連印度科學家都可以公開討論冷聚變

Fire from Water at Google Video
January 2007. The New Energy Institute (www.newenergytimes.com) in collaboration with the New Energy Foundation (www.infinite-energy.com) has uploaded an edited version of the 1999 documentary Cold Fusion: Fire from Water to Google Video, where it can be viewed for free. This video was produced and directed by Christopher Toussaint, and written by Eugene Mallove, Jed Rothwell and Christopher Toussaint. It features interviews with many prominent cold fusion researchers. See:

http://video.google.com/videopla ... LD+FUSION&hl=en

The video is edited by Steven B. Krivit and released by New Energy Institute with permission from the New Energy Foundation. The original video is 70 minutes long; the edited version is 38 minutes. The full original version can be purchased from Amazon.com here. The VHS tape is available directly from Infinite Energy as shown in Books and Videos about LENR-CANR.


News from 2006
U.S. Navy SPAWARS experiments with CR-39
November 2006. Recent experiments at the U.S. Navy San Diego SPAWAR Systems Center have demonstrated nuclear effects with palladium co-deposition cathodes subjected to magnetic or high voltage fields. CR-39 is used to detect high energy particles. It is placed in close proximity to the cathode because the particles do not travel far. These experiments appear to be highly repeatable. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSexperiment.pdf

For more information, see: "Extraordinary Evidence," by Bennett Daviss and Steven Krivit:

http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm#ee

Other U.S. Navy experiments at SPAWARS, China Lake and the NRL are described in our Special Collection.

Nature and Scientific American on the Warpath Again
September 2006. Nature and the Scientific American regularly attack and ridicule cold fusion as well as the sonofusion research performed by Rusi Taleyarkhan et al. It is not clear whether the latter has anything to do with metal lattice cold fusion, but it relatively simple, lab bench experiment that produces anomalous nuclear fusion on a microscopic scale. Therefore the editors of these magazines consider it impossible, and they assert it must be pathological science, fraud, and so on. Last year, professors working on competing sonofusion devices circulated rumors claiming that Taleyarkhan committed academic fraud. Taleyarkhan was fully exonerated by the university, so recently Nature has circulated equally baseless rumors that he has committed financial fraud.

Prof. Brian Josephson has been engaged in lively correspondence with the staff at Nature regarding their allegations. He summarizes the situation here, and copies of the correspondence are here.

Scientific American has mainly ridiculed these subjects lately, in both the print edition and the on-line blog by the editor, John Rennie, on August 24, 2006:

Let's be finicky in our application of the phrase. For example, Newtonian physics did not get sent to Pluto. It was shown to be a valid approximation of Einstein's relativistic physics for objects moving well below the speed of light, and as such was incorporated into the newer theory. And cold fusion, N-rays, Velikovskian planet billiards and similar crackpottery weren't sent to Pluto either because they never enjoyed a significant period of acceptance by the scientific community (perhaps they all reside on another planet... Uranus?).
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php? ... 1&tb=1&pb=1

Note that Rennie takes pride in the fact that he has read no papers about cold fusion. He claims that his views are based on the majority opinion and the "consensus," as if science were a popularity contest. Rennie boldly told us it is not his job to understand the technical issues or offer a falsifiable argument. He thinks the public does not expect that of him. A normal scientist would be ashamed to admit he harbors such strange ideas, but Rennie brags about them. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf

Melvin H. Miles website
May 2006. Dr. Melvin Miles has established a new web site: http://coldfusion-miles.com/. Miles is one of the leading researchers. He published a series of papers while he was a Distinguished Fellow of the China Lake Naval Weapons Laboratory. See: Special Collections, U.S. Navy Cold Fusion Research.

Papers in Chinese, and a new e-book in Japanese by T. Mizuno
April 2006. LENR-CANR serves an international audience. (See our earlier news item below). We have introductions to the field in French, German and Italian. Sergio Bacchi translated versions of Storms' Student's Guide into Portuguese and Spanish. These are popular.

In Chinese we recently added a review paper, the Introduction to Cold Fusion, and a translation of an important paper by Oriani, The Physical and Metallurgical Aspects of Hydrogen in Metals (translation into Chinese) (The English original is here.) Note also the technical review in English, "A Chinese View on Summary of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science."

Now introducing our first document in Japanese:  T. Mizuno's 107-page e-book, "Jyouon Kakuyuugou Purojekuto (Cold Fusion Project)."

