Friam

Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, Current Science 104(4) 574-7, 2015.02.25 free pdfs of 34 papers: Rich Murray 2015.02.24

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
♦
♦
 1 message Options
Rich Murray-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, Current Science 104(4) 574-7, 2015.02.25 free pdfs of 34 papers: Rich Murray 2015.02.24

Rich Murray-2
Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, Current Science 104(4) 574-7, 2015.02.25 free pdfs of 34 papers: Rich Murray 2015.02.24


Jed Rothwell via eskimo.com discussion forum
6:45 AM PST (14 hours ago) Tuesday 2015.02.24

to vortex-L discussion forum
The journal Current Science, Vol. 108, No. 4, published on February 25, 2015
includes 34 papers about cold fusion,
Special Section: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

The online edition is here:



SPECIAL SECTION: LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 108, NO. 4, 574-7, 25 FEBRUARY 2015


Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax*
Infusion Institute, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA

Cold fusion effects have often been called ‘unreliable’,
even by those convinced of their reality. The chaotic
nature of material conditions, so far, has made ordinary
reliability elusive. However, the Fleischmann–
Pons experiment produces more than one effect, and
two major ones are heat and helium. Miles, in 1991,
measured both, and found that they were correlated,
within an order of magnitude of the ratio expected
from deuterium fusion. Miles was amply confirmed,
and precision has increased. While there are outliers,
there is no experimental evidence contradicting the
correlation, and only the exact ratio remains in question.
In this, we have direct evidence that the effect is
real and is nuclear in nature; the mechanism remains
a mystery well worth exploration.

Keywords: Anomalous heat, cold fusion, heat/helium
ratio, replicable experiments.

Introduction

MICHAEL MCKUBRE, in his review of evidence in this
special section, covers research into the original experimental
‘cold fusion’ report, anomalous heat. It is still
common to see mention of ‘cold fusion’ accompanied by
a claim that the experiments could not be replicated. Scientific
papers are still being rejected solely because of the
belief that cold fusion was disproved:

Despite all details provided in the manuscript and the
apparently rigorous procedure, I cannot recommend
publication of the manuscript. The main reason is that
the manuscript and the associated documentation target
the rehabilitation of the cold fusion concept; unfortunately
cold fusion has largely been disproved among
the scientific community. (Anonymous reviewer, 2010,
quoted by Hagelstein1.)

However, since 1991, direct evidence has been available
that the Fleischman–Pons heat effect (FPHE) is nuclear in
nature, stronger than the indirect or circumstantial evidence
(including unexplained heat) found by Pons,
Fleischmann and others. Their experiment is difficult to
replicate, and even in the hands of the experienced, results
may be highly variable. One may search in vain for some
protocol to produce reliable anomalous heat. However,
science can handle unreliable effects, and may still determine
their nature, through correlation, and this has been
done with cold fusion.

The present article does not claim that any particular
reaction mechanism is the source of the anomalous heat,
only that helium is being proportionally produced, as
shown in wide experimental confirmation (e.g. Figure
1)2. In this article, ‘heat’ refers to anomalous heat, heat
measured but unexplained by known chemistry or power
inputs.

Discussion

Cold fusion researchers often counter the ‘non-reproducible’
allegation by claiming that the calorimetry is
good, pointing to many successful results, and, in addition,
cite supporting evidence of some nuclear effect
occurring, such as the formation of tritium and neutrons.
This increases confusion, because there are many such
effects reported but not confirmed, and different experiments
seem to produce different effects. This is circumstantial
evidence, and may not be enough to convince those
reasonably skeptical that nuclear reactions are possible
under the conditions of the FPHE. However, one of the
original mysteries was the ash.

The reaction fuel was and is suspected to be deuterium,
so what is the ash? Because the initial focus was on ordinary
deuterium fusion, there were well-known products
to look for. Half of the reactions would produce helium-3
and a neutron, and half would produce tritium and a proton.
Neutrons and tritium are easily detected. While there
are widespread reports of tritium at low levels, various
transmutations, and neutrons at extremely low levels,
none of these has been found to be even remotely
commensurate with heat.

There is a rare branch from ordinary deuterium fusion,
which produces helium-4 plus a gamma ray. That gamma
ray is not observed with the FPHE.

