The document provides an overview of cold fusion research from its announcement in 1989 to present day. It summarizes the initial excitement around the claims of excess heat production through cold fusion, the widespread rejection by the scientific community due to lack of reproducibility and contradictions with accepted theory, and the continued research by a small group of supporters. While mainstream science remains skeptical, some ongoing work on low-energy nuclear reactions and metal-hydrogen systems could provide new insights, even if cold fusion itself is ultimately disproven.

1. What is Science? What isn't?
A Look at Cold Fusion
Dennis Miller
Presented to the Arbeitskreis Philosophie Kelkheim, 26.10.2020. Originally in German as Die kalte
Fusion: Wissenschaft, Pseudowissenschaft, Pathologische Wissenschaft?

2. The cold fusion story: outline
• An important und unexpected discovery is announced
 Great media interest
 Hectic attempts to replicate experiments
• Errors and inconsistencies soon found
 Widespread rejection
 Reputations ruined
 Criticised as “pathological science”, “delusion”, “fiasco”, “fraud”
• Small group of scientists support the original claims and continue this
research

3. What does it tell us about science?
• Scientific procedure
 Verification
 Peer review
 Research ethics
 Open discussion vs. interests of individuals and institutions
 Ideas that fail to be accepted
• History / philosophy of science
 Pathological science

4. Nuclear fusion
• In principle almost unlimited source of power on earth
• Challenging technology
 Plasma at approx. 100 million °C
 Enormous machines required
• No practical fusion power station yet (in spite of progress)

5. *
+
+
+ g
~ 50 %
~ 50 %
~ 0.00001 %
Fusion of deuterium
according to conventional nuclear physics
2H
2H
4He
4He*
3He
3H
• Deuterium content in seawater: 0.015% (molar fraction of total hydrogen)
• Energy of nuclear fusion about 4x108 times heat of combustion

6. Model Cross-section
Person as size
comparison
Hot fusion research: big and expensive.
Figs https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
• ITER – International project under construction
 Cost approx 20 billion €
 Plasma temperature for ignition: 270 million °C

7. The Fleischmann-Pons experiment: principle
• Background
 Palladium absorbs large amounts of hydrogen/deuterium
 Can the palladium metal lattice help the deuterium to fuse?
• Setup
 Force lots of deuterium into the palladium through electrolysis
 Analyse temperature measurements to determine if excess heat is
produced
→ March 1989 claim in press conference
It works: fusion is possible without extreme temperature!

8. The Fleischmann-Pons experiment: equipment
Platinum Palladium
Constant temperature
bath
D2O + e-  DO- + D
Absorbed by
palladium
Thermometer
Schematic Stanley Pons with cold fusion cell
Photo en.wikipedia.org

9. The 1989 Press Conference:
Major Discovery or Errors and Delusions?

10. The press conference and its aftermath
Green +ve / acceptance
Red –ve / crticism
ACS: American Chemical Society
APS: American Physical Society
DOE: Dept. of Energy

11. After the press conference – other labs' results
• High speed work!
• Many groups involved
• Various techniques: excess heat, neutrons, gas phase/metal
• Positive results trend
· Early reports
· Less well equipped labs
No. Reports
+ve -ve
23 Mar – 2 May 26 20
3 May – 24 May 8 27

12. Objections and criticism - consensus view
•Experimental problems
Determination of excess heat
Measurements of neutrons
•Theory
Implausibly large effect of Pd/D
lattice (~1057 !!)
Enormous mismatch between
excess heat and fusion products
•Scientific method
Conflict between pressure to publish and
scientific standards
Bypassing peer review
Many experimental details not published
Lack of cooperation between electrochemists
and nuclear physicists
Lack of control tests (e.g. H2O instead of D2O)
Failure to recognize that a theory fails

13. Pathological Science
People are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful
thinking or threshold interactions.“
Irving Langmuir, 1953
• Unexpected claim: contradicts accepted theory and experience
• Effects that are difficult to detect
• Objections explained away by ad hoc assumptions
• Ratio of supporters to critics rises to ~ 50 %, and then falls gradually to
near zero
→ Cold fusion often considered and example of pathological science

14. Pathological science
• Examples
 N-rays (Blondlot 1903)
 Polywater (late 1960's)
 Memory of water (Beneviste 1979)

15. Cold fusion discredited, but research
continues

16. Cold fusion / LENR: Some of the topics
Gas phase reactors
- Special surface layers
- Metallic nanoparticles
Transmutation
- Neutrons react with nuclei:
• Heavier elements formed
- Transforming nuclear waste to non-radioactive products ?
1H instead of D as fuel
- Contradicts original cold fusion concept
Theory (deuterium fusion)
- Metal lattice has major effects on nuclear reactions
- Electrons in metal lattice reduce D + D repulsion
- Large change in ratio of fusion products:
• Main channel: D + D  4He
• Energy of fusion: reaction as heat not gamma ray
Electrochemical cells
- Heat measurements
- Reproducibility
- Fusion products, He, neutrons, gamma rays
Theory (LENR with 1H)
- Metal lattice effects:
• Ultracold neutrons formed from proton + electron
Theory
- Electron deep orbits
• Electrons can be much closer to
nucleus than in conventional theory

