Suzy B Software 2/Suzy B Software CD-ROM 2 (1994).iso/adult_ed/cnf_3/cnf_3.txt

Text File | 1995-05-02 | 127KB | 2,140 lines

   SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION

                     By: Peter L. Hagelstein,
                         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                         Research Laboratory of Electronics
                         Cambridge, Massachusetts


                =============================


                   Posted by: Jed Rothwell & Mitchell Swartz
                     with permission from Prof. Hagelstein.

  Two Notes and Comments regarding the SUMMARY:

  "Prof. Hagelstein sent me this document in "Latex" format.
   I converted it to Word Perfect, and then to 80 column ASCII,
   with the following conventions:

  -  Superscripts, including footnote numbers, are shown between curly
     brackets: {4}He
  -  Subscripts are shown between square brackets: D[2]O
  -  Italics are marked by asterisks: *ab initio*
  -  Greek letters and symbols are spelled out: sigma, mu, Deg."
          Jed Rothwell [Cold Fusion Research Advocates [phone]]


     "Last month on January 16, at the MIT IAP all-day seminar on cold
  fusion Prof. Hagelstein gave a fantastic detailed presentation on this
  subject which left the participants in the auditorium in rapt attention.
  He has graciously allowed his full work and insight of the
  Third International Conference to be uploaded herefollowing to Internet.

    "Incidentally, at that IAP meeting, I took a survey near the end, and
  of the nearly 80+ people questioned (8 hours after starting), about 3 in
  every 4 attendees read, or had otherwise received info form, the postings
  on sci.physics.fusion.  I submit that the proportion was a surprising
  barometer for this field, and the influence of, and interest in, the net."

    "Thanks are in order especially to Peter Hagelstein for this paper, but
  also to Jed Rothwell (and daughter Naomi) for working it into a
  format consistent with facile presentation on, and to, this net."

    "This posting is made at the request of those who could not download
  the 125 kilobyte file.  That file has been divided into two portions
         - PART I (below), and PART II (which will follow)."
                     Mitchell Swartz [JET Technology [phone]]


==================  PART I (of II) ========================================

        SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
                ON COLD FUSION (ICCF3) IN NAGOYA


                         Peter L. Hagelstein
                         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                         Research Laboratory of Electronics
                         Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

                         ABSTRACT

    We review highlights of the international cold fusion conference that was
held recently in Nagoya, Japan. Excess heat results in heavy water
electrolysis experiments constitute the observations with the most important
potential applications. Experiments in gas phase systems exhibit fast particle
and gamma emission that make progress toward elucidating mechanisms. The
evidence in support of a light water heat effect has improved.


                              INTRODUCTION

    The Third International Cold Fusion Conference took place in Nagoya,
Japan between October 21 and October 25, 1992. Over 300 attendees
participated, listening to about 27 oral presentations and looking over
roughly 80 poster papers. Many people have asked me about the conference, and
rather than repeating the same things over and over again, I thought that it
would be useful to put my thoughts down on paper as a more efficient method of
communication.

    Given the near complete absence of cold fusion sessions in more
traditional physics and chemistry meetings, the international conferences
represent about the only chance for people in the cold fusion field to get
together and learn about what has happened lately. The international
conferences, starting with the Salt Lake City conference in 1990, followed by
Como, Italy in 1991, and now Nagoya, Japan in 1992, have been and continue to
be the most important sources of reliable and relevant information in the
field; an important meeting was also held at BYU in 1990 which focused on
nuclear products. The field is advancing pretty rapidly these days, and since
publications tend to lag with more than a year's delay, the conferences and
conference proceedings play a key role in the field. The next international
conference was originally scheduled to take place in Hawaii in November, 1993;
I understand that it may be delayed until December.

    The results presented at this conference were overall technically much
stronger than last year's conference, and benefitted by a very strong showing
from the Japanese contingent. I will first itemize what I thought were some of
the most interesting new experimental results presented at the conference.

    I admit to having numerous biases. One bias is that I believe the
observations of excess power are ultimately the most important, both
scientifically and technologically. Another bias is that I favor results which
in my view help to elucidate reaction mechanisms.

    Following the discussion of significant positive results, I review
abstracts and presentations of negative results. Coming from the theory end of
the field, I felt that it was appropriate for me to survey the theory papers
which were presented (in the following section); in this case, it was possible
to include a larger fraction of the papers submitted. Having my own theory as
to the origin of the effect, I warn the reader that my discussion of theory
necessarily carries a bias in favor of my world view; it is my hope that this
discussion will be useful in spite of this bias. Almost as interesting in some
cases as what was presented, was what was not presented; a discussion of work
that was absent is presented before the summary and conclusions.

    For a review as long as this one, there are many issues and many details,
most of which I have made a serious attempt to get right. I would hope that I
will not make enemies of those whose work I did not include (which at this
point will include about half of all papers submitted). This review was
constructed from preprints, notes, memory, and discussions with many people in
the field -- should the reader note errors or misconceptions, I would
appreciate corrections.


                              SURVEY OF POSITIVE RESULTS

1.  S. Pons{1,2} described briefly recent results obtained at the
    Japanese-funded IMRA laboratory in Sophia Antipolis, France. During the
    Como meeting (July, 1991), Pons and Fleischmann had announced that they
    were able to obtain very high levels of excess power production (on the
    order of 1000 Watts/cm{3}) corresponding to a factor of 10 power gain, and
    that they had done so 11 times.

    Part of their research since then has focused on defining a procedure
    that would improve on the reproducibility of this very high power effect
    (at Como, they had announced that complete reproducibility had been
    attained on achieving consistent excess power at lower levels). At
    Nagoya, Pons reported that this had been accomplished; that very high
    levels of heat production (more than 1 kilowatt/cm{3}) were now obtained
    reproducibly accompanied by a factor of 4 power gain.

    The key to the new results included some advances that they outlined. One
    such improvement involves the observation that the excess power
    generation increases at higher temperatures. The cathode is charged at
    intermediate current densities at temperatures below 50 Deg. C for
    several days, and then the current is stepped up. Due to the relatively
    low thermal loss of the cell and calorimeter, the cell temperature rises,
    but the loading is maintained. This rise improves the excess power
    generation, which in turn drives the temperature higher; the positive
    feedback leads to very high excess power generation and vigorous boiling.

    Pons and Fleischmann perform their calorimetry using open cell systems,
    which have the advantage of being cheaper and more accessible, and allows
    them to do more experiments at a time. The particular method of
    calorimetry which they have developed was motivated in part by the
    existence of the positive feedback described above -- Pons and
    Fleischmann are able to achieve good calorimetric precision with
    time-varying electrolyte levels, cell temperatures and cell voltages.
    Most others have sought in their work to maintain either constant
    temperature or power, or else require the presence of steady-state
    conditions in their system to obtain accurate results. Very few groups
    have so far taken advantage of such sophisticated methods to obtain
    excess power values from their raw data; no other groups have yet
    reported the ability to obtain reproducibly the high power and boiling
    mode reported by Pons and Fleischmann.

    It was pointed out by Pons that the calorimetry could be checked during
    the very high excess power burst by measuring the time taken to boil away
    the electrolyte, and using a knowledge of the heat of vaporization to
    compute the total energy and hence power generation. He presented the
    results of this analysis for one cell, which he said was in agreement
    with the calorimetric results.

    Pons stated that 2.5 moles (close to 50 cc) of D[2]O were boiled away
    during a time of about 10 minutes, during which time the average *iv*
    input power was 37.5 watts. The numbers can be checked, as follows: The
    heat of vaporization of heavy water is about 41 kJ/mol at 100 Deg. C, and
    2.5 moles of heavy water corresponds to 102.5 kJ; the energy lost during
    this time in the calorimeter (primarily radiative) is 6.7 kJ. The input
    electrical *iv* energy during this time is 22.5 kJ. The excess energy
    produced is the output energy (102.5 + 6.7 kJ) minus the input energy
    (22.5 kJ), or 86.7 kJ. The production of 86.7 kJ in 10 minutes
    corresponds to an excess power of 144.5 watts, and a power gain of 3.85.

    The volume of the cathode was given to be 0.0785 cm{3}, which was noted by
    many (this volume was in error, as will be commented on shortly). The
    average excess power claimed during the boiling episode was 144.5 Watts,
    which would correspond to 1841 W/cm{3}.

    The cathode geometry was given by Pons to be cylindrical, with a diameter
    of 2 mm and a length of 1.25 cm. I note that this geometry does not
    correspond to the volume quoted by Pons above -- a rod of these
    dimensions would have a volume of 0.03927 cm{3}, which is almost precisely
    a factor of 2 smaller than the volume given during Pons talk. Pons has
    confirmed that this smaller volume is correct (the correct value appears
    in their conference proceeding{2}). I will continue my discussion here
    using the corrected power per unit volume, which is 3682 W/cm{3}.

    The anomalous excess energy production in this experiment is
    considerable, as can be calculated. In 1 minute, 8.7 kJ of excess energy
    is produced. At a density of 12.02 g/cm{3} and an average mass of 106.42
    amu, pure Pd contains 6.8 X 10{22} atoms/cm{3}. The total number of atoms
    in the cathode is 2.7 X 10{21}, or 0.0044 moles. In 1 minute, the excess
    energy production is 1.96 MJ/mole, which corresponds to 20.3 eV/atom of
    Pd. This number is greater than can be accounted for by a chemical
    explanation for the effect. After 10 minutes, the cathode has produced
    203 eV/atom.