Washington Post, Time and others attack cold fusion
January 2006. The recent scandal in South Korea with the cloning researcher Woo Suk Hwang prompted several newspapers and magazines to compare Hwang's academic fraud to cold fusion. In January 8, 2006, the Washington Post published an article about this titled "Barely a Drop of Fraud" by Prof. Bettyann Holtzmann Kevles, (Yale University), page B03. It says:

It is true that there have been some great scientific misdeeds in the past. Who can forget Piltdown Man, the manufactured fossil skull that puzzled anthropologists for decades? Or the claims of the discovery of cold fusion in 1989 at the University of Utah?
And:
.. . . Similarly, the Piltdown hoax, which was revealed decades after the manipulated skull's supposed discovery, caused no collateral damage. Paleontology, a historical science, did not have an immediate impact on contemporary physics or medicine. And cold fusion was swiftly debunked, which kept its costs confined to the state of Utah.
These comments are beyond the pale. Cold fusion was never "debunked" and even the harshest critics until now have never suggested that it was fraudulent. The cold fusion effect was replicated at high signal to noise ratios by researchers at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake, Shell, Amoco, SRI, Texas A&M, Los Alamos, Mitsubishi Res. Center, BARC Bombay, Tsinghua U. and over a hundred other world-class laboratories.

Several researchers sent messages to Prof. Kevles and to the Washington Post protesting these statements. The Post has not responded. The Yale Daily News student newspaper printed a letter from E. Storms protesting Kevles' remarks, and pointing out that cold fusion may become an important source of energy. Kevles responded by saying that only Fleischmann and Pons are guilty of "scientific misdeeds," and that the cold fusion research performed after they published had nothing to do with them:

Pons and Fleischmann's initial published paper about their research lacked essential raw data and experimental details. When asked to supply their scientific colleagues with more information, they persistently refused. Other scientists trying to replicate their experiments could only guess at the apparatus they had used.
  
Eventually, their particular claims were refuted as theoretically unfounded and without experimental support. This is the incident I referred to in my article and it has altogether nothing to do with research since in this field.
Cold fusion researchers replicated the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, and cited the original paper in their published replications, so it makes no sense to say their work "has altogether nothing to do with this research." Furthermore, Fleischmann and Pons did not hide their work, but on the contrary they assisted others in this field by supplying palladium samples, and Fleischmann co-authored papers with others. Other researchers in this field hold Fleischmann and Pons in the highest regard, and they think that Kelves should apologize for calling their actions "misdeeds."

Commentators in Time magazine, the Guardian and elsewhere have made similar comparisons. M. D. Lemonick wrote in Time:

. . . It wouldn't be the first time. In 1996 chemists from the University of Utah claimed they had discovered "cold fusion." They hadn't, it turned out, but a combination of ambition, fear of competition and pressure from the university led them to announce the discovery before they had any proof.
We contacted the author and informed him that the date was 1989, and that the claims were subsequently replicated by hundreds of researchers, and these replications were published in the peer-reviewed literature. We suggested he should review the relevant literature before commenting on the research.

Lemonick responded with a series of unfounded and increasingly bizarre statements. He said that Fleischmann and Pons "wouldn't even let anyone see their experimental apparatus." We pointed out this cannot be true, because, as noted above, they provided samples of material and they co-authored papers with other researchers.

Lemonick eventually conceded that the other researchers have made claims, but he said: "It may be that others have produced cold fusion since, but that's not the same thing." We asked him what he meant by this in view of the fact that the same materials and techniques are used and the same results obtained. We pointed out that the authors all reference the original paper by Fleischmann and Pons, and say they are replicating it. He did not respond. Instead, he asked out of the blue:

"So . . . anybody can repeat [the experiment]. That's what you're saying, right?"

Rothwell responded: "Good heavens no! I did not say that, and that is completely incorrect. I would say you need a Ph.D. in electrochemistry, a well-equipped laboratory and anywhere from two months to a year of rigorous preparation and materials testing (depending on what equipment and materials you happen to have in hand). Prof. Richard Oriani is one of the top electrochemists in the United States. After he replicated, he described this as the most difficult experiment he did in his 50-year career. . . ."

In our earlier messages we emphasized several times that the experiments are difficult, so we cannot imagine why Lemonick arrived at the notion that "anyone can repeat" them. It is clear that Lemonick is grasping at straws, he knows nothing about cold fusion, and he did not even bother to do a cursory Google search on cold fusion, since he did not recall the date it was revealed. It is surprising that a national magazine such as Time would publish his views on the subject. It is a shame they will not allow a cold fusion researcher to set the record straight, but so far they have ignored letters to the editor on this subject.

(If you would like to see our correspondence with Kevles or Lemonick in full, please contact JedRothwell@mindspring.com)



News from 2005
LENR-CANR welcomes a growing international audience
December 2005. In 2005 more and more readers have come to LENR-CANR from outside the U.S. We cannot track individual users, and we do not use "cookies" or ask readers to register, but we can see that more than half our readers now come from ISPs in other countries. Readers from 177 countries, which is to say, most of the countries registered on the Internet, have downloaded hundreds of thousands of papers. During the four weeks from October 21 through November 18, visitors came from 115 different countries, and 60% of the traffic was outside the U.S.