Melvin Miles, one of the original reporters of replication
failure, as covered in the 1989 US Department of
Energy ERAB report3 was, by late 1989, reporting heat4.
In 1991, Miles announced that he had found helium
correlated with heat in the evolved gas of electrolytic
cold fusion cells5.

SPECIAL SECTION: LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 108, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2015 575

The levels of helium found varied with anomalous heat
during the sampling period. (This is not a correlation with
temperature. Temperature variation in low-power cold
fusion cells is low; in some cases the temperature is held
constant at an elevated level, excess heat being measured
by the reduction in power necessary to maintain the temperature.
In other cells, such as Miles’ work, the temperature
increase is low, no more than a few degrees Celsius,
not enough to significantly affect leakage of helium.)
Ultimately, Miles reported 33 results from doubleblind
helium analysis. In 12 samples taken with no heat,
none showed helium above measurement background. In
21 cells with heat, 18 showed helium and, generally,
more the heat, more the helium produced6. (Of the three
major outliers, one was a cell where calorimetry error
was reasonably suspected. The other two involved the
only Pd–Ce alloy cathode used.)

The helium found was roughly half of that expected,
from measured heat, if the reaction were the conversion
of deuterium to helium. The laws of thermodynamics
require that this result be mechanism-independent7.

Helium is effectively immobilized in palladium,
trapped at grain boundaries; so helium formed in the bulk
would remain there8. It is then reasonable to suspect that
the helium is produced at or near the surface, instead of
deep in the bulk, as some had originally expected. It is
then reasonable to expect that roughly half of it will have
birth momentum vector that takes it away from the material,
and roughly half will implant and not be released.

Miles’ early helium results were covered by John R.
Huizenga in the second edition of his book, Cold Fusion:
Scientific Fiasco of the Century. He wrote that, if confirmed,
this solves one of the greatest puzzles of cold
fusion, but then he added that it would probably not be
confirmed, because the expected lethal levels of gamma
rays were absent9. However, gammas are only required if
Figure 1. Anomalous energy versus measured helium2.
the reaction is ordinary d–d fusion, producing helium.

There are other possibilities.

Miles was amply confirmed. For a review of the literature,
see Storms10,11. In his recent book12, Storms adds
more, reporting work from 30 groups. Over 80 experiments
are covered, including more than 20 where there was no
heat and no helium (light hydrogen controls or ‘dead
cells’, cells that show no heat in spite of being treated
similar to heat-producing cells). There is a solid body of
research supporting the heat/helium correlation.

Michael McKubre at SRI International has measured
heat/helium ratio the most precisely, to date13–15, at
23 MeV/4He  10%. The theoretical value for deuterium
conversion to helium is 23.8 MeV/4He, if there is no loss
of helium or loss of heat (as through radiation).

This is a reliable, reproducible and reproduced experiment,
even though the individual tests are not reliable as
to the amount of heat produced. As helium is a nuclear
product, it is direct evidence that the FPHE is nuclear in
nature.

Critique of Miles’ work was published, with response16–
19. None of the responses correctly addressed the
correlation20. Critics have focused on claims that the
calorimetry may be incorrect, or that the helium may be
leakage. Either one of these could seem possible. No
plausible explanations have been advanced for the correlation,
nor the ratio being close to the fusion value, a
remarkable coincidence. There is no substantial contrary
experimental evidence.

Atomic counts of helium found in the FPHE experiments
are roughly a million times higher than those of
tritium, which, in turn, are roughly a million times higher
than neutrons21. We may say, then, that ‘cold fusion’, at
least with the FPHE, is a process that converts deuterium
to helium, with no other major confirmed effects. We can
call it ‘fusion’ because it produces a fusion product, not
because the mechanism is what is known as fusion. The
mechanism is a mystery.

Cold fusion was, then, confirmed as to resulting heat
and nuclear product, in work first announced 23 years
ago, and that confirmation was itself confirmed by multiple
research groups around the world. This is a reproducible
experiment: set-up conditions where the FPHE
may be expected in some fraction of experiments, measure
heat and helium, and determine the ratio. Modern cold
fusion protocols commonly show more than half of the
experiments with anomalous heat. Null results (no heat,
no helium) confirm the correlation, though not the ratio.
When McKubre at SRI made the measurement that was
closest to the theoretical fusion value, he had repeatedly
loaded and deloaded the cathode, plus anodic reversal
was used, in an attempt to flush out helium22. Apicella
et al. also used ‘anodic erosion’ to release additional
helium, in a rough confirmation of this approach23.

