----
 

The 2005 Gluck-Krivit Cold Fusion Survey

WHAT IS COLD FUSION (LENR, CANR, CMNS)?

Definition is still ambiguous, but every researcher has own view according to his working hypothesis. My view is summarized in Slide No.6 of presentation Main Scenarios of CMN-Effects, February 2005.

- A. Takahashi
*********

There may be more than one fundamental energy-producing phenomenon involved, so any questions about the "one true nature" of CF will devolve into Swiftian lilliputan battles.

- B. Beaty
*********

An unproven assertion that several fusion reactions can take place at about room temperatures, without muons present.

- D. Britz
*********

Cold fusion is a nuclear reaction between two deuterium nuclei with the following characteristics:

- It takes place in a dense medium and not in vacuum. Plasmas can be considered as "vacuum" if compared with a number of atoms as high as the Avogadro's number typical of the condensed matter.

- It doesn't need a critical parameter such as the product of the density by the temperature. In hot plasma the huge repulsive coulomb barrier between nuclei is surmounted thanks to the extra kinetic energy given to the nuclei by the very high temperature. In condensed matter the coulomb barrier is modeled and weakened by the dynamic of the plasmas of palladium d- electrons and deuterons. Such a mechanism envisages the existence of a threshold in the deuteron concentration in order to sufficiently modify the potential barriers.

The fusion between two deuterium nuclei creates an excited (hot) helium nucleus (2+2=4). In vacuum, this nucleus will break in pieces (3He+n or T+p) that will carry away the excess energy, or, with a very lower probability, it can emit a very energetic photon (gamma ray of 24 MeV).

In condensed matter, however, the electromagnetic fields acting in the medium can drown away the energy of the excited nucleus and convert it into thermal radiation. It is worthwhile to note that here we are talking about classic electromagnetic fields, not about quantum fields, that is, many low energy photons instead of one high energy photon, such as a gamma ray.

- A. De Ninno
*********

Cold fusion is an exothermal reaction that occurs when hydrogen (deuterium) reacts with some selected metals. The enthalpy of that reaction is in the order of keV per atom, intermediate between chemical reactions (eV) and nuclear ones (MeV). This reaction has none of the characteristics of a nuclear reaction.

- J. Dufour
*********

Cold fusion, or LENR, is the initiation of various nuclear reactions within special solid structures without the need to apply an amount of energy normally required to overcome the Coulomb barrier.

- E. Storms
*********

I use the term LENR to describe non-thermonuclear reactions including transmutations and "cold fusion". I hardly use the term CANR, but if I do, I do it in company with the term BANR to describe biologically assisted nuclear reactions (Kevran, Vysotskii, Kornilova, et al.).

- H. Lietz
*********

Cold fusion is a set of quantum effects which occur in a lattice loaded with diffusing elements. The effects occur due to long exposure times and high mass density. These effects include nuclear reactions without characteristic energetic signatures or branching ratios. These nuclear

reactions do not require large initial collision energies, and nuclei created in such reactions do not carry the high level of excitement that produces characteristic branching ratios. Additionally, heat may be generated in a loaded lattice environment that does not correspond to any nuclear source of energy, but rather to quantum interactions of electrons with the vacuum.

- H. Heffner
*********

It is a kind nuclear reaction inside the condensed matter at low energy. It is characteristic by nuclear reaction without strong neutron or gamma radiation.

- X.Z. Li
*********

It is certainly not pseudoscience, as many think. It is protoscience claiming that nuclear activities result from some chemical processes, such as those taking place in electrolysis, or when hydrogen ions diffuse through some solids. According to most textbooks, chemical processes, associated with atomic and molecular electrons, have negligible effects on atomic nuclei.

- L. Kowalski
*********

During loading of metals like palladium with hydrogen and-or deuterium, under some unclear conditions, more heat is produced than energy introduced in the system. This occurs in such a way that chemistry or other traditional reactions can be excluded. The only alternative being nuclear reactions.