17. LENR / Cold Fusion: examples of active supporters
LENR-CANR
Online cold fusion/LENR Library
SRI International
Research
Michael McKubre
Francis Tanzella
July 2020: These have all been active in the area within the last five years.
However, some may no longer be working on LENR / Cold Fusion
Peter Hagelstein
MIT
Theory
Mitchell Schwartz
Brillouin Energy
Lattice Energy LLC
Kiva Labs
Edmund Storms
LENR Cars
New Energy Times
Steven Krivit
Leonardo Corp
Andrea Rossi
E-cat
J-P. Biberian
Univ. Aix-Marseille
Clean Nuclear Power
Allan Widom
Northeastern Univ.
Theory
Clean Planet Inc.
Tohuka University
Sendai

18. Cold Fusion / LENR: Conclusion
• Premature publication
Lack of controls
Poor reproducibility
Secrecy (patent considerations)
Self-delusion
• Work continues in small community outside mainstream science
 2019 Google project:
- failed to confirm the cold fusion claims
- but LENR research may reveal something interesting
1989 Press conferenence
and following year

19. Literature
1 John Huizenga, Cold Fusion – The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, Oxford Univ. Press (1993)
2 Frank Close, Too Hot to Handle – The Race for Cold Fusion, Penguin Books (1992).
3 C. P. Berlinguette et al., Revisiting the Case of Cold Fusion, Nature,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1256-6 (2019)
4 Philip Ball, Lessons from Cold Fusion, 30 Years on, Nature, 569, 601 (2019)
5 Bruce Lewenstein, Fax to Facts: Communication in the Cold Fusion Saga, Social Studies of Science
25, 403-436 (1995)
6 Jean-Paul Biberian, Cold Fusion, Advances in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Elsevier (2020).

20. Additional Text

21. Fleischmann-Pons Experiment: Background
Pons and Fleischmann were both chemists. Fleischmann, an electrochemist, was the better known of the two
and enjoyed an excellent reputation in the field. After early retirement from the Univ. of Southampton, he
continued research with Stanley Pons in Utah. Pons had done his PhD at Southampton and was now Professor
at the University of Utah. Some time in the mid-1980's they discussed the cold fusion idea and decided to test
it. They were well aware that this was a bit like a lottery: big prize, but very small chance of winning it. For the
next couple of years this exotic idea was not their main project, however. But in 1988 they had some
encouraging preliminary results and applied for a grant to do more intensive research on this topic.
The discussions on the research grant lead to contact with a colleague working on a related project. Prof.
Steven Jones, physicist at another university in Utah, was interested in the possibility of fusion in geochemical
processes. His work suggested that such processes do occur, but the rate was exceedingly small – much larger
than conventional theory predicted, but much too small to be of any use for energy production. Should they
collaborate with Jones or regard him as a competitor?

22. Pressure for Premature Publication
In the summer of 1988, Fleischmann and Pons believed they had evidence for cold fusion and hoped to study
this in detail for before making a public statement. That would probably be a project lasting about 18 months.
However, in early 1989 they came under pressure – partly from of fears of competition by Jones and also
because the University of Utah wanted to make sure it profited from a major discovery made in its labs. This
lead to the famous press conference of March 23rd * at which they announced what they believed was a major
discovery: contrary to accepted physical theory, deuterium could undergo fusion at room temperature using
quite simple apparatus!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CfHaeQo6oU
*

23. Aftermath of the 1989 Press Conference
After the press conference there was intense activity. Many groups tried to replicate the results. The first few
weeks were hectic. In particular, much was outside the normal rules of scientific communication. Those trying
to replicate the experiment had no scientific publication to go on and obtained information from whatever
sources they could find.
Over the next few weeks a variety of serious problems with the cold fusion claims became clear. At the
beginning of May there was strong criticism at an American Physical Society meeting. The weekly bulletin of
members of the society regarded this a refutation but added “The corpse of cold fusion will probably continue
to twitch for a while ...”. A very careful study was conducted at Harwell, one of the leading nuclear physics labs.
The Harwell scientists waited for clear, scientifically valid results and did not make any premature
announcements. By the 15th of June they were ready and gave a press conference; no effect was found and the
lab. would discontinue its work on this topic.
The Harwell results confirmed the doubts of many experts on the validity of the cold fusion claims. There was
still a band of supporters, but they were becoming increasingly separated from mainstream science.
Cold fusion was soon seen by many as a fiasco. Much money had been wasted checking claims for which there
was little evidence. It was bad for the public perception of science. Yes, an erroneous claim was corrected, but
not by the normal procedure – it's not an example of how science is supposed to work.

