COLD FUSION NEEDS A NEW PARADIGM NOW.

A recurrent, painful question characterized by lost patience and bearing shades of silent desperation is: “How to have CF accepted by the scientific community?” Recently one of our best men, wrote a very nice essay about it but got only one answer saying the situation is hopeless and salvation of the field can come only from outside. I was this unique respondent and my pessimism is based in part on the idea that in the still core system of cold fusion, PdD electrolysis cell, it is practically impossible to obtain decent reproducibility and there are no chances for real scale up.               

Suppose I am erring here stupidly and tomorrow a perfectly reproducible classic LENR system will be worked out, 99 successful tests from 100 and a scientific explanation will be found for this great achievement. Unfortunately it will be extremely difficult to publish a paper in a high rank scientific journal. A recent discussion with a reputed, highly successful university professor who is a good friend i.e. absolutely sincere with me- has again shown that the orthodox science has given its verdict final and irreversible to cold fusion- no mercy! It is esoteric science and its adequate status is pariah science. Scientifically not understood, experimentally not reproducible, sooner or later it has to die.

As many of my readers I disagree with this, however I disagree on the basis of the ideas developed in this blog; I dare to think that now the PROBLEM part is complete and finished. I have explained in detail and repeatedly how due to unfortunate circumstances in self-enhancing and reinforcing combinations cold fusion could not find a good explanation (theory) and how and why the experimental part is faulty due to bad reproducibility. Being a professional technologist my repulsion toward that damned reproducibility problem is fiercer and deeply ingrained in my thinking than the arguments of the most skeptic enemy of cold fusion.

From now on, let’s start thinking on the SOLUTION.

I repeat It is time to completely re-think and re-write the history of the field and go to a radically and painfully new strategy, new modes of thinking- to a new Paradigm.

Actually this has already started even if we are not aware of it, just now it is deep silence, real “saison morte” on our forums but (I bet!) the coming year will bring a tsunami of new, creative ideas disseminated in the epidemic mode. You will see triumphant, absolutely convincing experimental high energy intensity facts

demonstrating that yes, what has started as Fleischmann and Pons’ cold fusion is now the finest energy source of the future.

History will judge me and the new Paradigm I am announcing here and now. Those who know my privileged way during the last 3 years, my revelations and ordeals know how privileged I was by

learning from Piantelli directly, how hard I have tried to understand

Rossi’s discovery (not his personality) and what a unique wonderful source of intellectual and technological discoveries was my friendship with the Defkalion heroes- will think: “it is easy for Peter, he was favorised by his professional destiny and now he plays the wise guy and dares to tell us about a New Paradigm- shameless self promotion!”

True, and not true in the same time the appended document shows actually I was preaching and prophesizing. about a New Paradigm already 19 years ago! Just I thought it was a paradigm too far and this was true- the distance was 20 cold fusion years (a unity of length similar to a light year but much shorter.

It is old stuff, but many of those who have read it illo tempore are not more with us (as my unforgettable dear friend Hal Fox who has published it) and I don’t think it is a popular paper.

You will discover that the last words of that paper are today still the key to the survival and future prosperity of the field: “Gain power by accepting reality." Not an easy job if your brain is poisoned with dominant memes (guess which ones?) Accepting reality as irreproducibility cannot be tolerated, CF must be metamorphosed in order to live etc. is an awfully difficult and slow process.  

Further I have stated then that cold fusion is actually not science? Is it today with all the attributes of a science as a basic all accepted

theory understanding standards? Just developing science very very far from the initial ideas. New “truths, theories, totems and taboos” will populate the radically changed field, soon. 

I see, with some pleasure that even 19 years ago I have supported the active sites idea with fervor and facts. And I knew even earlier that only technology will save Cold Fusion- perhaps.

In 1995 my own idea re “To be, or not to be “was too smart for me too. But now I see it clearly- if it wants to BE, cold fusion must boldly and entirely change its identity. Just a bit more subtlety,

my dear readers!

Peter

ADDENDUM FROM THE GOOD/BAD OLD TIMES

A PARADIGM TOO FAR?

By Peter Gluck

Fusion Facts, January 1995 p19

Is cold fusion a science? Not yet, because by definition: "A

science is any discipline in which the fool of the present generation can go beyond the point reached by the genius of

the last generation" (Max Gluckman).

We all, geniuses, bright scientists, common researchers, fools

and me belong to the first generation dedicated to battles and

sacrifices, we try to build the House of Cold Fusion in

perpetual stormy weather. The next generation will have the

decisive advantage to use the good paradigm and will take the

profit.

I dare to predict that finally everybody will be happy: the

Skeptics because cold fusion is not exactly genuine D-D fusion,

the believers because cold fusion is the inexhaustible source

of energy of the future, and, finally, Mankind because it will

use this energy.