Cold fusion research has been international from the beginning, with vital contributions from India, Italy, France, China, Japan, Russia and many other countries. Regular international conferences provide a forum for the work to be shared and we are delighted to make this information more widely available.

The most recent international conference, ICCF12, was held on November 27, 2005. See: http://iccf12.org/

We have authors from dozens of countries, and we seek to expand this circle of contributors. We recently uploaded a review by Iyengar et al. describing early research in India, which produced some of the most compelling results ever published. We recently welcomed our first author from Iran, F. Amini. Most of our papers are in English, but we have a small number in other languages, including French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish, and we welcome more contributions in other languages. We are happy to assist and edit papers for authors who are not native speakers of English. We have translated several papers from Japanese into English.

LENR-CANR has long maintained a presence in other countries, even places where the Internet is slow and expensive. People in China sometimes have difficulty reaching the U.S., but thousands of them have been able to reach us thanks to Prof. Li, who operates a mirror site copy of LENR-CANR at Tsinghua U., China's most prestigious technical university. We just added two new papers by Li et al., including our first paper in Chinese, a 1990 Introduction to Cold Fusion, and a technical review, "A Chinese View on Summary of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science," from the September 2004 issue of Journal of Fusion Energy. The review says that cold fusion is real; it produces tritium, which is proof that the effect is nuclear; and that more funding should be made available for the research. The Journal of Fusion Energy is edited by president of the plasma fusion lobby, Fusion Power Associates in Gathersburg, MD. Heretofore it has been strongly opposed to cold fusion, so we welcome this new open minded support for cold fusion, although it is puzzling that in the same issue of the journal the editor again attacks cold fusion, calling it "controversial and entirely unproved" (p. 161).

Readers in other countries who have difficulty accessing the Internet should please contact us, and we will mail you a CD-ROM with the entire contents of the website on it. If we have mailed you a CD-ROM before, feel free to ask for an updated version every four or five months.

In these troubled times, it is good to be reminded that science knows no borders, and researchers worldwide are united in their quest to advance knowledge for the benefit of mankind.

Nature Attacks Cold Fusion Again
October 2005. Leading scientific journals and magazines such as Nature and Scientific American have attacked cold fusion many times. Most recently, in October 2005 Nature published a News Feature titled "Physics: Far from the frontier." This describes S. Putterman's work on sonofusion. It includes the following paragraph:

"The problem with reports of tabletop fusion is that for most scientists they evoke memories of the notorious, and now largely discredited, 'cold fusion' claim made by two chemists in 1989. The chemists claimed they could achieve nuclear fusion reactions well below the extreme temperatures predicted by theorists, and that these reactions could be used as a source of unlimited energy."

(A March 2005 attack by the Scientific American is described below. Letters to us from the previous and present editors of the Scientific American can be found here. The editor says that he has not read any papers about cold fusion and he does not intend to read any.)

Nature never says why cold fusion should be considered "notorious" or who has "discredited" it. Their comments have always been ad hominem, ridicule, or hearsay. Since 1989, cold fusion has been replicated hundreds of times, in experiments published in some of the world's leading peer-reviewed electrochemical and physics journals. Positive results have been published by leading laboratories such as Los Alamos, China Lake and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Many results have been at a very high signal to noise ratios. By traditional standards cold fusion has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet since 1989, journals such as Nature and Scientific American have not published a single word acknowledging the existence of any of these experiments. They have never critiqued the scientific content of an experiment, or pointed out a technical error. Instead, they make diffuse allegations that unnamed people have "discredited" the research.

The world faces a growing energy shortage, high oil prices, and potentially catastrophic global warming, yet these leading journals ignore a possible solution to these dire problems.

NPR Radio Program on Cold Fusion
September 2005. On September 30, 2005, the National Public Radio program "Living On Earth" broadcast an 18-minute segment about cold fusion. It is focused on the May 21, 2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It features brief interviews with noted cold fusion researchers, including M. Swartz, D. Nagel, M. Fleischmann, M. McKubre and others, as well as some comments by leading opponents to the field. This show may be re-broadcast on other NPR affiliates. An audio recording and transcript of the program is available here:

http://www.loe.org/shows/segment ... 039&segmentID=2

It should be noted that negative comments made by R. Garwin in this broadcast contradict his own 1993 evaluation that he reported to the Department of Defense. See:

http://www.newenergytimes.com/Re ... isReport/garwin.htm