- J.P. Biberian
*********

Historically the definition has come to be any process generating heat beyond normal chemistry, &/or resulting in transmutation of elements, that happens at near room temperature. However I would tighten the definition to "any nuclear process", in light of the work of Mills (even though hydrino formation may well be an intermediary step in many of these new nuclear processes).

- R. Van Spaandonk
*********

Definitions:

1. A nuclear reaction in which deuterium fuses to He-4 inside or on a metal, with release of heat, essentially without energetic neutron, charged particle, or gamma ray emission.

2. A physical process that results from the interaction of hydrogen with condensed matter, and which causes the hydrogen to transition into a nuclear active configuration. In particular, a process that transitions deuterium into a quantum de-localized configuration that causes deuterons to interact with other deuterons or (via nuclear active He-4) with target atom nuclei, so as to create transmuted elements plus heat, essentially without high energy particle emission.

3. The physics describing the interaction between hydrogen in its nuclear active configuration with external fields, particle beams, and other test perturbations.

4. The chemistry, condensed matter science, and engineering that studies processes which convert hydrogen into a nuclear active configuration, and which measures the symmetry and other properties of the resulting nuclear active state.

Opinions:

Cold fusion as a physical phenomenon is an interdisciplinary branch of physics in which nuclear interactions take place that go beyond the restricted interactions of conventional impact nuclear physics and energetic particle scattering theory. It combines mainly nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and surface science, but also includes inputs from physical chemistry and thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, atom Bose condensate studies in optical lattices, etc.

Cold fusion as a study area explores nuclear reactions whose participants are not the free particles of standard nuclear impact physics, i.e., whose participants are not particles with the asymptotic form of plane waves. The study area includes the original Fleischmann and Pons dd cold fusion process producing heat and He-4, the Iwamura alpha addition transmutations of surface Cs and Mo, the electrolysis-associated MeV particle observations by Oriani, the rare event anomalous neutron energy distributions documented by A. Takahashi, the anomalously high dd reaction cross sections observed in keV-energy scattering studies, the occasional production of low levels of tritium, the rare production of a variety of unstable isotopes, the observations of acoustic impulses by Chernov et al., and the evidence for nuclear activity due to electrolytically created nuclear active proton states and their possible role in transmutation of neutron-rich fission products. This is an incomplete list. There are many additional important observations that need checking and further study.

Cold fusion as an applied science technology includes related work on over-voltage electrolytic deposition of both protons and deuterons onto metal electrodes, more general surface science and chemistry investigations, including studies of surface layers and catalysis, study of metal-liquid interfaces and metal surfaces covered with adsorbed films like D2O, metal-nonmetal interface physics, study of H and D in metals, study of hydrogen Bloch states and many-body systems, study of metal clusters and amorphous alloys, hydrogen diffusion, hydrogen fluxing systems and systems at high hydrogen chemical potential, detection diagnostics as in neutron activation studies, calorimetry, and related disciplines. It also includes related theory and modeling, studies using acoustic or laser stimulation, IR imaging, co-deposition methods, and the like.

- T. Chubb
*********

Cold fusion is the fusion mediated by the solid state of matter (or condensed matter) that involves coherent field effects provided by the solid state.

- M. Miles
*********

"Cold fusion" is not appropriate name and I am using the cold fusion phenomenon to express the phenomenon related with the "cold fusion" first used by Fleischmann et al. as you see in my papers and books. The diffinition of this words is found at the top of my CFRL News.

- H. Kozima
*********

The motivation of performing this Survey was not curiosity but the aim to solve some of the problems and puzzles of our field.

The use of a Survey is based on the following ideas:

a) good questions are generative and creative:
"It is not the answer that enlightens, but the question" (Eugen Ionesco)
b) questions belong to knowledge- they are anti-knowledge (anti-knowledge is related to knowledge as anti-matter to matter) see Bruce LaDuke's http://www.anti-knowledge.com
c) the survey is the first step of a call to action and to the application of new problem solving methods based on negative discovery "Gordian Not's" (see e.g: Daniel Boorstin:
The Age of Negative Discovery , The American Enterprise vol 5, no. 6, Nov/Dec 1994, p28, discussed recently in:
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/mar102004/edst.asp negative definitions and negative information- (actually OPEN) The value of negative information can be seen from the puzzle: http://www.reed.edu/~mcphailb/puzzles/hats.html

My answer to "What Is Cold Fusion (LENR, CANR, CMNS)?" is as follows: Today CF is still a "paradigm too far"

The entirety of the experimental results show that CF is immensely complex and difficult to comprehend therefore it is not possible to give a positive definition of CF.

