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?title=sending_science_to_pluto&more=1&c=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:

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:

"The uncertainty in excess power measurement is about 50 milliwatts, but the excess power appears to be on the order of 500 milliwatts or even 1 watt peak. . . .
"We believe that there are a few things (probably irrelevant) not very well understood by the experimenters. . . .
We have found no specific experimental artifact responsible for the finding of excess heat . . ."

"The more you looked into their results the less there was, unfortunately.
They've been very careful there [at SRI], but there are mistakes.
The data was not carefully preserved, things were not dated, there were only two positive runs as I recall . . .

Two New Papers from Szpak et al.

August 2005. S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, C. Young and F.E. Gordon of the U.S. Navy Spawar Systems Center, San Diego, have published two new papers, both available here:

July 2005. On July 17, 2005, Haiko Lietz published an article in the Telepolis on-line magazine on Taleyarkhan’s sonofusion experiments, "Bubble Fusion takes next hurdle." This includes some references to cold fusion. The German version is here: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/20/20541/1.html
English version: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/20/20542/1.html

On July 25 Lietz published another article on cold fusion, "Time to act! The world needs an Apollo-type program for cold fusion." In German: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/20/20562/1.html
In English: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/20/20585/1.html

Please note that in this web page we have not discussed the sonofusion experiments performed by Rusi Taleyarkhan et al. We are thinking about adding material about this research, but we have hesitated because it seems beyond the scope of our subject matter. We consider these experiments interesting, and the research appears to be skillful, careful and convincing. We are pleased to that this innovative method of producing nuclear fusion on a microscopic scale has attracted serious attention from the scientific mainstream and the press.

The reactions reported by Taleyarkhan appear to be a form of high energy plasma fusion that occurs in cavitation bubbles in the fluid. Cold fusion, on the other hand, is a low energy reaction that occurs in a metal lattice. The Taleyarkhan effect produces a neutron/tritium ratio of ~1.2, which is close to conventional plasma fusion (n/t = 1), whereas cold fusion produces a ratio of roughly 10^-9. There are other important differences:

Cold fusion produces far more concentrated excess heat, so it seems more likely to become a practical source of useful energy.
Cold fusion appears to be a more radical departure from textbook expectations about fusion.
Cold fusion has been replicated hundreds of times; the Taleyarkhan effect has only been replicated once so far, by Xu and Butt (Perdue). This is no reflection on the quality of Taleyarkhan’s work; only a few people have undertaken replications.

Despite these differences, Taleyarkhan’s research is important and it bears watching, so even though it is somewhat off-topic, we may add material about it soon.

One method of doing cold fusion bears a passing resemblance to the Taleyarkhan experiment. When cavitation induced bubbles collapse near the surface of metal, they can inject the plasma into the metal lattice, triggering cold fusion. This technique has been pioneered by R. Stringham in his papers at ICCF-9, ICCF-10 and ICCF-11.

The Taleyarkham method counts on achieving sufficient temperature within the bubble to initiate, on a small scale, a "normal" hot fusion reaction. On the other hand Stringham injects the hot plasma created within the bubble into a metal lattice. In the lattice, high temperatures are not required; a mechanism exists that causes fusion at a much greater rate and without neutron radiation and tritium production. Both Taleyarkham and Stringham use cavitation bubbles, but achieve much different results. A comparison can be made between the Taleyarkhan effect, which is hot fusion on a small scale, and the ITER program, which is hot fusion on a large scale. The Stringham effect is similar to the Fleischmann-Pons effect, but it occurs in a smaller environment. In terms of heat production, Stringham produces about 10¹⁴ times more heat than does Teleyarkham in the same size apparatus.

Here are some of the links from the Leitz article to reports about Taleyarkham:

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2004/040302.Taleyarkhan.fusion.html
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/may05/0505sono.html

Student's Guide to Cold Fusion in Spanish and Portuguese

Our popular Student's Guide to Cold Fusion as been translated into Spanish. See: Estudio de la Fusión en Frío. It has also been translated into Brazilian Portuguese by Sergio Bacchi. See: Estudo Fusao a Frio.