24. Cold Fusion Research Continues
Soon, mainstream science considered cold fusion to be discredited. A small group of scientists disagreed and
continued to work on it. Their results did not attract a great deal of comment; after the initial excitement many
of the critics had lost interest in the subject.
The cold fusion community became separated from mainstream science. It was a community with views not
accepted by most scientists and it mistrusted the scientific establishment. Its research was not published by
the major scientific journals. It had its own conferences at which reports of cold fusion phenomena could
expect a warm reception that they would not get in the wider world.
However, over 30 years after the initial announcement, cold fusion research has not disappeared. The area is
now often referred to as LENR (Low energy nuclear reactions). There is quite a variety of methods and theories.

25. 2019: Cold Fusion in the News Again
Hidden from public view, a group funded by Google had been working on the topic for the last couple of years.
Now they published a report in Nature. Nature, a leading scientific journal, is selective about what it publishes,
so anything on cold fusion appearing in its pages is a bit of a sensation. Google's approach has a lot going for it.
They saw a research area that was controversial, dogged by poor reproducibility and not generally accepted.
But it had kept going for 30 years, and claimed to offer a solution to the world's energy problems or at least
useful technology. Had it been prematurely dismissed? Are at least some of the claims true? Google got a
group from several institutions together. Scientists from various relevant disciplines, but not part of the cold
fusion community. They were to work according to principles that had been sorely neglected at the start of the
cold fusion saga. Scientific rigour, cooperation between different areas of expertise, peer reviewed publication
(not sensational press conferences). At the simple yes/no level the result was negative – there was no evidence
for cold fusion. On the other hand, the project led to the study of interesting materials (metals with a very high
content of hydrogen). That could be valuable both scientifically and technologically. Quite apart from fusion
(hot or cold), hydrogen will have an increasing role to play in the energy supply.

26. Where's Cold Fusion Today? – The Community
There seems to be an active cold fusion community: research by small, rather exotic firms and a few institutes.
It's a scientific world that runs parallel, but largely disconnected from mainstream science. There's a scientific
society and a peer-reviewed journal. An international conference is held about every one or two years
(attendance reported to be 100 – 200). An industrial association was founded to represent the various firms in
this area (they too are in a parallel world).
Mainstream science is wary of any involvement with cold fusion, but it does not boycott the field completely. In
2009 ACS published a book on gas phase cold fusion by Jean-Paul Biberian. In Jan 2020 a review of the whole
field (again edited by Biberian) appeared – published by Elsevier, a major scientfic publisher.
Most of the cold fusion researchers have been in the field for decades and many have reached retiring age. Will
younger people take their place in this unpopular field?

27. Where's Cold Fusion Today? – Results
Lack of reproducibility has been a constant theme. Some experiments produce excess heat, often only after
running for a considerable time. Some electrodes are inactive. In spite of many attempts the reason has not
been found, though there are a variety of ideas. New areas of science often have reproducibility problems, but
one can normally find out why and gradually learn to control the experimental setup. However, this has not
happened in cold fusion – there are lab. experiments that claim to produce excess heat, but no-one has yet
shown a small prototype reactor that reliably produces power (as opposed to a lab. experiment that is
designed to accumulate data).

28. Where's Cold Fusion Today? – Theory
A major objection to cold fusion is that it contradicts accepted theories. That applies not only to the occurence
of fusion at all at low temperatures, but also to the massive discrepancies between heating and expected
fusion products (neutrons, gamma rays, helium, tritium). After 30 years, there are lots of results, but no
coherent picture. An experimental result should not automatically be rejected because it conficts with
accepted theories. But the stronger the conflict with theory, the higher will be our standard of evidence before
accepting the new result. And if it is accepted, we need a new theory. This theory should put everything into
perspective, not just suggest an explantion for an isolated phenomenon. Physics already has a comprehensive
theoretical framework and the new theory must fit into that. If the theory requires ad hoc assumptions to
avoid contradictions, that is a bad sign. There are plenty of theories favoured by cold fusion proponents but
they are not generally accepted. The preface to Biberian's 2020 book probably gives the general feeling among
the community: current nuclear theories are based on two-body interactions, but in condensed matter we
need concepts based on multibody interactions – an under-researched area. Well, perhaps there's something
interesting there, but I don't take the objection at face value: theoretical physicists have done a lot of work on
the properties of solids.

29. Outlook / Conclusions
The cold fusion story gives us an insight into how science works (or doesn't work): the importance of
communication, dangers of premature publication, failure to recognise that results are wrong, reproducibility,
the role of theory. Like many, I have the feeling the cold fusion idea is probably a dead end, but there's just a
small chance its proponents might have discovered something important. There may well be some spinoff that
has nothing to do with nuclear reactions: Metal / hydrogen systems, accurate calorimetry – these are not new
fields, but there are probably interesting things still to be discovered.
© Dennis Miller2020