.
3. T. Bressani et al. 3rd Intl. Conf. on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion", Ed. H. Ikegami, Univ. Acad. Press, Tokyo, (1993), p 433.
4. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, Phys. Lett. A 176(1993)1.
5. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261(1989)301.
6. J. Wilson et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 332(1992)1.
7. D.R.O. Morrison, CERN preprint CERN-PPE/93-96 and to be published in Phys. Lett. A.
8. L. Hansen, priv. comm.
9. M.Fleishmann et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 287(1990)293.
10. F. Close, "Too Hot To Handle", W.H Allen Publ., London, (1990).
11. J. Schwinger, 1st Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, National Cold Fusion Institute, Salt Lake City, (1989), p 130.
12. S.E. Koonin and M. Nauenberg, Nature 339(1989)690.
13. Y. Fukai, 3rd Intl. Conf. on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion", Ed. H. Ikegami, Univ. Acad. Press, Tokyo, (1993), p 265.
14. J.-P. Vigier, 3rd Intl. Conf. on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion", Ed. H. Ikegami, Univ. Acad. Press, Tokyo, (1993), p325.
15. F.E. Cecil and G.M. Hale, 2nd Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion", Ed. T. Bressani, E. Del Guidice, and G. Preparata, Soc. It. di Fisica, Bologna, (1991), p. 271.
16. Davenas et al. Nature 333(1988)816-818.
17. S. J. Hirst et al, Nature 366(1993) 525-527.
18. The IgNobel Prize for Physics was awarded to L. Kervran for his book "Biological Transmutations" in which he argues that a cold fusion process produces the calcium in eggshells - Science, 262(1993)509.