Full download ebook at ebookmass.

com

Cold Fusion: Advances in Condensed Matter Nuclear

Science Jean-Paul Biberian (Editor)

For dowload this book click link below

https://ebookmass.com/product/cold-fusion-
advances-in-condensed-matter-nuclear-science-jean-
paul-biberian-editor/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Download more ebook from https://ebookmass.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Condensed Matter Physics: A Very Short Introduction

Ross H. Mckenzie

https://ebookmass.com/product/condensed-matter-physics-a-very-
short-introduction-ross-h-mckenzie/

US Presidents and Cold War Nuclear Diplomacy Aiden

Warren

https://ebookmass.com/product/us-presidents-and-cold-war-nuclear-
diplomacy-aiden-warren/

Make Virtual Learning Matter Paul Axtell

https://ebookmass.com/product/make-virtual-learning-matter-paul-
axtell/

Distillation 1st Edition Jean-Paul Duroudier

https://ebookmass.com/product/distillation-1st-edition-jean-paul-
duroudier/
Advances In Questionnaire Design, Development,
Evaluation And Testing Paul C. Beatty

https://ebookmass.com/product/advances-in-questionnaire-design-
development-evaluation-and-testing-paul-c-beatty/

Fluid Transport: Pipes 1st Edition Jean-Paul Duroudier

https://ebookmass.com/product/fluid-transport-pipes-1st-edition-
jean-paul-duroudier/

Science and Technology of Liquid Metal Coolants in

Nuclear Engineering Thiagarajan Gnanasekaran

https://ebookmass.com/product/science-and-technology-of-liquid-
metal-coolants-in-nuclear-engineering-thiagarajan-gnanasekaran/

Introduction to Nuclear Science 2nd Edition, (Ebook

PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-nuclear-
science-2nd-edition-ebook-pdf/

Fundamentals of Nuclear Science and Engineering 3rd

Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/fundamentals-of-nuclear-science-
and-engineering-3rd-edition/
Cold Fusion
 Cold Fusion
Advances in Condensed Matter
Nuclear Science

Edited by

Jean-Paul Biberian
Honorary Professor
Department of Physics
University of Aix-Marseille—Marseille
France
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our
arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be
found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as
may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our
understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any
information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be
mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any
injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or
operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-0-12-815944-6

For information on all Elsevier publications visit

our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Susan Dennis

Acquisition Editor: Anita A. Koch
Editorial Project Manager: Ruby Smith
Production Project Manager: Kamesh Ramajogi
Cover Designer: Mark Rogers
Typeset by SPi Global, India
 This book is dedicated to Stanley Pons from the University of Utah, and the late
Professor Martin Fleischmann from the University of Southampton. They are great
scientists. They risked their careers and fame to announce their discovery of Cold
Fusion, as it was known then. They are heroes who deserve our gratitude. They
opened a new field in science, the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, which
changed the face of not only science, but in the future, it may change our entire
technological civilization. This planet is in great danger because of climate
change, the energy supply, and a lack of clean water; and this new science
will be part of the solution.
This book is also dedicated to the hundreds of scientists, engineers, self-made men
and women from all over the world who have spent their time, effort, and money to
replicate, study, improve, and commercialize this discovery.
Contributors
Jean-Paul Biberian
Honorary Professor, Department of Physics, University of Aix-Marseille—Marseille, France
Francesco Celani
ISCMNS_L1, Ferentino; INFN-LNF, Frascati, Italy
K. Fang
School of Nuclear Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, PR China
L.P. Forsley
Global Energy Corporation, Annandale, VA, United States
Peter L. Hagelstein
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States
Y. Honda
Research Center for Electron Photon Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan
Yasuhiro Iwamura
Condensed Matter Nuclear Reaction Division, Research Center for Electron Photon Science,
Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan
J. Kasagi
Research Center for Electron Photon Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan
Alla Kornilova
Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Cesare Lorenzetti
ISCMNS_L1, Ferentino, Italy
Michael C.H. McKubre
Energy Research Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, United States
A. Meulenberg
Science for Humanity Trust, Inc., Tucker, GA, United States
Melvin H. Miles
College of Science and Technology, Dixie State University, St. George, UT, United States
Tadahiko Mizuno
Hydrogen Engineering Application & Development Company, Sapporo, Japan
P.A. Mosier-Boss
Global Energy Corporation, Annandale, VA, United States
Hiroo Numata
Graduate School of Metallurgy and Ceramics Science, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan
J.L. Paillet
Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, PACA, France