    In the absence of current flow, film-boiling limits the heat flow from
    the cathode at cathode temperatures higher than about 120 Deg. C; the
    maximum heat flux from the rod under these conditions is limited to I
    think somewhere near 125 Watts/cm{2}. The surface area of the cathode,
    including the top and bottom, is 0.85 cm{2}, which leads to an observed
    average heat flux of about 170 Watts/cm{2}. This number is comparable to,
    but greater than my version of the film-boiling limit given above, and
    was a potential cause for concern.

    Pons and Fleischmann have considered this effect, and have found
    experimentally that the presence of current flow delays the onset of
    film-boiling to higher temperatures and higher heat fluxes. In their
    conference proceeding, they claim{2} to have observed heat transfer rates
    during electrolysis in separate experiments which are between 1-10
    kW/cm{2}. I consider this result to be very important.

    The cathode gets very hot in these experiments. Pons and Fleischmann have
    observed the Kel-F supports at the base of the cathodes to melt, from
    which the presence of temperatures in excess of 300 Deg. C are inferred.
    A direct measurement of the cathode temperature is currently problematic;
    Pons is currently interested in practical proposals as to how to do this
    without impacting the electrochemistry.

    A common misunderstanding often occurs in the discussion of the results
    of Pons-Fleischmann experiments which is of interest here. It is
    sometimes argued that the energy production during a short event can be
    disregarded, since there may exist energy storage mechanisms which could
    have been collecting energy at a low level for a long period of time. For
    example, the total energy output from this experiment would not be very
    much larger than the total input energy if no heat excess had occurred
    prior to the boiling event (1 watt-day = 86.4 kJ). This type of argument
    seeks to make palatable the notion that since the total energy excess
    measured over days is small compared to the input (and hence there might
    exist a signal to noise problem in the measurement), the measurement can
    be dismissed. As discussed above, this type of argument completely misses
    a key implication of the experiment -- specifically, that there exists no
    known physical mechanism which could store the energy observed to be
    released during the boiling episode.

    It is true of this experiment as well as of others to be described below,
    that no products or "ashes" of the heat have been found and verified that
    are commensurate with the energy production. This will be discussed
    further below.

2.  M. McKubre{3,4} described experiments done at SRI during the past several
    years. They have developed closed cell flow calorimeters, which are
    ideally *first principle* calorimeters (which means that the heat flow
    out of the cell goes into the flowing water coolant, and the power
    generation is determined by measuring the mass flow rate and output to
    input flow temperature difference, with no calibration required). They
    have succeeded in reducing the conduction losses (which are not first
    principle contributions) down to the order of one per cent, and then they
    calibrate the Fick's law constant associated with the conduction losses.
    Overall, the SRI calorimeters achieve a relative accuracy in the
    calorimetric measurements which is on the order of a few tenths of a per
    cent.

    The SRI group reported the development of a procedure at Como that
    appeared to yield excess heat essentially every time, and this method is
    described in the Como conference proceedings. Highlights of these
    experiments were discussed. A significant advance that was pioneered by
    the SRI group was described: it consisted of the addition of aluminate or
    silicate to the electrolyte, which caused the formation of a colloidal
    surface layer that passed light ions (deuterium, lithium, boron,...) and
    shielded the surface from impurities; this procedure improves the ability
    of the Pd rod to maintain a high loading ratio.

    Two distinct modes of excess power generation were observed; one in which
    the excess power occurs at relatively low levels (1%-50%) and responds to
    changes in current density (they have observed 38 occurrences of this
    mode, lasting hours to many days), and one that is characterized by much
    higher relative power levels (up to 350% excess) and appears to be
    insensitive to changes in current (this mode has been observed 3 times,
    lasting many hours).

    For the first mode of heat generation, SRI finds that the excess power
    rises linearly with current above a threshold current density (which is
    on the order of 100-200 mA/cm{2}). A graph illustrating this appears in
    their conference proceeding.{4} This is in apparent contrast with the Pons
    and Fleischmann results, which showed a possible quadratic component to
    the increase above threshold current. Discussion during the meeting
    pointed to the fact that the SRI experiments are run at constant
    temperature, while the temperature of the Pons and Fleischmann cells
    increase when excess heat is produced.

    Mckubre presented a graph of excess power production as a function of
    fractional deuterium loading as determined from resistance ratio
    measurements. This dependence was found to increase roughly parabolically
    above a loading of 0.85 (*P[xs]*~(x-0.85){2}) up to loadings near 0.95,
    which is as high as had been achieved during their C1 experiment.

    The group has spent considerable effort chasing down and quantifying
    uncertainties in the SRI experiments, and are now able to assign
    meaningful error bars to essentially all quantities measured and inferred
    in their experiments. The result of this analysis yields rather high
    sigma numbers on the excess power measurements (in excess of 50 sigma on
    some of the best data analyzed so far).

    Their largest power numbers correspond to on the order of 15 W/cm{3}; it
    would take a small number of hours of running at this level to defeat a
    chemical storage explanation. Their highest excess total energy numbers
    have reached 200 MJ/mole of Pd, which corresponds roughly to 2 KeV per Pd
    atom; this level of excess energy production cannot be of chemical
    origin.

3.  K. Kunimatsu{5,6} of IMRA JAPAN Co. in Sapporo presented results on their
    heavy water electrolysis experiments. A number of things struck me as
    being interesting about this talk, aside from the fact that this is one
    of the first presentations of anything from this group at a conference at
    which I have managed to be. This effort appears to have a great deal of
    resources and some nontrivial technical expertise. They reported excess
    power measurements as a function of loading (where the loading was
    determined through measurements of the deuterium gas pressure in the
    cell), and arrived at essentially the same dependence of excess power on
    loading fraction as SRI, but with the cut-off shifted down by a few
    points relative to the SRI results (from a D/Pd ratio of 0.85 inferred
    from a resistance ratio measurement, down closer to 0.83 determined from
    measurements of the D[2] gas pressure{6}). The peak excess power occurs
    when the current density is greater than 100 mA/cm{2}, and the peak excess
    power which appears on the graph in Ref. 6 is about 35%.

    The IMRA experiments differed qualitatively from the SRI and
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments in that they were run in fuel-cell mode.
    Conventional Pons-Fleischmann electrolysis experiments are run such that
    D[2] gas is generated at the cathode and O[2] gas is generated at the
    anode. IMRA has developed a pressurized cell in which deuterium reactions
    occur at the anode. Cells operating in fuel-cell mode have been developed
    in the past, however, this is the first time that I am aware that a
    Pons-Fleischmann cell has generated excess power sufficiently reliably
    while operating in such a mode to produce relatively high quality excess
    power data of the sort presented.

    This group seems to have good people, good funding, and much expertise.
    They presented several poster papers on studies of excess power
    generation, and the absorption of hydrogen and deuterium in palladium
    cathodes{7-10} I think that we will be hearing much more from them in the
    future.

    I note that a positive correlation between loading and excess heat
    production in a Pd/D modified Pons-Fleischmann experiment was reported by
    Scaramuzzi and De Ninno in a poster paper.{11,12}

4.  Ya. R. Kucherov{13-15} from the Luch Association, Podolsk, Moscow Region
    described experiments that I thought were very important.

    The experiment involves using a glow discharge to load a Pd (or other
    metal) foil (1 cm X 1 cm X 0.1 mm - 1.0 mm) in D[2] gas at 10 torr, with a
    400 V discharge (10 - 500 mA current). Apparently this group has had
    considerable experience with glow discharges and is aware of several
    tricks that help to preserve the surface of the cathode which helps to
    attain very high loading (a D/Pd ratio of more than 1).

    Numerous effects are observed; excess heat production will first be
    considered. Temperatures were monitored using W-Re thermocouples in the
    cathode and anode, and also CC thermocouples in a heat collector some
    distance from the cathode. Calibration was done through comparing
    temperature histories of "live" Pd cathodes (cathodes producing neutron,
    gamma and fast particle emission) in deuterium with those of "worn out"
    cathodes (cathodes producing no anomalous emission). Excess power
    production at the level of tens of watts is observed; their best result
    out of 78 experiments is a 33 watt excess representing a power gain of a
    factor of 5. Given the small total cathode volume, the resulting power
    generation rate is quite high; the highest values are on the order of
    3000 watts/cm{3} of Pd. The highest total energy production observed to
    date exceeds 20 kJ.

    After about 100 seconds after the start of the discharge, neutron
    emission is observed (a huge signal, reaching up to 10{6} neutrons/sec in
    some experiments). The neutron detection described in their earlier work
    was done using RUP-1 silver activated ZnS scintillation detectors and
    type SNM-18 gas discharge ({3}He) detectors. The 10{6} neutron/sec signal
    appeared in the scintillation detector as 2000 counts/sec at a distance
    of 1 meter; the signal showed up as 10000 pulses/second at a distance of
    30 cm on the SNM-18 detector. No emission was observed using a hydrogen
    discharge.

    After a while, gamma emission is then observed (also a huge signal, up to
    10{5} gammas/sec in some experiments). The gamma emission was studied
    using four detectors (Ge-Li, stilbene, NaI and SPS plastic); most of the
    recent results were obtained using a liquid nitrogen-cooled Ge-Li DGDK-50
    detector with 1.6 keV resolution at 1332 keV, and an efficiency of 10{-3}
    at 511 keV. An example of an anomalous gamma spectrum from Pd is shown in
    a recent publication{16}.

    Gamma lines were identified from short-lived isotopes (the gamma spectrum
    returns to its initial state in 3-5 days), and some of the identified
    lines originate in isotopes in the neighborhood of Pd (lines originating
    from isotopes with a nuclear charge of *Z*-3 to *Z*+8, where *Z*=46 for
    Pd, were observed).