This first question has to be complemented with: What is Cold Fusion NOT? i.e a negative- open- definition is prioritary.

And, in my opinion, cold fusion is NOT: - simple direct D+D fusion; hot fusion is force brute while cold fusion is smart nuclear jiu-jitsu,

- a bulk phenomenon triggered by the crowding of deuterium atoms in Pd,

- Pd - specific (thanks God, Pd is scarce!)

- directly bound the mythical global D/Pd ratio but very local D/Pd is essential,

- achieved by passing someway the Coulomb Barrier, this means electrically neutral entities are doing the job, I bet

So we have few certainties and these are described first in my old paper, see please:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf and

The Surfdyn Concept: An attempt to Solve the Puzzles of Cold Fusion." FusionTechnology, Vol. 24, Aug. 1993 pp. 122-126.

CF is a quasi catalytic, surface, local, dynamic (SURFDYN) class of phenomena. Hypersensitive and complex. Nanoscience at its best and worst. The active sites are very difficult to be visualized, measured… and generated.

- P. Gluck
*********

Cold fusion is effect where the chemical realm touches the nuclear realm. Traditionally, it was felt that chemical and nuclear processes proceed independently of each other and that one does not affect the other. However, there have been evidences, for quite some time, that chemistry can and does influence nuclear process. For example, in 1947, it was discovered that the half-lifes of radioactive compounds are different. Some compounds of 7BeO and 7BeF2, which have 0.013% and 0.074% longer half-lifes respectively than elemental 7Be with a half life of 53.27 days (Atomic Nucleus, Robley D. Evans, p. 565, 1953). Hot fusion requires high energy collisions to bring the nuclei close enough together to cause fusion. Cold fusion does not appear to be the result of the collision of nuclei to cause fusion, but rather, the placement of particle inside the coulombic barrier around a neighboring nucleus.

Cold fusion may be thought of as the opposite of radioactive decay. Radioactive decay is only possible where Quantum theory and the Uncertainly Principle allow a remote possibility (but a reality how ever small) the particle appearing inside the coulombic barrier.

Electrolysis and other chemical processes can supply enormous pressure that compresses and crowds atoms. It can also supply very energetic particles (electrons, protons, and deuterons from heavy water) near the surface of the cathode of electrolysis for example. Some of these particles find there way toward the nucleus of neighboring atoms. If penetration is deep enough, there is remote possibility (but a reality how ever small) that the particle may find itself on the other side of the coulombic barrier. This is not a "billiard-ball" event like in hot fusion and the "host" nucleus has time to decide how to handle this situation. It does so by rearranging itself to the most low-energy allowed state that tends to be stable or non-radioactive. Ejected particles from the nucleus, if necessary, to achieve a low-energy nucleus, tend to be low energy.

- R. Gimpel
*********

Cold fusion is clean nuclear energy.

Cold fusion is a scientific discovery that may be the ideal answer to the world's energy problems.

Cold fusion is a nuclear reaction that generates energy, primarily in the form of heat, without harmful radiation, nuclear waste or greenhouse gasses. It uses hydrogen, from a variety of compounds, as its fuel source.

Cold fusion can occur at, or near, ordinary room temperature. Initially the word "cold" served as an effective way to distinguish this research from large thermonuclear "hot" fusion experiments. Hot fusion experiments required multimillion-degree temperatures to operate. However, scientists never succeeded to make any net energy from hot fusion.

The term "cold" was never ideal to describe cold fusion because the significant factors of cold fusion are its benign byproducts. These distinguish them from a variety of hot fusion experiments that also can run at room temperature, but these hot fusion experiments have limited applications.