Anodic reversal may dissolve the surface of a palladium
cathode, releasing helium trapped there. In both cases

SPECIAL SECTION: LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 108, NO. 4, 576 25 FEBRUARY 2015

the results moved toward the theoretical value, from
values that indicated roughly 40% of helium had been
trapped.

Conclusions

It is clear from the data available in the literature that the
phenomenon of heat and helium correlation is replicable.

While some attributes of this phenomenon are consistent
with d–d fusion (e.g. 4He production and the energy associated
with the heat), many of the other features expected
from d–d fusion are not observed in these experiments
(e.g. detection of high-energy gammas, nor substantial
neutrons and charged particles).

The mechanism of production of 4He and the correlated
heat generated is not understood.

The fact remains that it is an interesting phenomenon
which needs more detailed experimentation and
requires new theoretical approaches.

Cold fusion is real, and it is time that serious work is
funded to study the conditions of cold fusion and other
correlated effects, gathering the evidence needed to
understand it.

If agencies or decision-makers are still in doubt about
the reality of the effect, then the first work to fund would
be more accurate measurement of the heat/helium ratio,
perhaps following McKubre or Apicella et al.24.

Beyond that, identifying and confirming the nuclear
active environment (Storms’ term, the specific local
structure or condition that allows the reaction) would take
us forward25. There is work by Dennis Letts, following a
prediction by Peter Hagelstein, that appears to show reliable
control of the reaction with dual laser stimulation
tuned to beat frequencies in the terahertz region26. There
are many clues in an abundant exploratory literature, and
a great deal to confirm and nail down.

For physicists, this is a mystery to address and resolve,
and an exciting opportunity. How are these results possible?
Is new physics involved, or merely some set of unanticipated
conditions? Beyond that, are there possible
practical applications?

Notes and references

Where available, links are provided to free-access documents.
Some references not otherwise freely available are
to papers, published in mainstream journals, in the ‘Britz
collection’, a bibliography with reviews, at

Further coverage of this topic, as well as corrections and criticism, will be available or linked from

1. Hagelstein, et al., Fleischmann–Pons effect studies. In Report of
RLE group, work done under subcontract with SRI International,
The rejected work was later published in the Journal of Condensed
Matter Nuclear Science, 2014 (see ref. 26).

2. Figure 1 is from McKubre15, showing measured helium and
anomalous energy from Experiment SC-2, part of a replication
of work by Les Case, using deuterium gas-loaded into palladium
plated on a carbon catalyst. See Hagelstein et al., 2004, appendix
B, pp. 18–21 (link in ref. 13), for a detailed report of this work.

3. Energy Research Advisory Board (chairs John R. Huizenga and
Norman Ramsey), A report of the Energy Research Advisory
Board to the United States Department of Energy, Washington,
(see pdf p. 26, item 4).

4. Rothwell, J., Introduction to the cold fusion experiments of Dr
Melvin Miles. Infinite Energy, 1997, 3(15/16), 27; Revised and
updated version, 2004, p. 11;

5. Miles, M., Bush, B. F., Ostrom, G. S. and Lagowski, J. J., Heat
and helium production in cold fusion experiments. In Second Annual
Conference on Cold Fusion, The Science of Cold Fusion,
Como, Italy, Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy, 1991; Covered
in Miles, M. et al., Correlation of excess power and helium
production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium
cathodes. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993, 346, 99;

6. Miles, M. and Johnson, K. B., Anomalous effects in deuterated
systems, final report. Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division,
1996, pp. 32–36;

7. Storms, E., The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, World
Scientific, Singapore, 2007, p. 90.

8. Conversations with Michael McKubre and others.

9. Huizenga, J. R., Cold Fusion, The Scientific Fiasco of the Century,
Oxford University Press, 1993, 2nd edn, p. 243–244.

10. Storms, E., 2007 (ref. 7), pp. 86–91.

11. Storms, E., Status of cold fusion, Naturwissenschaften, 2010,
97(10), 861–881; preprint at
Energy/helium relationship is covered in pp. 10–
15 of the pdf.