    A very substantial flux (10{4} to 10{6} ions/sec) of fast ions is emitted
    from the cathode, and silicon surface barrier detectors were used for
    detection. The bulk of the emission occurs between 1-5 MeV, and in some
    experiments lasts for a few minutes after the discharge is switched off
    which allows for an accurate determination of the spectrum. Correlated
    fast ion emission was registered on calibrated CR-39 plates installed
    inside the discharge chamber.

    A small fraction of the fast ions are observed at high energy; peaks were
    observed at 6 MeV, 12 MeV and 16 MeV. The mass of the particles at 12 MeV
    and higher was determined to be greater than or equal to 4, as determined
    through measurements with different barrier thicknesses.

5.  There was a Chinese team{17-20} that presented results from a somewhat
    similar system to that described by Kucherov. A glow discharge was
    created by applying high voltage (7-11 KV, 50 Hz) between two electrodes
    inside of a glass bulb containing deuterium at low pressure (4-13 torr).
    A thin (1 micron) metallic layer of the electrode material (for example,
    Pd) was deposited on the interior of the glass bulb. The glow discharge
    current was less than 100 mA; an anomalous current was observed with an
    average value of 1 A, and excursions up to 10 A. A D/Pd ratio of 0.5-0.8
    was claimed to have been obtained.

    Substantial neutron emission (13-330 neutrons/sec) was observed, and the
    energy spectrum was resolved with a recoil proton fast neutron
    scintillation spectrometer. The resulting neutron spectrum contained both
    2.0-2.5 MeV neutrons, and broad emission between 2.5-7.0 MeV; most of the
    emission occurred above 2.5 MeV.

    Neutron emission was also recorded from metals chosen at random, and the
    signal strength varied with metal according to the order Pt, Nb, W, Pd,
    Ag, Cu, Mo and Fe. The fluence observed from the D/Pt system was 1.2 X
    10{4} neutrons/sec.

    The energy spectrum of the neutron emission for these metals was also
    observed. In the case of the D/Pt emission shows broad emission up to
    about 8 MeV, decreasing generally with increasing neutron energy, and
    with a number of possible peaks appearing.

    Intense gamma spectra were also observed with a NaI scintillation counter
    during the experiments; the gamma ray yield was about ten times that of
    the neutron yield. The gamma spectrum of D/Nb showed lines at tens of
    KeV, 3.4 MeV and 5.8 MeV, and some unresolved emission below 7 MeV.

    These experiments seem to me to be similar to the experiment described in
    1989 by Wada.{21} Another experiment of this sort was reported by Tazima,
    Isii and Ikegami, and also by Jin, Zhang, Yao and Wu, at the Como
    conference.

6.  E. Yamaguchi of NTT presented a paper{22,23} on {4}He production from a PdD
    foil that is sandwiched by gold and MnO[x]. I think of the NTT research
    labs as being the ATT Bell Labs of Japan, which has an excellent
    technical reputation. This paper attracted considerable interest in the
    Japanese media, and there were reports that the price of the NTT stock
    climbed as a result. The NTT stock climbed a bit more than 10%; Morrison
    pointed out in his review that the stock went back down to its
    pre-announcement value within a few days.

    In the experiments that he reported, a current of 0.5-0.8 A/cm{2} is
    applied perpendicularly to the sandwich. The foil produces heat at a
    level of 0.5-5 Watts for about 1000 seconds (this is the case whether the
    foil is PdD or PdH), and then explosively outgasses. At the peak of the
    outgassing, the samples undergo substantial plastic deformation which
    lasts for about 10 seconds. During his presentation, it was not obvious
    whether the temperature rise observed was being claimed as anomalous or
    not. If the foil is deuterated, these phenomena are accompanied by {4}He
    emission.

    Yamaguchi previously reported at the BYU conference very high levels of
    neutron emission from this system at a 10{6} neutrons/second. The
    experiments described at Nagoya included only helium, heat, and fast
    charged particle detection.

    The {4}He emission is monitored using an expensive high resolution mass
    spectrometer that is capable of distinguishing between {4}He and D[2]
    signals, as was demonstrated. A minor peak in the data appears near the
    expected HT mass position, and Yamaguchi claimed that this signal
    indicated the presence of HT (Claytor notes in his trip report that the
    HT signal, if real, would imply a "radiological hazard (> 10 Ci)."). The
    H[2]D trimer is more massive than D[2] and does not interfere with the
    {4}He measurement.

    Yamaguchi sees {4}He in his mass spectrometer when he uses PdD, and he
    sees no {4}He when he uses PdH. Yamaguchi stated that the amount of {4}He
    was "consistent with the heat," but if he gave figures for the amount of
    {4}He produced, I missed them. Given that heat occurs for PdH runs as well
    as for PdD runs, it is not clear what the statement means. Hopefully this
    issue will be clarified at a later date.

    When asked whether the {4}He is due to contamination, Yamaguchi argued
    that it is not in the D[2] gas used, it is not in the metal, and the
    vacuum system being used is a high quality system of the type used in
    semiconductor research that will hold a 10{-6} torr vacuum for a month
    without pumping.

    Yamaguchi also sees 3 MeV protons and fast alphas at 4.5-6 MeV using two
    identical systems based on silicon detectors (Canberra
    Si-SSD:PD-450-19-700-AM; active area=4.5 cm{2}, active thickness = 700
    mu). Protons were observed at 3 MeV, and were attributed to the *p+t*
    branch of the *dd*-fusion process. Significant emission was observed
    between 4.5-6.0 MeV; by comparing signals with and without an intervening
    7 mu foil, these signals were identified as being due to either alphas or
    {3}He nuclei. The total number of fast particles detected was a few
    hundred per experiment.

    The experiment which Yamaguchi and Nishioka have constructed looks very
    impressive; I got the impression that the helium measurement capability
    was relatively new. I think that the {4}He signals are real, but I am less
    convinced yet that it has been made through an anomalous effect. The
    strongest argument in support of it being genuine is the rather strong
    time-correlation of the {4}He signal with the temperature excursion of the
    foil.

    The NTT group has been active for years, and by now I think that the
    basic anomalies which they observe are likely to be right. The new result
    presented at Nagoya is the helium measurement, which I will be more
    comfortable with after Yamaguchi and Nishioka have had more experience
    exploring. I look forward to more results from this group.

    I note that the first significant claim for substantial {4}He production
    in Pons-Fleischmann electrolysis experiments were made at Como by Miles
    and coworkers at China Lake. Previous negative results had been obtained
    in searches for helium in the cathode; Miles and coworkers claimed the
    observation of {4}He in the gas stream. Miles presented a paper at
    Nagoya{24} which gave an update of the group's recent efforts, which have
    been hindered by an inability to obtain significant excess heat.

    Bockris reported at Nagoya{25} observations of {4}He above background (by
    factors of 2-100) that accompanied tritium production (described below);
    the helium was analyzed by thermal expulsion and mass spectroscopy.

7.  S. Isagawa et al from the Japanese National Laboratory for High Energy
    Physics (the KEK collaboration) reported their results on experiments
    involving searches for heat, tritium and neutrons in Pons-Fleischmann
    cells.{26,27} I was impressed that the KEK was working at all in this area,
    and even though they have apparently had an effort at some level since
    1989, it appeared to me from their presentation that they have more or
    less just gotten started.

    Most of their results to date are negative, and it appears that they are
    confident that they are going to get the expected (that is, null)
    results. Of the possible excess heat events that they have observed so
    far, they have been able to rule out all but one as being due to known
    (non-anomalous) causes. Neutron emission is mostly not observed, but they
    have one event at 3.5 sigma of excess neutron emission (23 q 7
    neutrons/sec) recorded over nine hours from one PdD cell after 20 hours
    of electrolysis.

    Although their results to date have little impact on the field, should
    they continue, their contributions could be and should be substantial in
    time. One thing that this group would be able to do which few other
    groups in the field are as well suited to do to bring on board the
    physics community. Positive results obtained at the KEK would stir
    interest in other physics laboratories as almost no other result. The
    physicists have written off Pons and Fleischmann, so they are free to
    ignore the claim of kilowatt/cm{3} reported at the conference; but if the
    KEK gets 10% heat power at 10 Watts/cm{3}, I would bet that every physics
    lab on the planet will likely be pulling out their electrochemistry sets
    again.

8.  T. P. Perng of National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan described
    observations of excess power from molten salt electrolysis experiments as
    part of a paper on heavy water Pons-Fleischmann experiments.{28} Although
    I did not recall seeing it, and I have no notes of it, numerous friends
    at the conference mentioned it to me (including Liaw). I also received a
    preprint of this work.

    Liaw and coworkers at the U. of Hawaii described at the last two
    international cold fusion conferences experiments using molten salt
    electrolysis with Pd and Ti anodes in a LiCl-KCl eutectic saturated with
    LiD. At Como, the group reported the observation of excess power at a
    level of about 10 times the input electrochemical power in Pd (up to a
    30% increase over electrochemical plus heater power), with an energy gain
    reported as about 1 GJ/mole Pd or 6 MJ/mole D[2]. The Pd anode volume was
    0.040 cm{3}, so that the excess power per unit anode volume is about 250
    watts/cm{3}.

    This result was important because the power excess was so large relative
    to the electrochemical input power, and because the temperature excess
    was on the order of a hundred degrees centigrade, which would have the
    potential for efficient energy extraction.

    Little progress has so far been reported toward a reproduction of the
    Liaw experiment. Perng described results from an experiment performed to
    provide a confirmation of the Liaw experiment; the power excess claimed
    was on the order of 2-5 times the input power.