Cold fusion often uses a special form of hydrogen, called deuterium, which comes from plain water. One in every 6,000 water molecules contains deuterium. When the center parts of two deuterium atoms, the nuclei, come close enough, they fuse. When this happens, they combine to make helium and a large amount of heat. Theoretically, fusion of hydrogen can generate eight million times more energy than the same amount of hydrogen if it were burned in a chemical reaction.

- S. Krivit
*********

HOW DOES IT WORK?

My view is summarized in Slide No.6 of presentation Main Scenarios of CMN-Effects, February 2005.

- A. Takahashi
*********

"IT?" What if it's a "they?"

- B. Beaty
*********

Nobody knows, although there is a myriad of theories, from crackpot to nuclear-expert.

- D. Britz
*********

In metal hydrides, and especially in palladium, deuterium can be loaded both in electrolysis or in gas phases. Regardless, using appropriate experimental techniques, cold fusion occurs when the threshold ratio of one deuterium atom per palladium atom is reached. Then the phenomenon of heat and helium 4 production takes place. It has been possible, up to now, to "switch on" only very small amount of material.

- A. De Ninno
*********

How does it work is a key issue. You have to consider 2 levels : the operationnal level, that is what are the macroscopic conditions that are required to achieve a repeatable reaction. When you master these conditions, irrefutable experiments can be shown to the scientific community and productive discussions can start. Moreover you can also start thinking to the upscaling of this experiment. For the time being I am testing a set of such operational hypothesis. I am not willing to disclose the results before the end of this year. The second level is the microscopic level. I have a scientific working hypothesis that could account for the facts observed by Iwamura.

- J. Dufour
*********

An unknown process can occur in a unique structure of a suitable small size that can neutralize the Coulomb barrier between atoms. This process involves a collective interaction between electrons and/or between hydrogen isotopes when either are present in sufficient amounts.

The process involves a resonance interaction that is controlled by the size of the solid structure. For fusion between deuterons to occur or if a hydrogen isotope is added to another element, the structure must dissolve a critical quantity of the required hydrogen isotope. When the amount of energy applied to the structure is small, the condition of the structure is very important to achieving anomalous results. However, as applied energy is increased, the nature of the structure becomes less important, until at a sufficiently high energy, behavior becomes completely conventional.

- E. Storms
*********

I don't know.

- H. Lietz
*********

Unknown. It is likely there are various mechanisms at work.

- H. Heffner
*********

When a deuterium flux passing through the palladium film, it will work with high reproducibility (please see Iwamura's work for nuclear products and my paper (J. Physics D: Applied physics.36 (2003) 3095-3097) for excess heat).

- X.Z. Li
*********

I do not know.

- L. Kowalski
*********

It is not clear yet, but it seems that when deuterium or hydrogen is loaded in metals, at some oint, there are nuclear reactions that occur, either fusion, fission or transmutation. This reactions occur because we are in a multi-body system where electrons play a crucial role.

- J.P. Biberian
*********

Chubb, Hydrino, Hydrex, EV (Shoulders). The last most likely responsible for transmutation where much heavier elements are produced. The first most likely primarily responsible for pure He4 production when D is used. The middle two would likely explain excess heat where little or no transmutation takes place.

- R. Van Spaandonk
*********

I believe that all, or almost all, cold fusion phenomena depend at some point on the coherent partitioning of nuclei into quantum de-localized states, as occurs when hydrogen is scattered into a quantum de-localized state (Bloch state). Existence of these de-localized configurations was proven in the studies of Puska et al. and Astaldi et al. I think that cold fusion becomes more

understandable when it is recognized that coherently partitioned Bloch hydrogen is a mathematical lattice that can host phonon energy quanta, just as occurs with a metal lattice. This property was recently identified by S. Chubb. In both the Bloch form of deuterium and its product Bloch nucleus form, the localized charge density fractions have a range of motion in physical space. The Bloch ion lattice of both pre-fusion and post-fusion structure supports vibrations (acoustic phonons) and higher energy lattice-preserving excitations (optical phonons). The phonon modes of the Bloch ions are coupled to the phonon modes of the hosting metal lattice. This coupling provides a means of energy transfer between Bloch lattice and metal lattice in a manner that conserves total energy and momentum.