xvii
xviii Contributors

K.P. Rajeev
Department of Physics, IIT Kanpur, Kanpur, India
Jed Rothwell
LENR-CANR.org, Chamblee, GA, United States
Mahadeva Srinivasan
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Mumbai, India
Edmund Storms
Kiva Laboratory, Santa Fe, NM, United States
Vladimir Vysotskii
Kiev National Shevchenko University, Kiev, Ukraine
M.V. Vysotskyy
Kiev National Shevchenko University, Kiev, Ukraine
Preface
On March 23, 1989, Professors Stanley Pons from the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann from
the University of Southampton announced during a press conference that they had achieved nuclear
reactions in a test tube. Immediately, all around the world scientists tried to replicate this incredible
discovery. Many failed, but a few succeeded. At the same time, unanimously almost all theoreticians
declared that it was impossible to achieve nuclear fusion at room temperature. A few theoreticians such
as Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger proposed models to try to explain the impossible reaction. Never-
theless, in spite of experimental successes, the field was very quickly almost banned from official sci-
ence everywhere on earth, although many peer-reviewed papers were published initially.
However, a number of scientists, both experimentalists and theoreticians, kept working under dif-
ficult conditions, either in their own institutions or in private laboratories, with limited funding. In spite
of these very difficult circumstances they did not stop working and developing both the science and the
technology. Thirty years after the announcement, even though hundreds of scientific papers were pub-
lished in peer-reviewed journals in the 1990s, the field is still banned from official science.
A community of enthusiast scientists managed to organize themselves. They put together interna-
tional conferences (International Conferences on Cold Fusion) that attracted hundreds of people. They
have also organized local meetings in Europe, Russia, Japan, and the United States. In order to have a
scientific nexus, and to get together, they have also created a society, the International Society of Con-
densed Matter Nuclear Science. This society not only provides information about the subject, but has
also a peer-reviewed journal, the “Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science” where close to 400
papers have been published in the past 11 years.
This book is a review of the work accomplished by some of these pioneers. There are experimental
chapters, and also theoretical ones. It is our hope that the main scientific community will discover or
rediscover this important field of science. Only a few of the large number of scientists currently work-
ing in this field have a chapter in this book. Those who have not been selected deserve our recognition
for what they have accomplished.
I thank all the authors who have contributed to this book. I also want to thank Jed Rothwell for
checking the English of the authors whose mother tongue is not English. This includes me.
Nuclear reactions in condensed matter will open amazing possibilities for a new source of energy.
This breakthrough will have an impact on our lives and the lives of coming generations. Once the tech-
nology is developed, energy will be accessible everywhere on our planet. We hope that this discovery
will help bring peace to the world by removing the need for wars to access energy resources.
This book is divided into four sections. The first one is dedicated to electrochemistry. Fleischmann
and Pons discovered the effect thanks to their ability to develop a simple and powerful calorimeter
which was extremely sensitive and precise. Without that device they would not have been capable
of making their discovery. The second section shows that the anomalous effect can also be observed
in gas phase, that is, in hydrogen or deuterium atmospheres. This is very important because in order to
transform heat into electricity the higher the heat source, the better the conversion efficiency. The third
section relates to transmutations. This effect was not discovered at first, but chemical and isotopic anal-
ysis soon showed that new elements were formed, and that the isotopic distribution of others was anom-
alous. This discovery triggered interest in another discovery that two centuries of old science

xix
xx Preface

completely ignored: biological transmutations. New experiments have shown that biology is not only
doing chemistry, but also nuclear reactions. The last section concerns models and theories. Our present
theories on nuclear reactions are based on two body reactions. In the case of Condensed Matter Nuclear
Science, we are in a multibody situation. In the past, no research in that direction was made. From day
1, some theoreticians, instead of saying that cold fusion was impossible, tried to find ways to resolve the
impossible. There is still a lot to do, but ideas are on the table and when a valid theory is found, it will
help improve the experimental work.

Jean-Paul Biberian
 CHAPTER

Production of helium in cold

fusion experiments
1
Melvin H. Miles
College of Science and Technology, Dixie State University, St. George, UT, United States

Introduction
Research on cold fusion at the China Lake Navy laboratory (Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Di-
vision, NAWCWD) began on the first weekend following the announcement on March 23, 1989 by
Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons. It was 6 months later (September 1989) before our group detected
any sign of excess heat production. By then, research reports from CalTech, MIT, and Harwell had
given cold fusion a triple whammy of rejection. Scientists often resorted to ridicule to discredit cold
fusion, and some were even saying that Fleischmann and Pons had committed scientific fraud.
Most palladium (Pd) sources do not produce any cold fusion effects [1]. The Pd made by Johnson-
Matthey (J-M) under special conditions specified by Fleischmann was not made available until later in
1989. I was likely one of the first recipients of this special Pd material when I received my purchase
from Johnson-Matthey of a 6-mm-diameter Pd rod in September 1989. Our first reports of excess heat
came from repeated use of the same two sections of this J-M palladium (J-M Pd) rod [1–3]. However,
our final conclusions about our first excess heat results came late in 1989, thus China Lake was listed
with CalTech, MIT, Harwell, and other groups reporting no excess heat effects in the November 1989
DOE-ERAB report [4].
These same two J-M Pd rods were later used in our first set of experiments (1990) showing helium-4
(He-4) production correlated with our excess heat (enthalpy) results [5–7]. Two later sets of experi-
ments at China Lake using more accurate helium measurements, including the use of metal flasks
for gas samples, confirmed our first set of measurements [8]. Following our initial research in
1990–91 on correlated heat and He-4 production, other cold fusion research groups reported evidence
for He-4 production [9]. This report, however, will focus mainly on the research of the author at
NAWCWD in China Lake, California, during the years 1990–95 [1, 8].