    The preprint{29} from C. M. Wan et al consists of an abstract and copies
    of 11 figures, from which I will attempt to give an account of the work.
    Following Liaw, the palladium electrode is used as an anode (instead of a
    cathode as is done in conventional Pons-Fleischmann experiments),
    immersed in a KCl-LiCl eutectic saturated with LiD. The anode dimensions
    are 6 mm diameter and 5 cm length. The molten salt sits in an aluminum
    container which serves as the cathode. The temperature is sensed using a
    thermocouple embedded in a quartz tube which is placed in the molten salt
    in the general vicinity of the Pd anode. A Ni-Cr alloy resistive wire
    heater (encased in quartz) is wrapped around the cell, within a ceramic
    fiber insulator. Nearby is a {3}He neutron detector with a 0.01% detection
    efficiency.

    From the figures and the abstract, it is clear that a time-dependent
    excess neutron signal appears following 200 hours of electrolysis, at
    twice background (background is 5.51 q 0.44 cpm) corresponding to 800
    neutrons/sec. This neutron signal is rather clearly correlated with the
    excess power production which is time-dependent and rises to about 10
    watts. Given the large anode volume, this level of excess power
    corresponds to about 7 watts/cm{3}. The associated temperature excursions
    are about 25 Deg. C, with one excursion up to 50 Deg. C.

    The abstract quotes power gains of 5 to 108 for the 6 mm Pd rod which is
    5 cm long, and power gains of 8 to 560 from a 4.5 mm diameter rod. These
    numbers are very high and represent excesses in comparison with
    electrochemical power rather than total input power; I think that the
    highest numbers correspond to modest excess powers observed at low input
    current level.

    There was an abstract from the National Tsing Hua University by Yuan et
    al that described a molten salt experiment;{30} I do not know whether this
    paper was presented. I suspect that this paper may not have been
    presented, and that Perng was reviewing results obtained by his
    colleagues.

9.  There were several papers on attempts at replicating the Takahashi
    experiment that captured the attention of the Japanese press earlier this
    year. A. Takahashi described earlier this year obtaining tremendous
    excess heat in a heavy water electrolysis experiment that ran at an
    average of 1.7 output power over input power for about two months.{31,32}
    The total excess enthalpy generated was claimed to be about 2250 MJ/mole
    Pd (more than 20 KeV per Pd atom), which is one of the highest claims to
    date from this type of experiment. Following Takahashi's announcement,
    many laboratories attempted a replication.

    Takahashi's experiment is similar in many ways to the classical
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments with some variations. A Pd foil from Tanaka
    Kikinziku Kyogo (Tanaka Precious Metals Co.) with dimensions 2.5 cm X 2.5
    cm X 1 mm is used for a cathode instead of a rod. The electrolyte volume
    is very large (700 cc of D[2]O with 0.3 M LiOD). An innovation of
    Takahashi is the use of a time-varying current which alternates between a
    high mode (4-5 amps) and a low mode (0.2-0.4 amps) every six hours.

    Takahasi's calorimeter is an open cell flow calorimeter, where water from
    a chiller is flowed through a coil inside the cell, and the power is
    determined from a knowledge of the mass flow rate and the input-output
    temperature difference. An advantage of this type of calorimeter design
    is that it is able to function at near constant temperature when high
    power is applied to the electrochemistry. The temperature was monitored
    using teflon coated thermocouples at the inlet, outlet, and cell
    interior. The cell was calibrated before and after the run in the initial
    experiment, and the calibration lines were approximately reproduced.

    The total input energy for the initial experiment was 250 MJ, the total
    output energy measured was 410 MJ, leading to an excess of 160 MJ.
    Takahashi's excess power level claimed was 32 watts averaged over two
    months, with excursions to 100-130 watts. The cathode volume is 0.625
    cm{3} (0.0706 moles), so that the average power density is 51 watts/cm{3}
    and peak excursions are 160-208 watts/cm{3}. As discussed above, a
    chemical explanation of the effect (barring other systematic errors) is
    defeated in less than half an hour at the high excess power levels.

    Attempts at replication had varying degrees of success, but no one has
    been able to reproduce the very high power levels claimed by Takahashi.
    In the reproduction which Takahashi reported at Nagoya, the excess
    average power was 8 watts, with excursions to 15 watts.

    Takahashi's method comes with the recommendation that it is a potentially
    technically easier experiment than other experiments which have been
    reported. It is less exacting in the rigorous electrochemical purities
    required as compared to the SRI experiments; the cathodes from Tanaka
    metals are readily available to workers in the field, in contrast to the
    Johnson-Matthey cathodes employed by Pons and Fleischmann. The system is
    in principle relatively cheap to set up; Mallove{33} described a version
    of the Takahashi experiment which was built up using about $10K of
    hardware funds.

    Storms at LANL is claiming excess heat from a Tanaka batch 1 foil, and no
    heat from a batch 2 foil.{34} The anomalous power from the first foil was
    more than 20%. The batch 2 foil suffered an increase in internal volume
    on loading, which Storms suggested might be used as an indicator of
    whether a cathode was suitable for heat experiments. No one has reported
    a success with a batch 2 foil that I am aware -- batch 3 appears to be
    free of this problem.

    Celani{35,36} described efforts to reproduce the Takahashi experiment at
    his laboratory in Frascati. Experiments were run in an open cell flow
    calorimeter using two Tanaka metals batch 1 cathodes, one Tanaka batch 2
    cathode, and one IMRA batch 1 cathode. Positive results were obtained
    with the Tanaka batch 1 rods (at 8% and 25% peak power excess) and with
    the IMRA rod (12% peak excess). No excess power was observed with the
    Tanaka batch 2 cathode. Blank experiments were performed where a gold
    cathode sheet was substituted for the Pd cathodes, and no excess was
    observed. A correlation between high loading and excess heat was noted;
    small amounts of excess tritium were reported for the runs which gave
    excess heat.

    Oyama{37} reported a 2.4% excess energy, which is small, but was measured
    with much smaller error bars; a light water blank showed no excess.

10. Tritium production was discussed by several groups. The existence of such
    an effect is interesting because it constitutes an additional signature
    of the presence of a nuclear phenomenon; tritium cannot be made
    chemically. An additional feature of many tritium experiments is that the
    tritium is not accompanied by neutron emission (neutron/tritium ratios of
    10{-7} - 10{-9} have been reported). The *dd*-fusion reactions would
    produce neutrons and tritons in roughly equal amounts, so that the
    observations imply either a new mechanism or else a very significant
    modification of the fusion reactions. Possibly more significant is that
    14 MeV neutrons from *d-t* fusion reactions would be expected from
    secondary reactions if the tritium nuclei were created with MeV-level
    kinetic energy. The very low neutron to tritium ratios claimed imply a
    very low triton energy (below 10-15 keV), sufficiently low to be
    inconsistent with all but the most exotic reaction mechanisms.

    At Como, strong presentations of tritium production were made by Will,
    Claytor, Lanza, Szpak. Will has not been active in the field during the
    past year, and did not attend the Nagoya conference; Lanza has continued,
    but was not able to attend this year; Szpak has continued, but was also
    not present at Nagoya.

    Claytor{38} (whose work impresses me) described further experiments on
    tritium production in which a stack of alternating layers of palladium
    and silicon is placed in deuterium gas at over 10 atmospheres, and a
    pulsed current is passed through the stack. Reproducible tritium
    production is claimed at levels of 0.02-0.2 nCi/hr (1.1 X 10{6} - 1.1 X
    10{7} tritium atoms/second). Advances which the LANL group has made during
    the past year includes: reduction of background tritium, improvement in
    detection sensitivity, improvement in reproducibility at higher tritium
    generation rates, and the innovation of working with stacks using Pd
    built up from powder. Upper limits on neutron emission can be placed from
    their work as reported at Como of 4 X 10{-9} neutrons/second; the {3}He
    neutron detector which they have used (which I saw during a recent visit
    there) has a roughly similar efficiency for 14 MeV neutrons as for 2.45
    MeV neutrons (the detector is more sensitive at 2.45 by a factor of 1.5
    according to Menlove).

    Bockris{25} described two tritium experiments at Nagoya. In one
    experiment, a reproduction of the Szpak-Boss experiment described at Como
    was attempted. Szpak codeposited Pd on either a Cu or Ni substrate from
    PdCl[2] in D[2]O containing 0.3 N LiCl; continued electrolysis resulted in
    tritium production. The Pd was observed to plate out during the first 6-8
    hours, and excess tritium would be detected about 10 hours later. The
    experiment Bockris reported involved codeposition of Pd on gold, and
    tritium production was observed to start as soon as 10 hours after the Pd
    deposition, and production up to 3 times background was observed. This is
    the first successful confirmation of the Szpak experiment of which I am
    aware. Bockris did not obtain the high degree of reproducibility claimed
    by Szpak.

    I note that Miles also described{24} attempts to reproduce the Szpak
    experiment, and reported the observation of a modest tritium increase,
    but "not clearly beyond levels expected for electrolytic enrichment due
    to isotopic separation factors."

    Much more spectacular are the results reported by Bockris of Chien's
    experiments on tritium production in a Pd electrolysis experiment where
    massive amounts of tritium (more than 10{15} atoms) were observed. This
    report is very significant because it represents a new claim for very
    high levels of excess tritium.

    Early on, reports of very high levels of tritium were reported to have
    been observed at Texas A&M, corresponding to production rates on the
    order of 10{10} tritium atoms/cm{3} or higher. These experiments were
    clouded by charges of fraud (this charge was apparently investigated by a
    panel hired by Texas A&M, and not substantiated), and by the observation
    of high levels of tritium contamination in Pd claimed by Wolf (found by
    dissolving Pd rods in acid, and then performing scintillation counting on
    a neutralized version of the resulting solution). Similar experiments
    reported by Cedzynska (differing in that the distillate of the solution
    was analyzed by scintillation counting) failed to show contamination at
    the high levels reported by Wolf, and in addition found that false
    positives could occur when the solution was not first distilled.