The cold fusion technology field seeks to provide reliable means by which hydrogen can be transitioned and maintained in the coherent Bloch configuration. Methods differ from experimenter to experimenter.

In my view cold fusion achieves internal dd wave function overlap by creating a pre-fusion deuterium subsystem in which energy minimization dictates a 2-body wave function characterized by superposed anti-correlated single-body wave functions, in contrast to the usual side-by-side molecule-like wave function.

- T. Chubb
*********

There is no agreement on the exact mechanism or theory. However, the electromagnetic fields of neighboring electrons and other nuclei makes cold fusion distinctly different than hot fusion.

- M. Miles
*********

Whole of my work is dedicated to explain CFP scientifically, as you know.

- H. Kozima
*********

This is actually a three part question: where, what, how-i.e. topology, nature mechanism and the answers will lead us to why it works? The first question is determinant i.e. "topology is the key".

It is a deep mystery for me why my paper was ignored and why Ed Storm's concept and solid ideas re "nuclear active environment" was not seriously considered. Both are based on facts and are logical- in the frame of the experimental situation.

There are many theories and part of them have elements of a very fragmented truth, but no one is complete. In my personal opinion, Akito Takahashi's theory is the closest to reality.

My late friend, Chris Tinsley, had a bright intuition when he told : “Cold Fusion is for Hot Fusion what biochemistry is for chemistry” This means that: “Cold Fusion needs a complex, multi-level, multi-step, multi-center, theory as has, for example photosynthesis”

HOWEVER- in this case "what does NOT work is as important as what does work" and the problem of reproducibility is vital, seemingly endemic for CF. The curse of it. If we understand why, we understand how CF works. Therefore any theory that is not explaining this R-problem is not good and if it used too dominantly, a bad theory can be an impediment to progress. It generates bad answers and what's more dangerous, bad questions.

Speaking about reproducibility the good question is- what to reproduce?

My taxonomy of the experimental results is based on technological reproducibility. During the 16+ years of CF history we had three category of experiments, or generators or cathodes:

HEALTHY- they gave over 1000% excess and heat after death.

There were less than 10 such events- F&P, Mizuno (the most powerful,see his book, introduction), Piantelli, Patterson, Szpak and now, Energetics Technologies (cathode 64). Very rare events.

THESE HAVE TO BE REPRODUCED! Only these have technological significance.

ILL- usually weak, 10-30% heat excess- good to keep hope in better results alive. Some 10exp3 results during the whole history of CF.

DEAD- no measurable heat excess some 10exp4 experiments.

The situation of technological reproducibility is dreadful and I think perhaps we are doing systematically something extremely wrong, an unknown fatal error and we kill sistematically the cathodes- after a laborious empirical process of building nuclearly active sites. I think about a serious possibility that any contact with the air is killing irreversibly the active sites, ergo we need perhaps anaerobic cathodes. Perhaps otherwise protected cathodes.

The possible culprit is pollution, those traces of impurities from air that - everybody believes it- can change the climate of Earth, but cannot do harm to CF.?

It seems the nuclearly active sites (they give a special electronic environment that catalyses the birth of neutral entities) is very difficult to obtain but extremely easy to destroy. Up to now we have worked probably in the manner of Ulysses and the clue is to protect the cathodes, in a smart way. In any case, there is a deep dark secret of the R-problem and till this is not revealed, CF will be in trouble, as it is now.

- P. Gluck
*********

One theory is that when a neutron decays it produces a proton (p), electron (e-), a neutron (í), and 0.2 MeV of energy. The opposite can happen to form a neutron. A neutron can easily penetrate the coulombic barrier. Because of high currents, electrons and protons (deuterons) are in abundance at the cathode. Likewise, neutrinos are always present but do not normally interact with matter. However, this theory assumes that when a proton and electron combine, the cross section for neutrinos increases and the cathode imparts some energy to give birth to a neutron. If one considers virtual particles, creation of a virtual neutrino can momentarily make up the difference of the neutrino. However, this temporary creation may be enough to increase the odds of the fusion processes.