First set of heat and helium measurements (1990)

The proponents of cold fusion were being largely drowned out by cold fusion critics by 1990. In fact,
the first International Cold Fusion Conference (ICCF-1) was held from March 28 to 31, 1990 in Salt
Lake City, Utah. I found this to be a very unusual scientific conference with a mix of cold fusion

Cold Fusion. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815944-6.00001-4

# 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
3
4 Chapter 1 Production of helium in cold fusion experiments

proponents, many critics, and the press. Most presentations were followed by unscientific ridicule by
critics in the question period with comments such as “All this sounds like something from Alice in
Wonderland.” Two valid questions by critics, however, were: “Where are the neutrons?” and “Where
is the Ash?” If the cold fusion reactions were the same as hot fusion reactions, as most critics errone-
ously thought, then the amounts of excess power being reported (0.1–5 W) would have produced a
deadly number of neutrons (>1010 n/s). Furthermore, if there were a fusion reaction in the
palladium-deuterium (Pd-D) system, then there should appear a fusion product—sometimes incor-
rectly referred to as ash. Some researchers, such as Bockris and Storms, were reporting tritium as a
product, but the amounts were far too small to explain the excess enthalpy. The reported production
of neutrons in cold fusion experiments was even smaller (about 10
7 of the tritium).
Julian Schwinger, a Nobel laureate, suggested at ICCF-1 the possibility of a D + H fusion reaction
that produces only helium-3 (He-3) as a product and no neutrons or radiation [10]. Because of this, I
considered measurements for He-3 in my next experiments, but the mass spectrometer at China Lake
was designed for only larger molecules made by organic chemists. However, later in 1990, Ben Bush
called to discuss both a possible temporary position at China Lake and my cold fusion results. He held a
temporary position at the University of Texas in Austin, and the instrument there could measure He-3 in
small quantities. We worked out details in following telephone conversations about how to collect gas
samples of the electrolysis gases and ship them to Texas for both He-3 and He-4 measurements by their
mass spectrometry expert. My next two experiments, fortunately, produced unusually large excess
power effects for our first set of correlated heat and helium measurements [5–7].
These helium results were first published as a preliminary note [5], then in the ICCF-2 Proceedings
[6], and eventually as a detailed publication [7]. There was no detectable He-3, but there was evidence
for He-4 correlated with the excess enthalpy. I had never met Ben Bush and decided to code the gas
samples with the birthdays of my family members. My own measurements of excess power were
recorded in permanent laboratory notebooks before the samples were sent to Texas for analysis. These
were single-blind tests because Dr. Bush did not know how much, if any, excess power was being pro-
duced when an electrolysis gas sample was collected. I am glad, in retrospect, that this was done be-
cause I later learned that Dr. Bush was gung ho on proving cold fusion was correct. Scientists must
always leave it completely up to experimental results to answer important scientific questions. It
seemed to me, on the other hand, that scientists at MIT and CalTech in 1989 were focused only on
proving that cold fusion was wrong. There was a “Wake for Cold Fusion” held at MIT at 4 p.m. on
June 16, 1989a even before their cold fusion experiments were completed [11].
When all results for this first helium study were completed early in 1991, I thought about how this
research could be published quickly as a preliminary note. All research, except for the helium measure-
ments, was done at China Lake. However, critics of cold fusion were prominent in 1991, and any pub-
lication from China Lake had to be first cleared by several management levels. This publication could
be held up or even rejected for publication by the Navy personnel at China Lake. As a solution, I had
this manuscript submitted by Bush and Lagowski at the University of Texas at Austin, Texas where
they were listed as the first authors. A few months later, Dr. Ronald L. Derr, Head of the Research
Department at China Lake, admonished me for the publication of this work from China Lake in this

a
The flyer for this “Wake” at MIT ridiculed cold fusion with statements like “Black Armbands Optional” and “Sponsored by
the Center for Contrived Fantasies.”
 Analysis of the first set of helium measurements 5

manner. However, Dr. Derr, along with my Branch Head, Dr. Richard A. Hollins, were among the few
supporters of my cold fusion research at NAWCWD in 1991. Many others thought that such work dam-
aged the reputation of this Navy laboratory.

