"Cold Fusion" (but not LENR) Claims Questioned
Follow-up to New Energy Times Issue 34
Feb. 9, 2010


Dear Readers,

We published Issue 34 of New Energy Times on Jan. 31. In it,
we reveal how scientists at SRI International and MIT, claiming
evidence for the theory of "cold fusion," have misled the public,
their peers, the Department of Energy and the reviewers of the
2004 DoE LENR review.

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

Since NET34 published, we have received no response, let alone
corrections, from any of the principal subjects of the story,
Michael McKubre (SRI International), Peter Hagelstein (MIT
and Naval Postgraduate School) and Vittorio Violante (ENEA
Frascati). The three are members of an informal consortium
that has collaborated on research, publications, intellectual
property claims and shared in federally funded LENR research.

We have received a few interesting comments on our blog, and we
welcome yours.

For your convenience, here is a summary of the meaning and
implications of NET34

1.  "24 MeV/4He" Does Not Exist
        Contrary to what the public has heard and believed, the
        purported best evidence for the theory of low-energy nuclear
        reactions as a "cold fusion" reaction, specifically
        the highly promoted claim of ~24 MeV/4He, does not exist.
2.  Helium-4 Is Not Expected*
        Helium-4 is a rare product of D-D thermonuclear fusion. Its
        finding in LENR in significant quantities is inconsistent with
        thermonuclear fusion. Its promotion by the subgroup as
        evidence of D-D "cold fusion" is misleading.
3.  Only a Subgroup Is Responsible
        A subgroup of the LENR field comprising some of the most
        prominent leaders of the field (mostly Americans) is primarily
        responsible for causing this misperception.
4.  Other Potential Energetic Processes Discarded
        The subgroup misled the public into believing that excess
        heat and non-energetic helium-4 were the only confirmed
        evidence for LENR. This distracted the public from more
        closely analyzing why the D-D "cold fusion" hypothesis fell
        so short in explaining the many other observed phenomena
        in LENR.
5.  Experimental Evidence of LENR Is Strong
        The consequences of attempting to sell people and the U.S.
        government on the speculative, unsupported theory of
        "cold fusion" caused them to have less confidence in the
        very real and strong experimental evidence of LENR.
6.  LENR Progress Delayed
        The subgroup's efforts to promote its "cold fusion" theory
        have come at the expense of the acceptance and recognition
        of the entire LENR field.

NET34 contains these six articles:

1.  Editorial: An Incoherent Explanation of LENR
        (An expanded version of the four points listed above)
2. The Emergence of an Incoherent Explanation for D-D "Cold Fusion"
        (The feature story, 3,971 words, excluding the abstract)
3. Inexplicable D-D "Cold Fusion" Claims From Italy
        (How Italian researchers played a role)
4. U.S. Department of Energy 2004 LENR Review: The Inside Story
        (How American and Italian researchers attempted to spin the DoE)
5. Revisions to Previously Reported MeV/4He Values
          (Technical information)
6. A Tragic Event in LENR History
          (About a murder)

To view NET34 on the Web:

NET34:  http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/NET340.shtml
NET34 Slideshow: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/4HeRetention-Slide1-100.shtml

Both documents are also available as printable PDF files:

NET34: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/NET34.pdf
NET34 Slideshow: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/NET34Slides-IncoherentExplanation.pdf
Again, let this be crystal clear: Although the LENR phenomenon may
not be D-D "cold fusion," it is nuclear and provides hope for
a new source of clean energy.

Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

* See blog comment by William Collis