A variation of the theory is that protons, via virtual particle creation, can momentarily transform into a neutron, but must shortly return to a proton. This can allow deeper penetration into the coulombic barrier with exponentially increased probability of interaction with the host atom's nucleus.

- R. Gimpel
*********

This is not yet well-understood.

- S. Krivit
*********

WHAT CHANCES DOES IT HAVE TO BE SCALED UP TO A TECHNOLOGY?

We have several ideas of projects to try to make break-through. The Italian-Japanese and French Project of cold transmutation for radioactive wastes may be one if budgeted. The super-wave electrolysis method by the Israeli group should be tested by other groups getting funds. The laser irradiation methods by Arata, Crevens, Violante, et al. are to be duplicated. Ultra-sonic wave irradiation methods by Stringham, George and Arata should be repeated. Plasma electrolysis by Mizuno-Ohmori may be useful for efficient hydrogen production.

All these need much funds to activate researches. I mean money brings change! Once principles are confirmed to be repeatable methods, we can set up projects to scale up the effects for technological application. First we need to get money for starting some of projects.

- A. Takahashi
*********

Unless there's a very lucky breakthrough, it's probably going to remain a "lab curiousity" like biophotons and remote viewing: treated with hostile disgust by the larger scientific community, but investigated by a small group of mavericks. "If you believe it, only then can you see it" works more often than "If you see it, only then will you believe it."

- B. Beaty
*********

Even if it is real, it will be hard to scale up, and might not be very efficient, as it produces (if any) low-grade heat.

- D. Britz
*********

What have we to do, in principle is similar to the famous experiment of December 2, 1942, in Chicago where Enrico Fermi showed that the number of neutrons emitted in a nuclear reaction could be amplified .

Thus it was, in principle, possible to have a chain reaction. At that time the amplification factor was K=1,0006 and the maximum power of Fermi's plant was half a watt for 28 minutes. The scale-up required the Manhattan Project and the second world war military efforts. Nevertheless, the first commercial nuclear reactor became available only in the 1950's.

- A. De Ninno
*********

If the operational hypothesis I am studying is true, the chances to upscale to a technology is 100%.

- J. DuFour
*********

So far, no reason has been found that would prevent the process from being scaled to any level required. The only challenge is to identify the unique structure and make it in a large amount. In addition, the energy producing process appears to be very safe, free of significant radiation, and self limiting.

- E. Storms
*********

This seems to be only a question of how much money is put into research.

- H. Lietz
*********

When the phenomena are highly repeatable then engineering principles and computer models can be developed and the prospects for scaling up are very good.

- H. Heffner
*********

If we have enough financial support we may scale it up to a 100 W device quickly.

- X.Z. Li
*********

Impossible to predict at this time.

- L. Kowalski
*********

Chances are high,but difficult to predict when.

- J.P. Biberian
*********

Excellent, particularly when combined with latest progress in nanotechnology, which can provide billions of copies of small "reactors", combining their output to achieve useful results.

- R. Van Spaandonk
*********

I think that there is a 90% probability that cold fusion can be scaled up to be a practical source of energy within 20 years. To achieve this goal it will be necessary to provide realistic research funding, and to permit selected experimenters reasonable freedom to follow their own judgment as to development strategy. I don't think anyone knows enough to be sure of choosing the most promising course of action at this time. There appear to be several good choices. Several approaches need to be explored in parallel.

- T. Chubb
*********

The chances are excellent that cold fusion will eventually become a useful technology. This could happen soon or it could take many years.

- M. Miles
*********

Technology follows the Science of CFP is constracted.

- H. Kozima
*********

If the reproducibility problem/conundrum can be solved- the way to many technologies generating energy and transmuting elements is wide open. My guess is that these will be based on gas-phase and not on electrolysis or other wet processes.

- P. Gluck
*********

If it can be done on the small scale there are ways of scaling up. If it can be done with plasmas (as, CERG is now investigating) scale up is probable.

- R. Gimpel
*********

Very high.

- S. Krivit
*********

WHAT MUST WE DO IN ORDER TO ATTAIN THIS?

