----
 

The Rebirth of Cold Fusion
Errata


Regarding the Concept of "Cold Fusion"
Fleischmann and Pons were wrong in their speculation about fusion but correct about a hitherto-unknown nuclear process or processes. By the early 1990s, researchers began to realize that the experimental evidence didn’t fit the description of nuclear fusion, and they began to call the research “low-energy nuclear reactions.”

However, at the time I wrote this book, all researchers in the field convinced me that "cold fusion," as a concept of deuterons overcoming the Coulomb barrier at room temperature at high rates, was real. They were mistaken about the theoretical mechanism, and consequently, so was I when I wrote this book.

It wasn't until Widom and Larsen published their groundbreaking theory in 2006 that it became clear the experimental phenomena was real, but that it had nothing do to with fusion but primarily, weak interactions.

Therefore, everything to do with the concept and theory of fusion (but not the measured/observed experimental data) in this book is obsolete and relevant only as a historical perspective on the field.

Please refer to the New Energy Times Web site "Frequently Asked Questions" section for further and more current information.

Page 29, Nuclear Fission: A Mixed Blessing
The statement that there were "thousands of injuries" from radiation from the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island power plant is incorrect. The event however, cost a billion dollars to clean up. Also, the Chernobyl event was not a chemical explosion; it was a nuclear chain reaction.

Page 171, Reproducibility versus repeatability
Subsequent to this publication of this book, a distinction has been identified between repeatable and reproducible. Repeatable: Researcher A can obtain the expected result from his or her experiment every time he or she makes an attempt. Reproducible: Researcher B can obtain the same result from his or her replication of researcher A's experiment.

Consequently, much of the discussions throughout the book including the survey on page 171 involving the term reproducibility, are referring to repeatability.

Regarding the Discussion of Acoustic Inertial Confinement Fusion Comment Submitted by Rusi Taleyarkhan (March 2009)
Edmund Storms states that 1 Watt of power would destroy the acetone in such experiments, this is incorrect and not supportable on technical grounds. Also, the reference to Lipson's contention has no basis.

It is mistakenly surmised by Storms that even at 1 Watt of power the neutrons in acoustic inertial confinement fusion would destroy (we take it to mean boil away) all the acetone. This is not tenable. Imagine, for example, a cup of water with an immersion heater in it. It usually takes a heater with a rating of several hundred Watts to boil away (that is, vaporize all) the water – a process which usually requires several minutes of boiling.

Phase change energy, that is, the excess energy needed to be supplied (after one first heats the liquid to the boiling point and then) to change the state of the material from liquid to vapor usually run, for liquids like water, in the range of Mega Joules per kg. For acetone, this amounts to about 0.6 MJ/kg. To deposit 0.6 MJ into acetone even in an adiabatic fashion would take about 600,000 seconds at 1 Watt (1 J/s). This time span should be taken into account that the million seconds required at 1 Watt assumes that all of the energy from the 2.45 MeV D-D fusion neutrons is fully transferred to the liquid; fact of the matter is that 2.45 MeV neutrons down-scatter somewhat but carry most of their energy “out” of the liquid (if it is acetone) – at least in the geometry of our experimental reactor, and the more important fact is that thermal energy exchange is not adiabatic. If AICF reactor thermal-hydraulics were to fail as suggested by Storms, then conventional nuclear fission reactors would fail just as well because the neutrons there would destroy all the coolant water as well - but fission reactors do function nicely and the same overall principle of energy transfer to flowing media would also apply in terms of thermal-hydraulics of an AICF system of, course with some adaptation.

There is also reference to Lipson's earlier work; that was done with acoustic horns and more in line with the work of Stringham. This is an entirely different mechanism from AICF where there are bubbles imploding into themselves like sub-nanoscale fusion bombs. Lipson's experiments with water offered neutron outputs very close to cosmic background. Our group at Oak Ridge received such communication in 2002 from Lipson, by way of Science and we provided a rebuttal that was acceptable to the editors of Science, upon which the comment by Lipson was summarily dismissed by the Science journal editor in charge.