Analysis of the first set of helium measurements

Neither Ben Bush nor I really knew how much helium should be produced in my experiments by a
fusion reaction, but my quick calculations showed that it might be quite small because of its dilution
by the D2 and O2 gases produced by the electrolysis gases. Recently, I have found an easier and accurate
method to calculate the amount of He-4 theoretically expected from the experimental measurements of
excess power. Theoretically, the fusion of deuterons to form He-4 produces 2.6173712  1011 He-4
atoms per second per watt of excess power. This is based on the fact that each D + D fusion event pro-
duces 23.846478 MeV of energy per helium atom from Einstein’s Eq. E ¼ Δmc2. Multiplying the num-
ber of atoms per second per watt by the experimental excess power in watts gives the theoretical rate of
He-4 production in atoms per second.
The rate of electrolysis gases generated (D2 + O2) per second is given by
Molecules=s ¼ ð0:75 I=FÞ NA (1)

where I is the cell current in Amps, F is the Faraday constant, and NA is Avogadro’s number. Note that
the electrolysis reaction for one Faraday written as 0.5 D2O ! 0.5 D2 + 0.25 O2 produces 0.75 mol of
D2 + O2 gases. The largest excess power in the first set of He-4 measurements was 0.52 W at a cell
current of 0.660 A. Therefore, the theoretical rate of He-4 production divided by the rate of D2 + O2
molecules produced by electrolysis gives a ratio (R) for He-4 atoms to D2 + O2 molecules as shown
by the following equation:


2:617  1011 He-4 atoms=s W ð0:52 WÞ
R¼
(2)
½ð0:75Þ ð0:660AÞ=ð96, 485A s=molÞ 6:022  1023 D2 + O2 molecules=mol

This calculation yields R ¼ 44.1  10
9 or 44.1 parts per billion (ppb) of He-4 atoms. This is the the-
oretical concentration of He-4 present in electrolysis gases for this experiment if no He-4 remains
trapped in Pd. and if no other significant fusion reactions occur. Normally, about half of this theoretical
amounts of He-4 is experimentally measured in electrolysis gas. By combining the various constants in
Eq. (2), a simpler expression (Eq. 3) is obtained that gives He-4 directly:

He-4 ðppbÞ ¼ 55:91 ðPX =I Þ (3)

where PX is the excess power in watts and I is the cell current in Amps.
The first set (1990) of our China Lake results are shown in Table 1. The theoretical amount of
He-4 expected (ppb) based on the measured excess power and the cell current is also listed. This
is compared with the 1990 mass spectrometry results from the University of Texas in terms of large,
medium, small, or no observed He-4 peaks. The dates for the gas sample collections are also listed.
Two similar calorimeters (A,B) were run simultaneously, in series, in the same water bath controlled
to 0.01 °C [1–3].
6 Chapter 1 Production of helium in cold fusion experiments

Table 1 Results for the 1990 China Lake experiments.

Sample PX (W) Theoretical He-4 (ppb)a Measured He-4
b
12/14/90-A 0.52 44.1 Large peak
10/21/90-B 0.46 48.7 Large peak
12/17/90-A 0.40 42.4 Medium peak
11/25/90-B 0.36 38.1 Large peak
11/20/90-A 0.24 25.4 Medium peak
11/27/90-A 0.22 23.3 Large peak
10/30/90-B 0.17 18.0 Small peak
10/30/90-A 0.14 14.8 Small peak
10/17/90-A 0.07 7.4 No peak
12/17//90-B 0.29c 30.7c No peak
a
The University of Texas Detection Limit was about 5 ppb He-4 based on Table 1.
b
I ¼ 0.660 A. For all others I ¼ 0.528 A.
c
Calorimetric error due to low D2O solution level.

The theoretical He-4 amounts generally follow the peak size reported experimentally for He-4 ex-
cept for the one sample where there was an apparent calorimetric error. The simple exchange of the first
medium peak with the last large peak would give perfect agreement. Perhaps a simple mix-up of two
gas samples in 1990 for the He-4 measurements was all that prevented perfect agreement. Also, the-
oretical amounts of He-4 vary only by a factor of three between the large and small peaks. Previous
estimates [6–8] of the number of He-4 atoms in these flasks were in error because the rate of helium
production is directly proportional to the excess power. Finally, the detection limit for He-4 measured
at the University of Texas was about 5 ppb based on Table 1. This is in line with the 1.1 ppb exper-
imental error reported later by the US Bureau of Mines laboratory in Amarillo, Texas [8]. The rate for
atmospheric helium diffusing into these glass flasks was later measured to be 0.18 ppb/day. Thus
28 days of flask storage would be needed to reach the 5 ppb detection limit. No correlation was found
for the He-4 amounts and the flask storage times [6, 7]. Six control experiments using the same glass
flasks and H2O + LiOH electrolysis produced no excess enthalpy at China Lake and no He-4 was mea-
sured at the University of Texas [5–8]. In less than 2 years from the Fleischmann and Pons 1989 cold
fusion announcement, our research had shown that He-4 was the major cold fusion product. However,
most of the scientific world no longer had interest in cold fusion and our 1990–1991 heat and He-4
correlations were mostly ignored.
Secondary experiments were also conducted for these heat-production cells. Dental films within the
calorimeter was used to test for any ionizing radiation, and gold and indium foils were used to test for
any activation due to neutrons. These dental films were clearly exposed by radiation in both calorimet-
ric cells A and B [6, 7]. A nearby Geiger counter also recorded unusually high activity during this time
period. No activation of the gold or indium foils were observed; hence, the average neutron flux was
estimated to be <105 neutron per second. Similar dental film studies in the H2O + LiOH controls gave
no film exposure and no other indications of radiation [6, 7].
 Experimental measurement of He-4 diffusion into glass flasks 7

