January 29, 2010
Issue #34


Previous Article — Table of ContentsNext Article
New Energy Times home page

1. Editorial: An Incoherent Explanation of LENR

By Steven B. Krivit

Photo: Daniel Bosler

For 21 years, a subgroup of LENR researchers has hypothesized a D+D —> 4He + ~24 MeV (heat) “cold fusion” reaction to explain two of the many observed phenomena measured in LENR experiments: excess heat and helium-4 production.

New Energy Times recently discovered that members of this subgroup, through questionable actions and interpretations, have misled not only the scientific community and the Department of Energy but also their peers in the LENR community. The subgroup's actions have delayed the progress and acceptance of the field.

Nonetheless, although the LENR phenomenon may not be D-D "cold fusion," it is nuclear and provides hope for a new source of clean energy.

This subgroup considered attempts to measure experimental values of ~24 MeV very important because it thought the finding of such values would validate its hypothesis of D-D “cold fusion.” To this end, the subgroup has made significant references to two key experiments.

In 1994, experiment “M4,” reported in 1998, was performed at SRI International in Menlo Park, Calif. It did not produce ~24MeV per atom of helium.

In 1998, another experiment at SRI, called the “Case Replication,” also failed to produce ~24MeV per atom of helium.

In 2000, researchers at SRI and MIT developed new interpretations and explanations about the 1994 experiment. With these in hand, in a two-step process, they first claimed that the 1994 experiment did, in fact, produce ~24 MeV/4He.

Then they claimed that this newly interpreted ~24 MeV value for the 1994 experiment could explain the large deviation from ~24MeV that was observed in the 1998 experiment.

When the researchers described the two experiments in the 2000 paper, they reversed the order (1998 listed as No. 2, 1994 listed as No. 3) and provided text implying that their 1994 experiment took place after the 1998 experiment. Readers were led to believe that the earlier experiment represented added confirmation for the latter experiment.

Among other problems, these researchers did not explain in their 2000 paper that their newly developed interpretations and explanations for the 1994 experiment significantly conflicted with the conclusions of the original report for the 1994 experiment.

This New Energy Times science investigation probes these actions and events in detail.


Previous Article — Table of ContentsNext Article