DoE Breaks Its Promise Again

The DoE has twice promised to evaluate cold fusion claims fairly

Both times, when given a chance to keep that promise, the DOE failed

March 2005. In 2004, the DoE promised to fairly evaluate Cold Fusion claims with an impartial group of experts. Because the DoE place unreasonable limitations on the review process, the necessary information was not communicated to the assembled experts. Inevitably, this meant the review was riddled with error, misunderstanding, and outright rejection based largely on ignorance. Yet, the Review Summary promised to fairly evaluate any proposal that was properly submitted. But when the DoE is given a chance to fulfill this second promise in 2005, they failed again. Details of this travesty can be found in our new document The DoE Lies Again.

The Scientific American Slams Cold Fusion Again

March 2005. The March 2005 issue of Scientific American includes a one-page article describing the 2004 DoE Review of cold fusion. ¹The main section of the article is a reasonably accurate description of the conclusions reached in the DoE Review. However, the Scientific American added a sidebar, titled "Nuclear Doubts" that includes four statements which are incorrect and totally at odds with the literature. They are:

1. "Helium 4, a suggested cold fusion by-product, was detected at amounts close to background levels."

Correction: In some experiments helium-4 has been close to the background, but in others it has been hundreds of times above background. And at least one case the concentration has been above atmospheric concentrations of helium. ²

2. “Expected gamma rays were not produced; experts doubted the explanation that all energy was generated as heat instead.”

Correction: gamma rays have been detected in many experiments although not in amounts commensurate with a conventional hot fusion reaction. Copious amounts of other nuclear products including tritium, x-rays charged particles and transmuted elements have also been detected, in the case of tritium at levels millions of times above background. ^{3, 4}It is a fact that the energy is generated mainly as heat; these unnamed experts cannot contradict facts established by replicated experiments.

Correction: The cold fusion effect has been replicated hundreds of times and laboratories all around the world, and there is not a single instance in which significant chemical fuel was present in the solution. The minuscule amount of chemical energy that might be generated and stored in the cell has been carefully inventoried. ^{5, 6}The heat generated by a few cells has ranged from 100 to 10,000 times greater than the absolute maximum amount of energy that could be generated by an equivalent mass of chemical fuel.

4. “Excess power was only a few percent more than the power applied, suggesting that measurement errors could account for the purported net energy.”

Correction: Excess power has ranged up to 300% when input power was supplied. It has been measured at Sigma 90. ⁴ In gas loaded cells and heat after death events, there is no input power, so any detectable output heat comes from cold fusion. There are – as noted above – no chemical changes in the cells, no chemical fuel, no energy deficit during electrolysis that would indicate that energy is being stored up, and no possible way a chemical reaction could produce even a small fraction of energy released during heat after death events.

The article expresses bias in several other more subtle ways. For example, it repeats spurious claims made by some of the DoE reviewers that top-of-the-line instruments have not been used to measure cold fusion effects. The best instruments on earth have been used to measure excess heat, helium, tritium and transmutations, especially in the US, Italy and Japan. ^7-9Top-of-the-line instruments have rarely been available in the United States mainly because there is so much opposition to the research. Skeptics complain that instruments are inadequate, but they themselves are to blame for this.

Finally, it should be noted that the photograph caption says, "cold fusion allegedly occurs in a jar of heavy water with electrodes." After 16 years, the Scientific American still cannot distinguish between a “jar” and a laboratory grade Dewar test tube.

The Scientific American has a long history of making ignorant, unscientific statements about cold fusion. The editor told us ¹⁰ he has not read the literature on cold fusion, and he does not intend to do so. He said: "We don't claim to be authorities on physics or any other discipline (for all that there is quite a lot of real expertise built into our staff). For that reason, the scientific points of view we choose to publish are ones that have already been vetted in the technical, peer-reviewed literature and that generally seem to represent a consensus within the scientific community." He ignored the fact that there are peer-reviewed papers about cold fusion. In any case, his statement is factually wrong: the Scientific American often reports on differences of opinion within science where there is no consensus, and even when there is a consensus, it often reports the minority point of view.

1. Choi, C., News Scan: Back to Square One, in Scientific American. 2005. p. 21.

3. Storms, E., Review of experimental observations about the cold fusion effect. Fusion Technol., 1991. 20: p. 433.

4. Clarke, B.W., et al., Search for 3He and 4He in Arata-Style Palladium Cathodes II: Evidence for Tritium Production. Fusion Sci. & Technol., 2001. 40: p. 152.

5. McKubre, M.C.H., et al., Development of Advanced Concepts for Nuclear Processes in Deuterated Metals. 1994.

6. Bockris, J., G.H. Lin, and N.J.C. Packham, A review of the investigations of the Fleischmann-Pons phenomena. Fusion Technol., 1990. 18: p. 11.