Experimental measurement of He-4 diffusion into glass flasks

One of the main questions raised by our first report in 1991 of the correlation between excess heat and
He-4 production in our experiments [5–7] was the diffusion of He-4 from the atmosphere into our glass
collection flasks. This was certainly possible, but would the rate of such diffusion be fast enough to
affect our results? I addressed this question in my presentation at ICCF-2 in Como, Italy where I sug-
gested that since D2 also diffuses through glass, then the much greater outward diffusion of D2 gas
across the flask surface in the opposite direction might impede the small flow of atmospheric He-4
into the flask. Experimental measurements of the rate of helium diffusion into these same glass flasks
later answered these important questions. The rate of atmospheric He-4 flowing into our glass flasks
was too slow to have affected our first report on the heat/He-4 correlations. These experiments also
showed that large amounts of hydrogen or D2 in the flask somewhat slow the rate of atmospheric
helium diffusion into the flask. Theoretical calculations using q ¼ KP/d gave good agreement with
the experiment measurements [1, 5–7], where q is the permeation rate; K is the permeability for Pyrex
Glass per unit area; P is the partial pressure of atmospheric He-4; and d is the glass thickness
(d ¼ 0.18 cm for our typical glass flask having a surface area of 314 cm2).
The results for eight experimental measurements of the He-4 diffusion rate into the same glass
flasks used in our experiments are presented in Table 2.
For our experimental condition of flasks filled with D2 + O2, the mean He-4 diffusion rate is
0.18  0.02 ppb/day. Thus, it would take a flask storage time of 28 days to just reach the He-4 detection
limit of about 5 ppb (see Table 1). The theoretical 44.1 ppb in Table 1 would require a flask storage time
of 242 days to reach this amount of He-4. Because of the large excess power measured, the flask storage
time was not a factor for the results in Table 1. Also, the flasks filled with N2 had larger experimental
rates for He-4 diffusion than the flasks filled with the D2 + O2 electrolysis gases. The various flasks had

Table 2 Experimental measurements of He-4 diffusion into the glass flasks used at China Lake.
Conditions Laboratorya He-4 atoms/day ppb/dayb

Theoretical q ¼ KP/d 2.6  1012 0.23

N2 fill HFO 2.6  1012 0.23
N2 fill HFO 3.4  1012 0.30
N2 fill RI 3.7  1012 0.32
D2 + O2 fillc RI 1.82  0.01  1012 0.160
D2 + O2 filld RI 2.10  0.02  1012 0.184
D2 + O2 fille RI 2.31  0.01  1012 0.202
H2 fillf RI 1.51  0.11  1012 0.132
Vacuumf RI 2.09  0.04  1012 0.183
a
HFO (Helium Field Operations, Amarillo, Texas), RI (Rockwell International, Canoga Park, California).
b
Based on 1.141  1022 D2 + O2 molecules per flask.
c
Glass flask #5.
d
Glass flask #3.
e
Glass flask #4.
f
Both experiments used glass flask #2.
8 Chapter 1 Production of helium in cold fusion experiments

somewhat different values for He-4 diffusion because it was unlikely that any two flasks would be ex-
actly the same. Furthermore, filament tape was used on each Pyrex round-bottom flask to help prevent
breakage during shipments. However, the measured He-4 diffusion using the same glass flask in
Table 2 for both an H2 fill and a vacuum shows a significant slower diffusion rate for He-4 for the flask
filled with hydrogen [7]. The outward diffusion of D2 or H2 across the glass surface apparently does, in
fact, slow the inward diffusion of atmospheric He-4.