We need serious efforts to get budgeted for some key projects. Americans need to persuade DoE, but they will look for other possibilities (private funds, international projects). Europe, Japan,

Russia, China, and others should try their own projects to get funds. A faint effort in scientific progress, namely through ISCMNS continuing activity is of key importance to realize some day CMNS-mediated energy devices.

- Takahashi
*********

Perhaps a current CF researcher will stumble onto some effect which makes possible the CF equivalent of the 1942 uranium/graphite pile. (Play loud sounds into your CF experiment, as in the movie "Cold Fusion!") Find a way to make a CF "science kit" for children which always works, and which demonstrates phenomena inexplicable by contemporary physics. Build several automated CF water heaters and have them installed in science museums. Or win the one-million-dollar "Amazing Randi" prize, or one of the "perpetual motion" prizes.

- Beaty
*********

If scale-up is meant here, then first we need to prove the reality of the effect. Then, assuming this, find a way to make it produce higher temperatures. Clearly aqueous systems are not optimal.

- D. Britz
*********

Do all our efforts to run ireefutable experiments. Be prepare to take into account any reasonable working hypothesis and not stick to the nuclear one only.

- J. DuFour
*********

Two issues must be investigated. We need to know the characteristics of the unique structure and we need to know the mechanism that operates within that structure. So far, most workers have assumed the structure is PdD and have applied various mechanisms to this simple structure. In fact, many observations show that the real structure is much more complex. As a result, the proposed mechanisms may not have any relationship to the real world.

- E. Storms
*********

To master the process it should probably be understood. I feel I can best contribute to this if I introduce relevant work being done in Germany. Heim Theory (HT) is a unified theory of quantum gravitation out of which Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Theory emerge as special cases. HT provides a model of the nature of matter and inertia as a property of spatial geometry itself. HT allows one to theoretically derive the mass spectrum and lifetimes of the elementary particles in the ground state and in all their resonant states, as well as the fundamental constants, which agree with experimentally determined values. Knowing about the nature of matter should provide insights into how LENR occur. (http://heim-theory.com/)

I’m very intrigued that cavitation and acoustic triggering boosts the excess energy effect. I think, in that sense, every researcher should know about Global Scaling Theory, which is based on an immense empirical body of evidence (people that want to know more should contact me). It seems to be worthwhile to look at vortex and scalar wave models, such as Prof. Meyl is doing. Maybe my short list gives someone a new idea, which is my intention.

- H. Lietz
*********

Principally lacking in the field is a multidisciplinary approach. A multidisciplinary team of scientists is required which work closely, backed by powerful computational capabilities, and precision instruments. Much of the little progress made to date has been by individuals or small teams working within the constraints of personal budgets or nominal funding.

There have been big budget projects, but the direction of these was not by creative multidisciplinary teams. Spending lots of money to satisfy a limited mind set or vision is clearly not an answer.

There is still much room for an expanded Edsionian search of lattice materials deposited as thin films and for study of plasma-lattice interactions. The range of possible lattice materials and operating temperatures has barely been scratched. Practical energy producing devices will likely operate at high temperatures. Effective direction of such a search requires experts in chemistry, quantum mechanics, materials science, especially ceramics, nuclear physics, and computational physics.

Also lacking so far is funding for a team or teams principally dedicated to replications and which have available a sufficient range of high quality instruments to determine if the cause of the results is as described by the original scientists. Much work in the field has not been replicated. The scientific method is not working well in this field due to a lack of funding and to stigma.

The stigma will probably only be removed when an inexpensive and easily accomplished experiment is produced and widely disseminated which clearly demonstrates anomalous nuclear or energy effects.

The easiest thing that can be done in a positive direction might be to establish a highly moderated list dedicated to relevant subjects. Most of the scientists that were on vortex have left. Very little serious discussion remains. The problems though are obtaining and keeping a moderator with the time and ability to keep things going, getting serious scientists to join and contribute, and keeping the list activity going because moderated lists tend to dry up. Vortex has been an excellent resource (for me anyway) because the subject matter for the most part has been technical and discussion of really unusual ideas is wide open. However, it does not seem to meet the needs of serious scientists focused on cold fusion.