    Subsequently, much more stringent controls were done to attempt to defeat
    the insidious tritium contamination claimed by Wolf, and new post-Wolf
    experiments were reported in which anomalous tritium production has been
    claimed. Except for experiments reported by BARC, most new claims have
    involved tritium production rates many orders of magnitude below those of
    the initial claims (the new claims generally ranged from 10{4} - 10{6}
    tritium atoms/second). The significance of the Chien experiments is that
    the tritium production rate claimed by Chien (in a post-Wolf experiment)
    are some of the first to approach the very high early (pre-Wolf)
    experimental claims. Much care was taken to avoid possible contamination:
    samples from the same rod were dissolved in aqua-regia, and the resulting
    solution distilled, and then analyzed using a scintillation cocktail
    following the method described by Cedzynska at Como.

    Chien's earlier experiment was carried out at the Institute of Nuclear
    Energy Research in Lung-Tan, Taiwan. The palladium cathodes used were 1.0
    cm in diameter, and 1-2 cm long; Pt wire wrapped around at a distance of
    4 mm was used for the anode. Electrolysis was carried out in heavy water
    with 0.1 M LiOD; tritium assay was done with a scintillation cocktail.
    Solutions exhibiting high tritium activity were sampled at the time of
    the experiment (10/89), and then resampled 10 months later (8/90) in
    order to observe the tritium decay from the sample. Tritium generation
    rates of 10{6}-10{9} atoms/second were determined, lasting for a total of
    20-30 days. The numbers claimed by Bockris at Nagoya{25} for the Texas A&M
    version of the experiment correspond to about 10{7} atoms/sec/cm{2} of
    surface area, in experiments with a 3-6 cm{2} surface area.

11. V. A. Romodanov gave an oral presentation in the theory panel at
    Nagoya.{39} Romodanov's command of the English language was imperfect; he
    read from his paper for more than 20 minutes in a thick Russian accent.
    Essentially no one with whom I talked understood the point of what he
    said, and his abstract did not particularly add to the information
    content. Given that his talk occurred in the theory section, and given
    that his theory appeared to be largely classical fusion modified somewhat
    by lattice effects, no one was expecting that a major experimental result
    was buried in his presentation. Two things about his talk raised flags
    for me, indicating that I should try to follow up if possible. One was
    that he was from Luch, which is the same place Kucherov is from...and I
    was very impressed by Kucherov's results. The second thing that I recall
    was that there was a table giving some very high tritium numbers; at the
    time I thought they were theoretical estimates because they were so
    large.

    Romodanov handed me a preprint{40} which explained in rather clearer
    English what was the content of his talk. I will focus on what I consider
    to be the single most important part of his presentation, which if true,
    is of fundamental importance. Romodanov described the results of glow
    discharge experiments which appear to have been done on a system very
    similar to that discussed by Kucherov (see above in this review).
    Romodanov and his colleagues focused on the detection of tritium produced
    in glow discharge experiments in Pd and in other metals.

    The glow discharge was run in deuterium gas at 100-200 torr, with an
    applied voltage in the range of 40-125 V, and a current of 3-4 A (a wide
    range of operating conditions are described in the paper, and the numbers
    I have chosen appear on one table -- I am not completely certain from the
    paper that the tritium generation was done with these parameters).
    Various cathode metals were used, including Y, Mo, Nb, Er, Ta, and W; as
    disks with a diameter of 13 cm and a thickness between 500 mu and 1 mm,
    or rods of 0.5-2 cm diameter. The cathode temperatures were measured to
    be between 970 Deg. K and 1670 Deg. K, with only minor (15% or less due
    to anomalous self-heating effects).

    Tritium generation rates between 10{5} atoms/second and 10{9} atoms/second
    were measured in the different metals under various conditions. The
    largest rate (1.7 X 10{9}) was obtained in Nb at 1170 Deg. K,
    corresponding to an increase in tritium activity in the deuterium gas of
    2.3 X 10{4}. The neutron emission was measured in these experiments with a
    "radiac instrument RUP-1," which appears to be a scintillator with silver
    activated ZnS dispersed in transparent plastic (sounds similar to the
    detector used by Kucherov), and a neutron to tritium ratio of 1.8 X 10{-7}
    was obtained.

12. R. Notoya from Hokkaido University brought a light water demo that was
    set up and operated in the hallway of the conference{41}. The demo
    consisted of two cells: in one cell was a resistive heater, and in the
    other cell was a nickel cathode immersed in a light water K[2]CO[3]
    electrolyte, similar to the method of R. Mills and colleagues.{42}
    Notoya's method differs from Mill's method in that (1) the Notoya cathode
    is made of porous nickel, and the Mills cathode is plain nickel; and (2)
    Mills uses an intermittent current, while Notoya uses a constant current.

    The resistive heater was driven at 2.1 Watts electrical *iv* input; the
    electrolysis cell was driven so that the joule heating in the cell was
    also 2.1 Watts. The *iv* input into the electrolysis cell is actually
    higher by about 30%, but since electrolysis is occurring with a Faradaic
    efficiency near unity, the power ending up inside the cell is matched as
    long as no recombination occurs in the space above the electrolyte. The
    live cell ran higher by about 15 Deg. centigrade than the blank, as could
    be inspected visually by observing alcohol thermometers immersed in both
    cells. Notoya claims that the light water cell temperature implies a
    factor of about 3 more net power input, or roughly 6 watts of heating
    present.

    This was interesting for a number of reasons. This was the first live
    demonstration of excess heat production at a cold fusion conference that
    I am aware of. I have always thought that live demos would start to show
    up at conferences and at presentations, but I had figured that the first
    ones would be heavy water demos. I thought that it was significant that
    Notoya's system works well enough for her to be willing to bring it as a
    demo at a major international conference.

    Many of the "established" workers in the field who have put in
    substantial effort on heavy water Pons-Fleischmann cells and have
    observed heat simply do not believe that a heat effect can be observed in
    light water. Among other arguments that can be heard is that if the
    effect is either nuclear or is fusion, it must involve deuterium. Others
    in the field argue that the light water claims are simply due to sloppy
    experimental work. Independent of the correctness of the various
    assertions, it is almost humorous to find senior members of the cold
    fusion community sounding very much like their critics and tormentors of
    1989.

    The first reports of heat from light water experiments were actually from
    Pons and Fleischmann early on in 1989; when I last spoke with Fleischmann
    about light water experiments about a year ago, he was firm in his
    conviction that it was not possible to get excess heat from a light water
    cell.

    R. Mills, who is the originator of this particular Ni/K[2]CO[3]
    experiment, has no previous reputation or standing as an electrochemist,
    calorimetrist or physicist. He rejects the notion of cold fusion as due
    to nuclear effects completely (in fact, he does not wish to associate
    himself with the cold fusion community, and does not consider his effect
    to be related in any way to cold fusion), and has developed his own
    theory as to why his experiment works; his theory is based on the
    proposed existence of orbitals of hydrogen that lie below the 1*s* level.
    An explicit assumption in the Mills and Farrell theory is that the
    electronic charge distribution in hydrogenic states consist of charged
    shells of infinitesimal thickness. In order for this proposal to be
    correct, quantum mechanics must be incorrect (which Mills believes -- he
    offers his theory as a replacement for quantum mechanics). There have
    been no observations of such states, and the existence of such states
    would likely not be consistent with the observed stability of atoms as
    atoms.

    Reproductions of the Mills experiment have been reported previously.
    Noninski{43} published positive results from his experiments; Noninski
    views his experiment as a verification of the work of Fleischmann and
    Pons, who state explicitly (in a 1989 patent application) the possibility
    of excess heat in a light water cell with Ni as a cathode material. Mills
    was apparently unaware of Fleischmann and Pons patent application and its
    relevance.

    Confirmations of the Mills light water experiment have also been reported
    by Srinivasan,{44,45} and Bush and Eagleton.{46} Notoya and her laboratory
    come with good reputations; her confirmation of the Mills experiment
    (complete with demo) is probably the most significant endorsement of the
    light water excess heat results standing.

    Notoya's demo is an open cell system. It operates at a sufficiently high
    excess power that recombination or other effects that would make an open
    cell system perform differently from a closed cell would not change the
    essential result even if the recombination and other secondary effects
    were taken into account incorrectly or ignored. You can put your finger
    on the tubes Notoya's demo to convince yourself that a very significant
    temperature difference occurs. This was also claimed for the Mills
    experiment, as well as for other experiments reproducing the Mills
    result.

    During the conference and afterwards, a virtual firestorm of controversy
    arose concerning the difference in wires that were attached to the live
    cell and to the blank. A student of Steve Jones suggested that since
    smaller diameter wires were used on the blank, that the reduced voltage
    drop across the resister could account for the difference. After the
    conference, Notoya replaced the offending wires, and reported essentially
    no difference in the resulting blank temperature.

    Notoya's demo was brought to the US and set up at MIT during the first
    week of December. During the day and a half before her presentation at
    MIT, the live cell and resistive blank ran at very nearly identical
    temperatures, consistent with no excess power production. Notoya
    attributed this to contamination of the nickel cathodes. After her visit,
    she returned to Japan and set up her demo in a laboratory in Tokyo where
    excess heat was observed. A few days later, she was back at MIT,
    attempting for a second time to demonstrate excess power production.
    During this visit, a temperature excess was seen during electrolysis of
    the second cathode tried. According to Notoya, the initial temperature
    differential in this case corresponded to a 100% power excess.
    Subsequently, a persistent excess of about 4 Deg. C was observed, which
    she said corresponded to a 30% power excess (the reduction in fractional
    excess was attributed by Notoya to contamination).