Second set of helium measurements (1991–92)

Unfortunately, our 6-mm-diameter Pd rods from Johnson-Matthey were cut up for He-4 analysis, and it
took nearly a year to find another Pd electrode that produced excess heat. (Note: If one finds palladium
electrodes that produce large excess power effects, hang on to them! Also, do not use them for H2O
controls.) This was a 1.0-mm-diameter J-M wire, and the excess power was small due to the much
smaller Pd volume used (0.020 cm3 vs 0.34 cm3). However, Rockwell International provided signifi-
cantly more accurate He-4 measurement with a reported error of only 0.09 ppb [1, 8]. Brian Oliver,
who performed these studies, was recognized as a world expert for He-4 measurements. The He-4 mea-
surements were carried out over a period of more than 100 days and thus the He-4 results could be ac-
curately extrapolated back to the time of the gas sample collection [8]. This eliminated any effect due to
the diffusion of atmospheric He-4 into glass flasks. These were double-blind experiments because nei-
ther Rockwell International nor the China Lake laboratory knew the results for both the excess power
and helium measurements until this study was completed and all results were reported to a third party.
The experimental and theoretical results for this set of experiments in 1991–92 are presented in
Table 3.
There is considerable information contained in this accurate He-4 analysis by Rockwell Interna-
tional that supports a D + D fusion reaction producing He-4 and 23.85 MeV of energy per He-4 atom.
First, Rockwell reported their results as the measured number of He-4 atoms in each of the 500-mL
collection flasks at the time of collection. These numbers were 1.34  1014, 1.05  1014, and
0.97  1014 helium atoms per 500 mL [8, 12]. The reported error (standard deviation) by Rockwell
was only 0.01  1014 He-4 per 500 mL. Therefore, there is a 29σ effect between the two highest num-
bers and a 37σ effect between the highest and lowest numbers. Except perhaps for the cold fusion field,
any measurements that produce even 5σ effects are considered to be very significant by the scientific

Table 3 Results for the second set of experiments (1991–92).

Sample PX (W) Theoretical He-4 (ppb) Experimental He-4 (ppb)a

12/30/91-B 0.100b 10.65 11.74

12/30/91-A 0.050b 5.33 9.20
01/03/92-B 0.020c 2.24 8.50
a
Reported Rockwell error was equivalent to 0.09 ppb.
b
I ¼ 0.525 A.
c
I ¼ 0.500 A.
 Second set of helium measurements (1991–92) 9

community. Note that the numbers reported by Rockwell are also in the correct order for the excess
power measured (Table 3) for this double-blind experiment.
The number of He-4 atoms per 500 mL can be converted to ppb, as used in Table 3, by calculating
the total number of gas molecules contained in the flask. From the ideal gas equation, this number is
(PV/RT)NA or 1.141  1022 molecules for our laboratory condition during the flask collection time
(P ¼ 0.921 atm, V ¼ 0.500 L, and T ¼ 296.15 K). In terms of ppb, the Rockwell reported error of
0.01  1014 He-4 atoms per 500 mL becomes about 0.09 ppb.
Later experiments using metal collection flasks established that the background He-4 in our col-
lection system was 5.1  1013 atoms per 500 mL or 4.5 ppb [1, 8]. Based on theoretical calculations,
the diffusion of He-4 into our collection system was not due to any glass components, but rather
due to the use of a thick rubber vacuum tubing to make the connections to the collection flask and
oil bubbler. We kept our calorimetric system and gas collection system at China Lake exactly the same
for several years for the purpose of making comparisons between experiments done at different times.
The correction for this background He-4 actually helped to bring the Rockwell He-4 measurements
closer to theoretical values based on the D + D fusion reaction to form He-4. This is shown in Table 4.
The corrected He-4 measurements by Rockwell are reasonably close to the expected values based
on the D + D fusion reaction to form He-4 as the main product. Only the results for an excess power of
0.020 W suggests a problem because the corrected experimental value (4.00 ppb He-4) is larger than the
theoretical value (2.24 ppb He-4). This is not unexpected because 0.020 W is near the measuring limit
for the calorimeter used. The correct experimental excess power may have been closer to 0.040 W
which gives 2.4  1011 He-4/J and 25 MeV/He-4. Also, the rate of work done by the generated elec-
trolysis gases (Pw) was not considered. This alone would add another 0.010 W to give 0.030 W for
the excess power. This small Pw term is less important for higher excess power measurements. Some-
times Eq. (3) can be useful in estimating the excess power from the experimental He-4 measurements.
This yields 0.036 W for the excess power in Table 4 (instead of 0.020 W).
An example of the experimental calculation of He atoms per Ws (or J) is presented in the following
equation for the measured excess power of 0.100 W (I ¼ 0.525 A):

1:34  1014
0:51  1014 Heatoms=500 mL
¼ 1:8  1011 Heatoms=J (4)
ð4644s=500mLÞð0:100WÞ

Table 4 Results for the second set of experiments with corrections for the background He-4
(4.5 ppb).
PX (W) Theoretical He-4 (ppb) Corrected He-4 (ppb) He-4/Ja MeV/He-4b