12. Storms, E., The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction,
Infinite Energy Press, 2014, pp. 23–43.

13. Storms, E., 2007 (ref. 7), p. 90, based on Hagelstein, P. L., McKubre,
M. C. H., Chubb, T. A., Nagel, D. J. and Hekman, R. J., New
physical effects in metal deuterides. Report to the United States
Department of Energy, 2004. The original research was published
by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1998), and recalculated
by McKubre (2000), based on a corrected
experimental volume (according to conversation with Michael
McKubre, 2013). See ref. 14 for the original work, and ref. 15
for the corrected result. For the 2004 DoE review paper, see

14. EPRI report, Development of energy production systems from
heat produced in deuterated metals – energy production processes
in deuterated metals, volume 1, TR-107843-V1. Passell, T. (Project
Manager), McKubre, M., Crouch-Baker, S., Huaser, A., Jevtic,
N., Smedley, S. I., Tanzella, F., Williams, M. and Wing, S.
(Principal Investigators), Bush, B., McMohon, F., Srinivasan, M.,
Wark, A. and Warren, D. (Non-SRI Contributors), June 1998, The
relevant experiment is M4, pp. 3–158, pdf p. 286, et seq;

15. McKubre, M., Tanzella, F., Tripodi, P. and Hagelstein, P., The
emergence of a coherent explanation for anomalies observed in
D/Pd and H/Pd systems; evidence for 4He and 3He production. In
8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. Italian Physical
Society, Bologna, Italy, 2000; anodic reversal is mentioned on

SPECIAL SECTION: LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 108, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2015 577

16. Jones, S. E. and Hansen, L. D., Examination of claims of Miles et
al., in Pons–Fleischmann-type cold fusion experiments. J. Phys.
Chem., 1995, 99, p. 6966, Britz collection, Jone 1995a.

17. Miles, M., Reply to examination of claims of Miles et al. in Pons–
Fleischmann-type cold fusion experiments. J. Phys. Chem. B,
1998, 102, 3642; Britz collection: Miles 1998a.

18. Jones, S. E., Hansen, L. D. and Shelton, D. S., An assessment of
claims of excess heat in cold fusion calorimetry. J. Phys. Chem. B,
1998, 102, 3647; Britz collection Jone 1998.

19. Miles, M., Reply to an assessment of claims of excess heat in
cold fusion calorimetry. J. Phys. Chem. B, 1998, 102, 3648; Britz
collection, Miles 1998b.

20. Shanahan, K. L., Comments on a new look at low-energy nuclear
reaction research. J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1756–1764;
Storms (2007), (ref. 6), p. 87, presented a plot of 4He/heat vs
power, and Shanahan digitized this, calculating a correlation coefficient
of 0.0995, claiming ‘strong confidence that no correlation
exists’. The low correlation coefficient here indicates that the ratio
is a constant, i.e. that there is high correlation between heat and
helium. Britz collection, Shan 2010.

21. This is an informal, rough figure, based on many conversations
and e-mail discussions. Many reports do not indicate levels, nor do
they attempt to correlate nuclear effects with heat. See Storms,
2010 (ref. 11), preprint p. 20.

22. McKubre (2000) (ref. 15), and the EPRI report, 1998 (ref. 14).

23. Apicella, M. et al., Reproducibility of excess of power and evidence
of 4He in palladium foils loaded with deuterium (Power-
Point slides). In American Physical Society Meeting, Los Angeles,
2005, Slide 10 shows three measurements of heat and helium. Two
are normal, with ‘missing helium’. With one, there was ‘anodic
eroson of Pd’ and no missing helium. Vitorrio Violante, e-mail,
October 2014, confirmed that there was reverse cell polarization
for an hour (at the same current as used when heat was generated);

24. See EPRI report TR-107843-V1 for experiment M4, 1998 (ref.
14), and Apicella et al. (ref. 23).

25. Storms, 2014 (ref. 12), pp. 218–221; NAE is also covered in
Storms (2007), (ref. 7), pp. 123–126; and Storms (2010), (ref. 11)
preprint pp. 28–29.