    The persistent excess power which Notoya obtained at MIT was about 0.75
    Watts, and the cathode volume was about 0.05 cm{3}, leading to a volume
    averaged excess of 15 Watts/cm{3}. At Nagoya, the cell ran at a 4 Watt
    excess, corresponding to 80 Watts/cm{3}. She claims that she has observed
    a maximum of 200 Watts/cm{3} excess. A few hours of operation at 15
    Watts/cm{3} is sufficient to defeat a chemical explanation, which was done
    at MIT. The power excess demonstrated at Nagoya would defeat a chemical
    explanation in tens of minutes, and the cell ran for many hours.

    Little is known about loading ratios (H/Ni) while heat is produced; no
    information is available about potassium loading in the Ni; there is
    apparently an alkaline intermetallic layer formed which is at least
    several hundred Angstroms thick which may play a role. Nothing is known
    about the temperature sensitivity of the effect; Notoya observes the
    excess power to be essentially linear in applied current down to her
    lowest values (50-100 mA, and about 1 cm{2} geometric area at MIT; the
    high current levels approach 1 amp).

    Notoya obtains her best results with cathodes which have an extremely
    high area ratio (real area to geometric area), and she uses cathodes with
    an area ratio of several thousand (and a reduced density of about 6
    gm/cm{3}). The effect is apparently extremely sensitive to contamination,
    especially to oils. She observes an increase of 20% in calcium
    concentration (near 20 ppm) in the electrolyte, which she believes may be
    anomalous.

    I do not think that there is yet any particular contradiction between the
    light water experiments of the Mills type and the light water blanks in
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments. The light water blanks in Pd/H experiments
    run in a H[2]O/LiOH electrolyte give zero excess power in most everyone's
    blank experiments these days; the Mills experiment uses a Ni cathode with
    a H[2]O/K[2]CO[3] electrolyte. These are really very different systems. In
    any event, in time any connections between the two systems will be
    clarified.

    Based on Notoya's work, the evidence in support of a light water effect
    has improved significantly. The effect which she observes is so great
    that there appears to be no simple explanation for it.

    So is there a light water heat effect? At this point, I am not yet sure
    one way or another. On the plus side: (1) the effect is large, (2) looks
    to be nuclear given the excess heat numbers, and (3) can be reproduced.
    On the minus side (from my point of view): (1) the effect has been
    studied by a relatively small number of groups for a relatively short
    time, (2) the effect appears to be somewhat insensitive to choice of
    electrolyte (claims{41} of heat production have been made for experiments
    which have used other alkali-carbonates such as Li[2]CO[3], Na[2]CO[3] and
    Rb[2]CO[3]) and to some degree the choice of cathode (positive results
    were reported{47} for Ni, Ag, Au and Sn electrodes). The reason which I am
    uncomfortable with the insensitivity of the effect to cathode and
    electrolyte comes from potential difficulties associated with finding a
    reaction mechanism that would show such an insensitivity.

    The experimentalists have grown used to the idea that deuterium gives
    anomalies and hydrogen does not; the theorists who believe in fusion
    mechanisms are comfortable with positive effects in deuterium and
    negative effects in hydrogen. A light water heat effect causes
    consternation in both camps; it would be exceedingly difficult to
    reconcile with a fusion mechanism.

    The neutron transfer model which I have been looking at (described
    briefly below) needs a neutron donor (usually deuterium) and an acceptor
    nucleus, and therefore has somewhat fewer constraints; nevertheless, I do
    not relish the prospect of attempting to explain an apparently general
    light water heat effect where the nuclei present are widely different
    from one cell to another. An experimental determination (and
    confirmation) of the ashes in any of these experiments would of course
    greatly improve the situation.

    As a result, I am not yet sure that there is a light water effect. I will
    be surer one way or another when more confirmations (or
    non-confirmations) are reported. I will be surer when Notoya, who has
    worked on her experiments only since last August, has had more time to
    think about her experiments and to improve them. I will also be surer in
    time after the cold fusion community has had more time to study and to
    evaluate the experiment.

13. The successful production of significant excess energy must give rise to
    ashes of one sort or another. It is not currently known what reactions
    are occurring; consequently, it is not obvious what ashes are to be
    expected. Energy excesses in the range of 1 MJ to 10 MJ have been
    reported in several experiments; we will consider briefly the
    implications of excess power generation, both per joule and for a 10 MJ
    total excess.

    Conventional *dd*-fusion reactions producing 10 MJ would yield more than
    10{19} neutrons, and a roughly equal number of tritium atoms. Pons and
    Fleischmann's recent measurements{48} of the neutrons produced from their
    cells yield 5-50 neutrons per joule, low by more than 10 orders of
    magnitude from what would be predicted for conventional *dd*-fusion.
    Tritium is not produced in their experiments, with a limit which is
    probably on the order of 10{4} tritium atoms per joule; low by at least 8
    orders of magnitude.

    It has been suggested that the {4}He branch of the *dd*-fusion reaction is
    somehow favored, and several searches for {4}He have been made. The
    conventional {4}He branch yields a 24 MeV gamma, which is not observed
    when heat is produced. The reaction energy would have to go elsewhere to
    be qualitatively consistent, and many in the field believe that energy
    transfer to the lattice occurs. Many measurements have been performed
    seeking {4}He in the cathode after the experiment; my impression is that
    it is simply not there quantitatively by many orders of magnitude.

    There have been some efforts seeking {4}He in the gas stream produced
    during electrolysis; Miles focused the attention of the community on this
    issue last year at Como when he claimed the observation of {4}He which at
    its highest levels might account for roughly 10% of the excess energy.
    Scaramuzzi and De Ninno{11,12} described a new cell, calorimeter plus
    helium detector with which they plan to attempt a confirmation; other
    groups are acquiring mass detection capability for similar studies. The
    measurements of Yamaguchi{22,23} described above has also raised interest
    in helium detection.

    I would think that by next year's conference, that there will be a
    consensus by many groups established on whether substantial helium is
    produced or not.

    If the pragmatic point of view is adopted that whatever reaction is
    occurring is not constrained by theoretical preconceptions, then the
    search for the ashes is generalized considerably to include possible
    isotopic shifts or anomalies, and the possible production of elements or
    isotopes not initially present.

    A large number of studies have been reported at the international
    conferences in which the cathode surface has been analyzed for the
    presence of trace elements. Due to the nature of electrochemical
    deposition in real systems, quite a long list of surface contaminants are
    found at significant levels, hopelessly complicating any straightforward
    *ab initio* experimental search.

    The number of nuclei which is sought is on the order of 10{12} per joule
    (or 10{19} per MJ), which either helps or hurts depending on the point of
    view. Present in large quantities are D, O, Pd, Li, and H. Determining a
    relative isotope shift between deuterium and hydrogen is generally deemed
    not to be feasible, given the presence of hydrogen as a ubiquitous
    universal contaminant. Isotope shifts in oxygen are not currently
    predicted by anyone in the field, and have never been studied in
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments to my knowledge.

    The first serious claim of possible isotope shifts in heavy elements with
    which I am familiar was made by Rollison at the NSF/EPRI workshop in 1989
    (Rollison subsequently had to back down from her claim -- see the
    proceedings of the Salt Lake City conference). The glow discharge
    observations described by Kucherov{13-16} and the Chinese group{17-20} imply
    isotope shifts in Pd and other metals.

    The production of 10 MJ of energy in a Pd cathode (containing 0.1 mole of
    Pd) would give rise to modifications of the Pd isotope distributions
    (assuming Pd were fuel) at the 0.0002 level, assuming arbitrarily 5 MeV
    per reaction. The prospect of proving this experimentally if it is in the
    bulk is judged to be impractical. If the reactions occur near the
    surface, then the numbers improve; the "noise" associated with natural
    isotopic separation also increases. Searches for such surface isotope
    shifts have been reported, and continue to be performed; such searches
    for now remain in the background of the field.

    Lithium appears to be required for heat production in Pons-Fleischmann
    experiments, although it is unknown whether it plays any nuclear role.

    Thompson, formerly of Johnson-Matthey, reported{49} that the lithium on
    the surface of a Pons-Fleischmann cathode that had been involved in
    heat-producing experiments showed a depletion of {6}Li relative to the
    natural abundance (down to about 4%). Pons and Fleischmann had reported
    (in the Salt Lake proceedings) that the lithium which they had used was
    initially enriched in {6}Li (11%); Thompson noted this in his talk,
    quoting an initial concentration of 9-11%, but said the Johnson-Matthey
    group did not have a before to compare with their after.

    During the questions following Thompson's talk, McKubre noted that the
    Johnson-Matthey analysis only looked at the surface, and that any lithium
    present in the bulk might provide an internal reference. Thompson said
    that he thought that this suggestion could be tested. The conference
    proceedings from Johnson-Matthey states that no lithium is detected in
    the bulk,{50} which would imply that it will not be possible to establish
    an internal reference retrospectively.

    The amount of lithium present in a cathode is an interesting question.
    Gozzi reported last year the results of studies to determine Li loading
    in Pd during electrolysis, and found the very high number of 5% by
    monitoring the Li lost from the electrolyte. I questioned him at the
    conference (he presented{50} some nice positive results from his torus of
    cells where he monitors for heat, neutrons, tritium, helium, and I think
    gammas; unfortunately, I am lacking sufficient documentation of his
    results to present more details in this review), since several papers
    presented at each of the international conferences showed per cent level
    surface concentrations which fall rapidly on the micron scale into the
    bulk of the cathode (an exception to this was the measurements presented
    by Nakada{51} et al showing lithium profiles with significant lithium in
    20-30 microns). Lithium concentrations were measured by Myamoto et
    al,{52,53} who obtain Li/Pd ratios between 3 X 10{-4} and 3 X 10{-3}. I
    suspect that the Li/Pd ratio is probably sensitive to cathode properties,
    to the electrochemistry and loading time; one possible explanation of the
    long loading time required for Pons-Fleischmann cells, and remarked on
    explicitly by McKubre,{2} was that extra time beyond the deuterium loading
    time required to see the heat effect might be due to a necessity to
    achieve significant loading of another species, such as lithium or other
    light interstitials.