0.100c 10.65 7.24 1.8  1011 35

0.050c 5.33 4.70 2.3  1011 27
0.020d 2.24 4.00 4.7  1011 13
a
Theoretical value: 2.617  1011 He-4 J (Note J ¼ W s).
b
Theoretical value: 23.85 MeV/He-4.
c
I ¼ 0.525 A.
d
I ¼ 0.500 A.
10 Chapter 1 Production of helium in cold fusion experiments

where 4644 s is the time required to generate 500 mL of D2 + O2 electrolysis gases at a cell current
of 0.525 A.
The value for MeV per He-4 atom readily follows as shown by



1
1:8  1011 He-4=J 1:602  10
19 J=eV ¼ 35MeV=He-4 (5)

A mean value for the three experiments in Table 3 yields 25  11 MeV/He-4. Omitting the smallest
excess power measured gives 30.5  5.0 MeV/He-4. The results given in Table 3 are reasonable con-
sidering the rather small excess power measured. This was probably due to the small volume of the Pd
electrode (0.020 cm3). Typical excess power for the Pd/D system is about 1.0 W/cm3 of Pd for our cur-
rent densities used [13]. The experimental corrected values for He-4 compared to the theoretical
amounts in Table 3 are 68% and 88% for the two largest values for excess power. Reported experi-
mental values are often higher than 24 MeV/He-4 because some of He-4 is retained in the Pd cathode.
For example, if 50% of the He-4 is retained, then the experimental value would be 48 MeV/He-4 from
Eq. (5).

Analysis of the third set of helium measurements (1993–94)

Most cold fusion critics refused to accept the correlation of excess heat and He-4 production in our
experiments because of the diffusion of atmospheric helium into glass containers. Therefore, metal
flasks were used in place of glass flasks to collect gas samples from our experiments for helium anal-
ysis. The use of these metal flasks prevented the diffusion of atmospheric helium into the flasks after
they were sealed. Even the flasks valves were modified to provide a metal seal by using a nickel gasket.
All other components of the cells, gas lines, and oil bubblers remained the same in order to relate these
new measurements to the previous measurements using glass flasks [1]. However, it was difficult to get
the large excess power effects observed in our first set of measurements that used the special 6-mm J-M
Pd rods. The He-4 analyses for these experiments using the new metal flasks were performed by the US
Bureau of Mines laboratory at Amarillo, Texas. This was another laboratory with special skills in mak-
ing such measurements. By this time, we were using four similar calorimeters (A, B, C, D) in two dif-
ferent water baths for calorimetric studies.
Table 5 presents the He-4 results for seven experiments that produced small excess power effects.
The theoretical calculated amounts expected for He-4 are also presented. Measurements in similar ex-
periments where no excess power was measured gave a background level of 4.5  0.5 ppb (5.1  1013
He-4 atoms) for our system [1].
It should be noted that the largest excess power in Table 4 (0.120 W) was for a palladium-boron (Pd-
B) rod (0.6  2.0 cm) made by Dr. Imam at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). We had been testing
palladium materials made by NRL for several years, but none had produced a significant excess en-
thalpy effect. However, seven of eight experiments using Pd-B rods from NRL produced significant
excess heat effects before this Navy program on Pd-D systems ended in June of 1995 [1]. Most of the
other excess power effects reported in Table 5 were produced by J-M Pd materials. Five experimental
values for He-4 in Table 5 are larger than the theoretical values reported. Assuming that the excess
power reported is correct, then this is readily explained by the need to subtract the background of
 Discussion of china lake heat and He-4 results 11

Table 5 He-4 measurements using metal flasks.

Flask/cell (date) PX (W) Theoretical He-4 (ppb) Experimental He-4 (ppb)

3/B (9/13/94) 0.120 a,b

13.4 9.4  1.8
2/A (9/13/94) 0.070a 7.8 7.9  1.7
2/D 5/30/93) 0.060 8.4 6.7  1.1
3/A (5/31/93) 0.055 7.7 9.0  1.1
4/B (5/21/93) 0.040 5.6 9.7  1.1
1/C (5/30/93) 0.040 5.6 7.4  1.1
1/A (7/7/93) 0.030a 3.4 5.4  1.5
a
I ¼ 0.500 A. For all others I ¼ 0.400 A.
b
Pd-B cathode.

Table 6 Background corrections for He-4 measurements using metal flasks.

PX Corrected He-4 Percent of Electrode volume
(W) (ppb)a theoretical % (cm3) He-4/J

0.120 b
4.9 37 0.57 1.0  1011
0.070 3.4 43 0.66 1.1  1011
0.060 2.2 26 0.04 0.7  1011
0.055 4.5 59 0.51 1.5  1011
0.040 5.2 93 0.02 2.4  1011
0.040 2.9 52 0.01 1.4  1011
0.030 0.9 27 0.29 0.7  1011
a
4.5 ppb subtracted from reported He-4 measurements.
b
Pd-B cathode.