- H. Heffner
*********

We have to break the non-academic barrier, before we have the reasonable support. However, it is very difficult just like Galileo was facing 200 years ago.

- X.Z. Li
*********

Experimental results, performed by qualified researchers, must become 100% reproducible anywhere and any time. Protoscience will then become part of mainstream science.

- L. Kowalski
*********

We need a lot more work, new ideas and concepts. Certainly a better understanding of the mechanism would be of a great help.

- J.P. Biberian
*********

Concentrate research in each of the three main directions:

1) Chubb

2) Hydrino/Hydrex and similar (e.g. de Geus).

3) EVs.

4) Electrical implosion? (only one report, may also be example of

3).

When the actual mechanisms are better understood, engineering for optimal conditions becomes possible. Personally, I would concentrate on 2 first, because it is best understood, and has the potential to provide ample clean energy while researching the others.

Nr. 1 will likely be the last to be optimised. Nr. 3 can produce strong results without too much difficulty, yet will probably be dirty, possibly dangerous, and hard to make consistently self sustaining.

- R. Van Spaandonk
*********

Provide support to experimenters who have had good results in the past. Be open to new ideas from new experimenter teams. The possibility of rapid development of commercial cold fusion energy suggests that the level of support should be comparable to that provided in other energy and nuclear physics areas. Cold fusion funding should include funds for work in related technology disciplines.

- T. Chubb
*********

Large scale government funding would be very helpful. Martin Fleischmann has stated that another Manhattan-type program is needed. Lacking this governmental support, progress will be slower and dependent on unpredictable breakthroughs by individual investigators.

- M. Miles
*********

Establishment of the Science of CFP.

- H. Kozima
*********

First of all we have to convert the huge volume of negative information from the field in positive knowledge. That means understanding CF by the R-problem.

"We" are in the same boat and we have to cooperate if we want the field to survive and even prosper. In principle, that's simple: let's be serious, organized, intelligent, and lucky! Coopetition is essential – the problem is too difficult for small teams

"Serious"- was defined by the Romanian thinker Mihail Ralea- "to be focussed on essential,important things and not on the halo of less significant events and ideas around them"

Let's focus on reproducibility!

Let's focus on enhancement and not on measurement! (Till we will need good, sensitive calorimetry to show the effect, CF is not good for engineers and entrepreneurs and we have to wait for good money as for Godot)

Let's focus on high(er) temperature processes!

(these are good for thermodynamics)

Let's include the R-problem in the future theories! We need first class, i.e. preduictive theories.

"Organized" means real exchange of ideas, using well the opportunities given by meetings, symposia, congresses for real dialogue and not parallel monologs.

ICCF’s and other gatherings were fine but the system they work is not good for real exchange of ideas re. the essentials.

“Intelligent”- let’s use Mihail Ralea’s negative definition: “to be intelligent means to NOT mistake the points of view”. I think that – for example, it is not intelligent to ignore Storm’s ideas because they contradict our pet theory. It is also not intelligent

to reject completely Randy Mills hydrino concept, because that is heterodoxia. There are great chances that deuterium collapse is a phase of the CF process. And even Paolo Correa had some promising ideas – and at least he is aware of the complexity of the phenomena, this has nothing to do with other aspects of his behavior. And to discard the valuable negative results as xperimental errors that’s … very bad.

To be intelligent means to be very open to alternative ideas and approaches.

"Lucky" - we clearly need luck- in different form: a solid breakthrough now, good ideas, a billionaire CF lover, a David Sarnoff or Jack Welch, an open minded young theorist, many creative experimenters, new ideas and brains. Let’s hope, CF deserves great luck.

- P. Gluck
*********

We need support. It is hard for research scientists, spending their own money, to make progress.

- R. Gimpel
*********

A few things. First, people need to decide if they are willing to continue to pay increasing energy prices. Second, people need to decide if they want to continue polluting the earth. And if not, then if they can invest a relatively small amount of funds and can probably gain hold of this new energy source and make it practical and cost-effective.

- S. Krivit
*********