    I note here that energy production at the level of 100 MJ/mol would yield
    an observable (2%) isotope shift in lithium if the lithium concentration
    were at the 1% level, and if the bulk lithium did not substitute with
    lithium in the electrolyte. The numbers are worse if the electrolyte
    lithium is included, but not so bad to prohibit a measurement.
    Unfortunately, very few groups are currently pursuing the lithium isotope
    shift problem; I consider it to be an important question, especially in
    light of the initial Johnson-Matthey positive measurement.

14. B. Stella{54} presented a poster that I passed by twice; the title talks
    about the "stimulated emission of neutrons," that is of course impossible
    -- neutrons are fermions, and can of course not participate in stimulated
    emission. The third time by, Stella grabbed me and walked me through his
    poster (for which I am thankful, otherwise I would have missed it).

    In essence what the experiment consists of is taking a Pons-Fleischmann
    cell, putting it inside a 40 % efficient neutron detector underground in
    the Gran Sasso INFN laboratory, and directing an incident neutron beam
    (of about 30 neutrons/sec) with a substantial thermal component at the
    cell. Fast (2.45 MeV) neutrons are measured originating from the cell,
    and a gain of about 2 fast neutrons for every incident neutron is
    claimed.

    After talking to him, I was given to understand that for 30 neutrons/sec
    input that 60 or more neutrons/sec were measured (taking into account the
    neutron detector efficiency). I asked if the ratio held up at a higher
    input flux, and he said that they had done experiments up at 500/sec
    incident, with the same basic neutron gain (but that their neutron
    detector suffered from saturation problems at such a high flux).

    I asked whether the effect was reproducible. Stella said that they had
    done two runs (each run takes about a week to do) so far, and that they
    hoped to be able to do some more in the near future.

    I note that a neutron gain of 2 would be a very important result, if
    true, with rather important implications. I note also that this report of
    two observations (with a modest signal relative to noise) is the first in
    which such an effect has been claimed, and that no reproductions from
    either this group or any other group has been made.


                              NEGATIVE RESULTS

1.  A famous hydrogen-in-metals physicist, Y. Fukai, gave a presentation of
    the basic problems facing theorists attempting to provide an explanation
    of the anomalies.{55,56} I thought that this talk was excellent, and Fukai
    is really very knowledgeable; it is clear that the basic physics issues
    (the Coulomb barrier, screening, and solid state issues) that he
    discussed must be addressed theoretically, especially in the case of
    theories based on fusion reaction mechanisms.

    Fukai also presented a negative result{57} involving a search for neutrons
    that might be induced as a result of the generation of fractures in metal
    deuterides. The highest result observed was for fractured TiD, 1.8 q 0.1
    cpm, versus a background of 1.27 q 0.05 cpm.

    I was impressed that he attended, since I am convinced that mainline
    scientists of his caliber will play an increasingly important role in the
    field. After talking to him, it became clear that some scientists present
    who were not in the field had received very strong encouragement to
    participate.

    His talk was not well received by a number of those in the field, and he
    was criticized during and after his presentation.

2.  There was a negative result on a measurement of neutrons from a
    Pons-Fleischmann cell originating out of the physics department at Osaka
    University,{58} the poster of which looked very interesting. The group had
    a high-resolution Ge detector looking at gammas produced inelastically by
    neutrons impinging on an Fe plate placed between the detector and a Pd
    heavy water electrolysis cell. With this system, the group was able to
    place an upper limit of 1.6 X 10{-24} fusions/dd-pair.

    There was another negative result on the fusion rate as determined by the
    relative absence of 3 MeV protons reported by a group from Tokyo
    Metropolitan University.{59} I did not see this poster. According to the
    abstract, the upper limit on the fusion rate from this measurement was
    1.3 X 10{-24} fusions/dd-pair.

3.  D. Morrison of CERN presented a paper{60} that criticized the experiments
    in the field, and used data from an analysis of the literature published
    in the field to show that interest in the field is declining, symptomatic
    of "pathological science".

    Morrison made a number of arguments, most of which are restated and
    amplified in his recent review{61} of the Nagoya conference (his Cold
    Fusion Update No. 7 on the computer network; my copy is dated 12-17-92).
    I will attempt here to summarize briefly what I think are key points
    (drawing from his conclusions listed in Update No. 7), and to provide
    some commentary on the points.

    The major point of Morrison's presentation involves the inconsistency
    between the claimed excess heat production, which would correspond to on
    the order of 10{12} reactions per second, and the low tritium and neutron
    signals which are lower by many orders of magnitude. For example,
    Morrison uses the upper limit on neutron emission in the Kamiokande
    experiments (10{-4} neutrons/sec) to place an upper limit on heat
    production which is lower by 16 orders of magnitude. Morrison also noted
    that the mean distance between deuterons in the lattice is larger than
    for D[2], which implies that fusion reaction rates in a lattice would be
    expected to be smaller than the very low numbers which are well-known for
    D[2].

    A weakness of the limiting argument as stated by Morrison is the
    presupposition that conventional *dd*-fusion is the operative reaction
    mechanism; it has long been recognized by many (but not all) in the field
    that the excess heat production can not be due to conventional
    *dd*-fusion. I personally would accept Morrison's limit on the heat
    production for the Kamiokande cells, specifically for the amount of
    excess heat due to the conventional *dd*-fusion channel in those
    experiments. Possibly more relevant for a limit on the *dd*-fusion
    channel would be a neutron measurement in a heat-producing cell (there is
    no report of any calorimetric excess heat production at Kamiokande), in
    which case the limit claimed in other experiments is higher, but the
    basic argument is unchanged. This issue has been discussed above.

    Morrison advocates that due to the wide range of phenomena claimed (some
    inconsistent with others), and since "poorly designed and artifact-prone"
    experiments have been reported in the field, that only "good
    fully-instrumented and fully-calibrated experiments that need few and
    unimportant corrections" should be done; loading should always be
    measured.

    The claims of positive heat results in light water experiments appears to
    be inconsistent with previous claims of heat production (in which the
    effect was present in heavy water, and absent in light water). This issue
    was commented on above.

    Morrison points out that many negative results have been obtained which
    contradict the claims of Pons and Fleischmann, and those of Jones.
    Morrison points to the work of the GE group (R. H. Wilson et al, *J.
    Electroanal. Chem.* 332, 1 (1992)), as well as a large number of other
    experiments, in which no excess heat was observed in contrast to the
    claims of Pons and Fleischmann. He points to the Kamiokande experiment as
    the strongest refutation of the original claims of neutron emission by
    Jones and coworkers.

    This argument was presented by Morrison in a spirited fashion at the
    conference. He made use of the statistics of papers published for and
    against, seemingly as a route to help to decide whether an effect exists
    or not. For example, of 727 refereed published papers in the compilation
    of D. Britz, in each category of effect, there are more negative results
    than positive results. Of experimental papers in this set, there appear
    86 positive, 136 null, and 36 indecisive or contradictory.

    Of the 8 experimental papers published in 1992 included in the Britz
    compilation, 1 was positive, 6 nulls, 1 indecisive; of papers on proton
    measurements, 1 positive, and 11 nulls; of papers on {3}He, 1 positive and
    8 nulls; of papers on x-ray emission, 0 positives and 7 nulls. The subset
    which Britz rates as being expert yields the results as: 1 positive, 19
    null, 2 unclear and 6 technical; of those looking for artifacts: 1
    positive, 14 null, 2 unclear, and 1 technical.

    At issue in Morrison's discussion is whether there occur, or do not occur
    anomalies (heat, particles, etc.) in deuterated metal systems. Taking a
    vote by counting the number of published papers pro or con is certainly
    one way of deciding the issue; most others at the conference who argued
    for or against presented the results of an experiment or else the results
    of a theoretical model.

    Morrison went further at the conference; he used the results to support
    his contention that interest in the field is dying out (experimental
    papers: 72 in 1989, 128 in 1990, 48 in 1991 and 8 in 1992), which he said
    was symptomatic of "pathological science". Although Morrison has written
    about the field as an example of pathological science *Special Symposium
    Proceedings on Cold Fusion* of the World Hydrogen Energy Conference, July
    1990, p. 233), and he discussed pathological science at Nagoya, I did not
    see an elaboration of his arguments in his review.

    Whether the excess heat effect is real or not is a matter that either has
    been, or else will be, settled by experiment; not by counting papers or
    by discussing pathological science. Nevertheless, there is an issue
    buried in Morrison's arguments which is of interest. The issue of
    reproducibility is central in the field, especially given the early
    history and associated problems. The dark clouds which currently hang
    over the field today would likely not be present had the experiments been
    easier to reproduce in 1989. While the degree of reproducibility of the
    heat effect among groups working in the field has improved considerably
    since 1989, it is true that not very many examples exist where an outside
    effort has come back recently armed with the latest results and has
    attempted a replication. This situation needs to be addressed in the
    coming months and years.

4.  J. Huizenga of the University of Rochester submitted a post deadline
    abstract{62} that pointed out that there are two types of claims, one for
    heat and one for low levels of neutrons. Huizenga maintains that there is
    no evidence to support any relation between the two claims. The claims of
    fusion products at a level down by twelve orders of magnitude from the
    heat production do not support the notion that the heat is of nuclear
    origin.