To be a science, cold fusion needs its own paradigm, and this

isn't ready yet.

A paradigm for Cold Fusion.

A basic difference: Cold Fusion belongs to Solid State which

is: Developing science/Developed technology.

Hot Fusion belongs to Plasma Physics which is: Developed

science/Developing technology.

In both cases, as in politics or economics, `developing' is

merely an euphemism for underdeveloped; many essential

subfields of solid state e.g. high temperature

superconductivity, conductive polymers, porous silicone,

heterogeneous catalysis actually do not have a real,

quantitative, predictive theory but are prospering

technologically. Each of these fields is a technological

miracle grafted on a theoretical quagmire, and who

cares? This is always forgotten and a cold fusion theory is

ever more insistently requested, however both similarity and

synchronicity suggest that such a theory cannot be worked out

yet.

Two recent papers [1, 2] written by seven authors with a total

IQ of well over 1000 (is this really additive?) scan the entire

range of cold fusion theories and conclude, one explicitly [1]

and one implicitly [2]: no theory possible.

For cold fusion a paradigm shift or a new paradigm is

necessary; this is a complex action comprising: transport,

transfer, and transformation of truths, theories, totems and

taboos of established fields for the use of the new one. The

paradigm of hot fusion was the first choice, however, the two

paradigms are so different, between them there is a conceptual

abyss, and the strategy adopted was, unfortunately, enough to

pass this abyss by small steps. The result is: many strange

hybrids with a very low life expectancy. Troubles with the replacement paradigm.

The central problem of hot fusion is the Coulomb barrier, an

obstacle which can be passed by high temperatures; for room

temperature fusion, we have to find something similar,

according to the replacement paradigm, it has to be high

pressure! A palladium lattice oversaturated with deuterium is

ideal for packing and squeezing the deuterons, therefore, the

great totem has to be the D/Pd ratio, and everything happens

inside the lattice, and only in the lattice. In the whole lattice,

cold fusion is a bulk phenomenon. Little was changed when

Mills and co-workers demonstrated that heat excess can also

be obtained with light water [3], that is: CF is not a privilege

of deuterium, and later new proofs of a kind of Isotopic

Democracy came to change the first naive image of the field:

the systems of Dufour [4] (gas sparking), Piantelli et al. [5]

(gas/solid, electromagnetic stimulation) are working with both

Hand D, however, democracy is not perfect equality. Two

systems using ultrasound to obtain excess heat have been

discovered. One is based on heavy water [6] and gives heat

plus helium. The other is a commercial patented apparatus for

heating fluids, extracting a lot of free Btu's from ordinary

water [7].

Many other materials besides palladium proved to be `CF

active' that is CF is more general and less specific than we had

thought in 1989.

Actually a theory has to elucidate three aspects of the

phenomena locus, nature and mechanism. The first two of

these are correlated in part but not predetermined as it was

considered by extrapolating the paradigm of hot fusion well

beyond its limits of validity. Despite a plethora of

experimental facts, "the locus is the bulk" and "the nature of

the reactions is obviously D-D fusion" became axioms and

only a few heretics tried to discuss about possible alternatives.

Due to the domination of the hybrid paradigm, the problem of

understanding cold fusion was attacked in the reverse order

(the proper being: locus - nature - mechanism) or only in part

by treating the mechanism of reactions, admitting tacitly that

locus and nature are well known from the start. Invariably,

only depth-first approaches have been used, however, we now

need breadth-first approaches, so useful in cases of

interdisciplinary fields where a vision is essential. In these

circumstances, after over 5 years, cold fusion has existential

problems. In the same time, this situation is quite normal for a

brand new science, and a question "To be or not to be?" for CF

is actually stupid, a symptom of dualistic thinking. The answer

as almost always given by nature is of the "mu" type (see

please the books of Pirsig, Hofstadter, Capra which are

essential for understanding physics). Actually, the skeptics are

searching for genuine fusion and the believers for a

non-chemical, non-exhaustible source of energy. The answer,

any answer has different significance for the parties in

confrontation

To some extent,  both skeptics and believers are victims of

Groupthink, dualistic thinking and thinking small.

An alternative.

By an objective analysis of the facts, and by trying to use the

Methods of creative thinking, I started to build an alternative

paradigm [8,9]. The essential points are:

˝ cold fusion is an extreme case of catalysis;

˝positive and negative results are compatible in the frame of

our approach we can accommodate seemingly antithetical

concepts;

˝ irreproducibility is not the karma of CF, it is a direct

consequence of the catalytic nature of the phenomena, it is a

great informational asset and can be eliminated by technology;

˝ to understand the field we need a global approach: all

systems, all results, all phenomena, and above all, all the

isotopes of hydrogen;

˝everything happens on the surface or very near to it, and

only in certain active sites of it, just as in case of catalysis; the

role of the bulk is to support the surface;

˝ the clue is not pressure but mobility.