4.5 ppb from each experimental value. These results are shown in Table 6 along with the electrode vol-
ume and the experimental rate of He-4 production per second per watt of excess power (J ¼ W s).
Because of the small amounts of excess power reported in Tables 5 and 6, it is difficult to reach any
strong conclusions from the use of metal flasks except that He-4 production is observed in experiments
that produce excess power and no He-4 production above background is measurable in experiments
with no excess power. Furthermore, both the uncorrected and corrected experimental amounts of
He-4 are close to the theoretical amounts expected. Larger excess power, such as in our first set of
He-4 measurements would be needed before more definite conclusions could be made.

Discussion of China Lake heat and He-4 results

Some critics claimed that our results must be wrong because the experimentally measured He-4 is only
in the ppb range. However, this chapter shows that the theoretical amounts of He-4 for our experiments
should be in this ppb range (see Eq. 3).
12 Chapter 1 Production of helium in cold fusion experiments

Many other critics attribute our heat and He-4 results to some form of contamination from atmo-
spheric He-4 normally present in air at 5.22 ppm [12]. Such contamination sources would be random
and equally likely to be found in controls or experiments which show no excess enthalpy results. In
summary, for all such experiments conducted at NAWCWD (China Lake), 12 out of 12 produced
no excess He-4 when no excess heat was measured and 18 out of 21 experiments gave a correlation
between the measurements of excess heat and He-4. The three failures either had a calorimetric error or
involved the use of a different Pd material, that is, a Pd-cerium alloy that perhaps traps most of the He-4
produced. An exact statistical treatment that includes all experiments shows that the probability is only
one in 750,000 that the China Lake set of heat and helium measurements (33 experiments) could be so
well correlated due to random experimental errors [1]. Furthermore, the rate of He-4 production was
always in the appropriate range of 1010–1012 atoms per second per watt of excess power for D + D
fusion or other likely nuclear fusion reactions that produce He-4 [1, 8].
All of our theoretical calculations for He-4 production have assumed that the main fusion reaction is
D + D ! He-4 + 23.8 MeV. However, other fusion reactions producing He-4 could also be considered
such as D + Li-6 ! 2 (He-4) + 22.4 MeV or D + B-10 ! 3 (He-4) + 17.9 MeV. Neither of these two pos-
sible reactions seem to fit well with our experimental measurements. Both reactions lead to large in-
creases in theoretical amounts of He-4 for each experimental measurement of excess power. For
example, the D + B-10 reaction would increase the theoretical amount of He-4 by a factor of 3.99.
In Table 3, the theoretical amount of He-4 corresponding to PX ¼ 0.100 W would be 42.50 ppb rather
than 10.65 ppb. For likely fusion reactions that produce He-4, the D + D reaction seems to fit best with
our experimental results. Other proposed fusion reactions produce significantly less than 23.8 MeV of
energy per He-4 atom. These fusion reactions show the thermodynamic relationships between reactants
and products and do not imply any reaction mechanisms. Obviously, cold fusion reactions within the
palladium lattice do not involve the collision mechanisms generally used for hot fusion reactions.
At about the same time period of our first heat and helium measurements in 1990, two different
theories were proposed that predicted He-4 as the main cold fusion product and that this He-4 would
be found mostly outside the metal lattice in the electrolysis gas stream. These two independent theories
came from Scott and Talbot Chubb [14] and Giuliano Preparata [15]. Both Scott Chubb and Preparata
called me shortly after our first publication on correlated excess heat and He-4 in 1991, and Preparata
soon made a visit to my China Lake laboratory. I first met Scott and his uncle, Talbot Chubb, at ICCF-2
in Como, Italy, and our friendship lasted many years. Some of the most boisterous ICCF moments
involved loud debates between Scott Chubb and Preparata over their two theories.

Related research by other laboratories

There are more than 15 cold fusion groups that have identified He-4 production in their experiments. A
summary for these groups reporting He-4 has been reported elsewhere by Storms [16]. Publications by
Bockris [17], Gozzi [18], and McKubre [19] relate closely to our electrochemical cold fusion studies at
China Lake. McKubre and coworkers at SRI report on several different experiments using three dif-
ferent calorimetric methods that gave a strong time correlation between the rates of heat and helium
production [19]. Using sealed cells, the He-4 concentration exceeded that of the room air. These SRI
experiments gave a near-quantitative correlation between heat and He-4 production consistent with the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for

the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3,
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR
BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK
OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL
NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF
YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving
it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or
entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide
a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation,

the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation,
anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with
the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or
any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission

of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to
maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.