8. De Ninno, A., et al., Experimental Evidence of 4He Production in a Cold Fusion Experiment. 2002, ENEA - Unita Tecnico Scientfica Fusione Centro Ricerche Frascati, Roma. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf

9. Iwamura, Y., M. Sakano, and T. Itoh, Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation.Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2002. 41: p. 4642. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYelementalaa

Nikkei newspaper 2004 year-end roundup includes cold fusion in top 20 most significant advances

December 2004. On December 27, 2004, the Nippon Keizai Shimbun (Nikkei) science page listed cold fusion research by Iwamura et al. (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries) as the third most important technological trend of 2004. Iwamura et al. have published evidence for transmutations, excess heat and gamma ray production. See, for example:

The Mitsubishi work was the only breakthrough relating to nuclear science among the top 20. The Nikkei is considered the Japanese equivalent to the Wall Street Journal, and the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, where Iwamura published in 2002 (ref. 2, above) is Japan's most prestigious journal of physics. Iwamura's research has been confirmed by several leading laboratories in Japan and France, and replications are now underway at Tokyo University and the Japan Synchrotron Radiation Research Institute Spring8 facility.

DoE publishes review of cold fusion, and reviewer's comments

December 2004. The Department of Energy, Office of Science, has completed its review of cold fusion and published online, Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Information about this has been moved to our new Special Collection - 2004 DoE Review.

Older News:

Brian Josephson lectures on cold fusion

Eugene Mallove dead

May 2004. Eugene Mallove, the editor of Infinite Energy magazine and the author of "Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth behind the Cold Fusion Furor," was killed on May 14, 2004. The police consider this a homicide and an investigation is underway. He is survived by his wife Joanne, son Ethan and daughter Kim. Messages of condolence may be sent to staff@infinite-energy.com

2004 Cold Fusion Report

August 2004. Announcing "The 2004 Cold Fusion Report" from New Energy Times ($15). Available from http://www.newenergytimes.com. The report has been endorsed by some of the leading cold fusion researchers.

"This is a fine report. It is a work well done, the old-fashioned way, with hard work. I hope the world reads it -- it is well-written and powerful. I hope the world acts on it -- it is clear, concise and concrete."
- Dr. Michael Staker, materials scientist and research engineer for a major U.S. military research laboratory

"'The 2004 Cold Fusion Report' is excellent. I hope it is recognized by a mainstream publication so that it can get wide circulation."
- Dr. Edmund Storms, radiochemist formerly with the Los Alamos National Laboratory

"'The 2004 Cold Fusion Report' has brought a wide variety of interesting and complex material together. It should be helpful for someone trying to understand what the arguing has been about."
- Dr. Michael Melich, senior research professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and former branch head of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

"The report is very, very well done! I believe that 'The Cold Fusion Report' will be a good basis for future discussions, both inside and outside of the cold fusion community."
- Dr. Antonella De Ninno, an Italian nuclear physicist and fusion researcher with the Italian Agency for New Technology, Energy and Environment

This web site also features a free audio recording (MP3) of a lecture by David J. Nagel (George Washington University) given at ICCF10. The recording is 62 minutes long.

Downloads

In December the number of downloads usually decreases, but in 2006 total megabytes downloaded increased dramatically. The reasons are not clear, but it probably because larger files have been uploaded, and because of increased activity by robot readers.

Many of our readers are students and professors on the academic schedule. Readership usually dips during spring holiday, final exams and summer vacation in U.S. and European universities.

Fig. 1. Number of Acrobat files (papers) downloaded per month since LENR-CANR began in 2002.

Fig. 2. Monthly outgoing traffic for the past two years, in megabytes. In March 2008, the number of megabytes downloaded spiked, but the number of papers downloaded did not increase proportionally. The reason is unclear.

Fig. 3. Cumulative number of Acrobat files (papers) downloaded since LENR-CANR began.

LENR-CANR CONTENTS

Library

Contents of this page

News

ICCF14 Conference Annoucement

Arthur C. Clarke, a friend to cold fusion, dies at age 90

Cold fusion conferences held in India

Lecture by Edmund Storms at YouTube

8th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals

Colloquium on Cold Fusion held at MIT

ICCF-13 conference held in Russia

Congressman joins latest effort to suppress cold fusion research

Cold Fusion Presentations at the ACS and APS

Fire from Water at Google Video