Two papers published in 1994 demonstrate the creative

abilities of the very high surfaces; using titanium soot,

impregnated with tritium, Reifenschweiler [10] could change

the radioactivity of tritium; the double structured cathodes of

the Arata cell comprising palladium black, i.e. another

ultra-dispersed material with a huge surface resulted in a

reproducible, intense heat excess (200 MJ in 3000 hours).

Such particles guarantee the presence of many catalytic

centers.

The very high loading ratios attained by Celani, et al. [12],

D/Pd= 1.2 who used very short pulses of current, didn't give

the expected great excess heat values, substantiating our idea

that global loading is nothing more than a prerequisite of high

local loading.

Excess heat was obtained in a new system, ionic implant of

Deuterium in aluminum followed by electron bombardment,a

very important result, I think (Kamada, l994). The

micrographs clearly show that the metal is locally melted at the

deuterium molecular collections/Al interface. [13]

Temporarily, we have to give up hope (but not search!) for a

theory and have to accept that cold fusion will develop as a

technology and:" Technology is not a science, not a discipline,

not a tool and not engineering. It's know-how." (Alfred

Wechsler)

This is very bad news for some of our friends. However, we

will soon be able to understand some basic facts and will have

a usable paradigm. Don't forget, even Confucius was advised

by his ancestors to "Gain power by accepting reality."

References.

[l] V.A. Chechin, V.A. Tsarev, M.Rabinowitz, Y.E. Kim,

"Critical Review of Theoretical Models for Anomalous Effects

in Deuterated Metals, "International Journal of Theoretical

Physics, vol 33, no 3, 1994, pp 517-670

[2] M.Fleischmann, S.Pons, G.Preparata, "Possible Theories

of Cold Fusion, "Nuovo Cimento, vol 107A, no 1, Jan. 1994,

pp143-154 (these papers do not pass the barrier of the Pd/D2O

system)

[3] R.L. Mills, S.P. Kneizis, "Excess Heat Production by the

Electrolysis of an Aqueous Potassium Carbonate Electrolyte

and the Implications for Cold Fusion, Fusion Technology,

20, Aug. 1991, p 65.

[4] J. Dufour, J. Foos, J.P. Millot, "Cold Fusion by Sparking

in Hydrogen Isotopes,"Cold Fusion Source Book, edited by

Fusion Information Center, Utah, May 1994, paper no 27.

[5] S. Focardi, R. Habel, F. Piantelli, "Anomalous Heat

Production in Ni-H Systems,"Il NuovoCimento,vol 107A,

no 1, Jan. 1994, pp 163-157.

[6] R. Stringham, "Cavitation Induced Micro-fusion," 4th

International Conference on Cold Fusion, Maui, Hawaii, 6-9

Dec. 1994, paper no 3.9.

[7]J.L.Griggs, "Calorimetric Study of Excess Heat Production

within the Hydrosonic Pump System using Light Water,"

Cold Fusion Source Book, edited by Fusion Information

Center, Utah, paper no 42.

[8] P. Gluck, "The Surfdyn Concept: An Attempt to Solve the

Puzzles of Cold Nuclear Fusion," Fusion Technology, 24

Aug. 1993, p 122.

[9] P. Gluck, "Cold Fusion - a Logical Network Approach,"

International Conference on Cold Fusion, Minsk, Belarus, May

24-25, 1994.

[10a] O.Reifenschweiler, "Reduced Radioactivity in Small

Titanium Particles," Physics Letters A, 184, 1994, pp

149-153.

[10b]O. Reifenschweiler: II. More detailed description of our

experiments with proposals to improve the experimental

technique (provided by the author)

[11] Y. Arata, Y-C. Zhang, "A New Energy Caused by

`Spillover Deuterium', "Proc. Japanese Academy 70, ser.B

(1994), pp106-111, communication by Jed Rothwell.

.

[12] F. Celani, A. Spallone, P.Tripodi, A. Petrocchi, D. Di

Gioacchino, M. Boutet, "D/Pd Loading Ratio up to 1.2:1 by

High Power Microsecond Pulsed Electrolysis in Pd Plates,"

Cold Fusion Source Book, edited by Fusion Information

Center, Utah, May 1994, paper no 25.

[13]K. Kamada, H. Kinoshita, H. Takahashi A., "Anomalous

Heat Evolution of Deuteron Implanted Al on Electron

Bombardment," National Institute for Fusion Science, Report

NISF-281, May 1994.