26. Hagelstein, P. I. and Letts, D., Temperature dependence of excess
power in two-laser experiments. J. Condens. Matter Nucl. Sci.,
2014, 13; As with much promising cold fusion work, this has not
been confirmed;

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. For conversations and support, I gratefully
acknowledge the cold fusion pioneers Edmund Storms, Michael
McKubre, and many others.


Here are the titles in the EndNote default format:

1. Azizi, O., et al., Progress towards understanding anomalous heat effect in metal deuterides. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

2. Biberian, J.P., Biological transmutations. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

3. Cravens, D., M.R. Swartz, and B.S. Ahern, Condensed matter nuclear reactions with metal particles in gases. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

4. Dong, Z.M., C.L. Liang, and X.Z. Li, Condensed matter nuclear science research status in China. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

5. Hagelstein, P.L. and I. Chaudhary, Phonon models for anomalies in condensed matter nuclear science. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

6. Hagelstein, P.L., Directional X-ray and gamma emission in experiments in condensed matter nuclear science. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

7. Hubler, G.K., et al., Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

8. Iwamura, Y., T. Itoh, and S. Tsuruga, Transmutation reactions induced by deuterium permeation through nano-structured palladium multilayer thin film. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

9. Kidwell, D., et al., Observation of radio frequency emissions from electrochemical loading experiments. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

10. Kitamura, A., et al., Brief summary of latest experimental results with a mass-flow calorimetry system for anomalous heat effect of nano-composite metals under D(H)-gas charging. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

11. Kitamura, A., Status of cold fusion research in Japan. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

12. Letts, D., Highly reproducible LENR experiments using dual laser stimulation. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

13. Liang, C.L., Z.M. Dong, and X.Z. Li, Selective resonant tunnelling -- turning hydrogen-storage material into energetic material. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

14. Lomax, A., Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

15. McKubre, M.C.H., Cold fusion: comments on the state of scientific proof. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

16. Meulenberg, A., Extensions to physics: what cold fusion teaches. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

17. Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Use of CR-39 detectors to determine the branching ratio in Pd/D co-deposition. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

18. Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Condensed matter nuclear reaction products observed in Pd/D co-deposition experiments. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

19. Nagel, D.J., Energy gains from lattice-enabled nuclear reactions. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

20. Nagel, D.J., Lattice-enabled nuclear reactions in the nickel and hydrogen gas system. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

21. Sinha, A., Model of low energy nuclear reactions in a solid matrix with defects. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

22. Srinivasan, M. and A. Meulenberg, Preface. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

23. Srinivasan, M., Observation of neutrons and tritium in the early BARC cold fusion experiments. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

24. Srinivasan, M., Introduction to isotopic shifts and transmutations observed in LENR experiments. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

25. Storms, E., How the explanation of LENR can be made consistent with observed behaviour and natural laws. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

26. Storms, E., Introduction to the main experimental findings of the LENR field. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

27. Swartz, M.R., et al., Dry, preloaded NANOR (R)-type CF/LANR components. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

28. Takahashi, A., Development status of condensed cluster fusion theory. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

29. Valat, M., R. Hunt, and R. Greenyer, Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project status review. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

30. Verner, G.M., M.R. Swartz, and P.L. Hagelstein, Summary report: ‘Introduction to Cold Fusion’ -- IAP course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. Curr. Sci., 2015.108(4).

31. Violante, V., et al., Review of materials science for studying the Fleischmann and Pons effect. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

32. Vysotskii, V. and M. Vysotskii, Coherent correlated states of interacting particles – the possible key to paradoxes and features of LENR. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

33. Vysotskii, V., A.A. Kornilova, and A.O. Vasilenko, Observation and investigation of anomalous X-ray and thermal effects of cavitation. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

34. Vysotskii, V. and A.A. Kornilova, Microbial transmutation of Cs-137 and LENR in growing biological systems. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).


"As a matter of course, every soul citizen of Earth has a priority to quickly find and positively share evidence for healthy and safe food, drink, environment, and society."

within the fellowship of service,

Rich Murray,
MA Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology,
BS MIT 1964 history and physics,
1039 Emory Street, Imperial Beach, CA 91932
<a href="tel:505-819-7388" value="+15058197388" target="_blank">505-819-7388 cell
<a href="tel:619-623-3468" value="+16196233468" target="_blank">619-623-3468 home
rich.murray11 free Skype audio, video chat


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Free forum by Nabble Edit this page