    Although Huizenga was present, this paper was not presented.


                              THEORY PAPERS

    All but four of the theory papers were presented as posters during two
sessions where I had posters to attend; consequently I was unable to spend
much time looking over the theory papers of others. I will nevertheless
attempt a summary of some of the approaches of the work based both on the
abstracts and on what I have seen of the approaches previously. Once again, I
warn the reader that my review of the theory papers in the field are biased by
my own point of view as to what physical mechanisms are responsible for the
effects being observed.

    The theories may initially be divided up into two general categories;
those involving (modified) fusion mechanisms, and those not involving fusion
mechanisms. Papers considering fusion mechanisms face the two basic problems
of (1) arranging to get nuclei close enough together to fuse, and (2) possibly
modifying the fusion reaction profiles. We first consider papers describing
theories based on fusion mechanisms.

1.  G. Preparata{63} has been working on theory for coherent *dd*-fusion
    reactions; a major goal of the theory is to account for the heat
    production by a modified *dd*-fusion reaction where the {4}He branch
    dominates, and the gamma emission is replaced by energy transfer with the
    lattice. He argues that a proper quantization of the low energy
    electromagnetic field coupled to the metal electrons leads to enhanced
    screening between deuterons. He then proposes that the {4}He branch is
    favored by coherence factors that come about when the reaction energy (24
    MeV) is transferred to the lattice.

    In some sense, this is a version of the "classical" cold fusion model,
    which would be essentially forced somehow to be true if Fleischmann's
    initial conjecture that the effect was due to fusion were accepted. I
    consider this general type of model to be essentially the only game in
    town if it is assumed (following Fleischmann's initial conjecture) that
    the reaction mechanism must be fusion. I spent 6 months working on it
    myself in 1989.

    However, none of this makes the fundamental problems associated with
    screening and modification of reaction pathways any easier to solve.

2.  There have been a number of speculative theories that have been based on
    the notion that deuterons in a metal are well-described using Bloch-type
    wavefunctions. In such case, the principal interaction of the deuteron is
    assumed to be with the lattice, and deuteron-deuteron correlation effects
    would be brought in at higher order. A computation of the *dd*-fusion
    rate using uncorrelated orbitals yields anomalously high fusion rates, as
    expected since it operationally leaves out the Gamow factor.

    It has been suggested that the inclusion of the deuteron-deuteron
    correlation terms might not lead to Gamow factors as low as in the
    well-known case of molecular D[2]. S. Chubb and T. Chubb{64,65} have
    recently turned to the problem of electron correlation in ground state
    helium as an example where orbital and correlation effects compete, and
    argue that the Hylleraas solutions show an unexpected degree of overlap
    between the two electrons.

    Multi-body fusion theories have been proposed,{66,67} that would ultimately
    require deuteron-deuteron correlation to be essentially absent altogether
    to operate. It is not clear how this could come about.

3.  The possibility that anomalously large electron screening might occur is
    the subject of a number of works presented at the conference.{68-71} The
    basic idea is that if the coulomb repulsion between deuterons held in
    neighboring sites was reduced, then the degree of overlap of the nuclei
    would be increased, leading to a possibly measurable fusion rate. The
    difficulty here is to arrange for an enormous enhancement (of some
    unexpected sort) of screening in the metal beyond what screening occurs
    in D[2].

4.  Fast (multi-KeV) deuterons are able to overcome the coulomb barrier
    sufficiently to fuse with a low but observable probability. There have
    been suggestions that conventional mechanisms exist that could accelerate
    enough deuterons fast enough to account for low levels of neutron
    emission that have been reported. This explanation follows from the known
    phenomenon in insulators that hundred eV ions are emitted from insulators
    that undergo intense fractures; the corresponding effect is much weaker
    in metals by several orders of magnitude.

    Theories which propose anomalous ion acceleration in metal hydrides were
    described in a number of abstracts.{72-75} A variant on this general
    approach is discussed by Fukushima,{76} wherein recent observations of
    conditions in sono-luminescence experiments are proposed to result in an
    enhancement of the fusion rate.

5.  Kim and coworkers examine screening effects and modifications of the
    deuteron velocity distribution function that may occur at high
    density.{77-79} This approach is applicable both to cold fusion and to hot
    fusion problems; the authors believe that it may provide a solution to
    the solar neutrino problem. The fusion rate may be higher or lower than
    the conventionally calculated rate, depending on the condensed matter
    environment. Kim believes that these effects may also help to account for
    the anomalous branching ratio in cold fusion.

6.  A low energy resonance in the D+D system would enhance the fusion rate at
    low energy (no such resonance is known theoretically or experimentally).
    An abstract was submitted describing a proposed novel "combined resonance
    tunneling" effect,{80} that was not explained in the abstract.

7.  The catalysis of fusion by a heavy negatively charged particle, extending
    the essence of muon-catalyzed fusion, was made popular in 1989 by
    Rafelski and others. An abstract on catalysis by an anti-diquark with
    -4/3 charge was submitted.{81} From my perspective, this general approach
    suffers from the absence of abundant known massive negatively charged
    nuclear particles, and a reason why they should be appearing specifically
    in Pons-Fleischmann type experiments.

8.  V. A. Tsarev of the Lebedev Institute in Moscow described some
    calculations suggesting that an increase in the tunneling probability
    between deuterons would be expected due to lattice motion (my translation
    of "violation of stationarity in lattice").{82} Rather than the
    conventional kinetic or screening arguments often described, Tsarev
    proposed that the lattice would provide a time-dependent potential that
    would affect the deuteron wavefunction itself.

    I cannot see how there would be any but the weakest of effects from such
    terms; in time more documentation of this approach will hopefully be
    available, and the essence of the proposal will become clearer.

    Tsarev presented an interesting review of cold fusion research in Russia
    and in neighboring countries formerly of the Soviet Union. I do not have
    sufficient documentation (unfortunately) of his presentation to include a
    section in this review. I note that the Russian work was reviewed last
    year in an article by Tsarev and Worledge. {83}

    A number of theorists, including myself, have gone away from fusion
    reaction mechanisms. The motivation for this is to avoid the coulomb barrier
    (if possible) and to find reactions with signatures that hopefully more
    closely match the experimental observations. Each new non-fusion approach
    carries with it specific problems and issues that are associated with the
    specific reaction mechanism. Aside from this, any new approach must also
    arrange itself to be consistent with physical law, observations in this and
    other fields, and must presumably be functioning in a manner not previously
    expected (lest it would have been found earlier). We describe such
    contributions below.

1.  Electron capture on a deuteron would lead to two virtual neutrons; if it
    could be arranged for the virtual neutrons to be in proximity with
    neighboring nuclei, then further reactions could occur. This approach was
    described in two abstracts by J. Yang of the Dept. of Physics, Hunan
    Normal University of China.{84,85} Yang proposes that the two neutrons form
    a stable dineutron that reacts with deuterium to make tritium and a free
    neutron, and with {105}Pd to make {106}Pd and a free neutron.

    I consider this general approach to be one of the basic non-fusion
    approaches that actually begins to try to address the coulomb barrier
    problem. Once the electron capture occurs, the coulomb barrier is gone,
    potentially leading to the possibility of something happening near room
    temperature. One difficulty involved in this approach are that the
    electron capture is mediated by the weak interaction, which really is
    very weak, making it hard to obtain significant reaction rates. A second
    difficulty is that virtual neutrons do not generally wander more than
    fermis away from their point of origin, making it difficult for a virtual
    neutron to reach another nucleus to interact.

2.  Direct lattice-induced neutron ionization was described by Tani and
    Kobayashi,{86} motivated by the broad neutron emission that has been
    observed by several laboratories at energies higher than 2.45 MeV.

    The possibility that sufficient energy may be transferred from the
    lattice to a deuteron to disintegrate it is yet another significant
    conceptual step away from working with fusion reaction mechanisms. If a
    mechanism existed to do what Tani and Kobayashi proposes, the resulting
    spectra would likely follow the photodisintegration cross section
    generally qualitatively in shape, which would not be such a bad match to
    Takahashi's data.

    Once, I suspected that a single-step lattice-induced disintegration,
    something like what is described in this abstract, might be possible; I
    followed it up with a moderately sophisticated calculation (based on a
    harmonic lattice, without including some of the effects described in the
    abstract) that has been accepted for publication. The results of my
    computation were that although it is possible in principle to transfer
    sufficient energy to do the job, the energy transfer is sensitive to
    sign; in the end, I concluded that single-step lattice-induced
    disintegration could not be done (within the limits of my model), without
    having individual nuclei with MeV-level kinetic energy in the lattice
    initially to do the ionizing.

3.  I submitted two abstracts on neutron transfer reaction mechanisms that I
    have been exploring recently.{87-89} The basic reaction in this theory is a
    two-step transfer reaction of a neutron from a donor nucleus (typically a
    deuteron) to an acceptor nucleus located Angstroms to microns away. As
    originally proposed, the lattice would contribute the energy to promote
    the neutron from the donor, and take up energy at the acceptor;
    calculations showed that this was not viable, and so a modified version
    of the model in under development.

    The revised model works similarly, except that the intermediate state is
    virtual, as required since the lattice is unable to contribute energy to
    ionize the neutron. When the neutron reaches the acceptor nucleus, then a
    number of incoherent processes could occur, including gamma capture, and
    capture to states that decay by alpha emission. There might be a
    correlation between these decay products and the reaction products
    observed by Kucherov. Alpha particles in this model would range up to 4.1
    MeV (originating from neutron capture on {105}Pd).

    Heat production might be accounted for if a long-lived metastable state
    existed that was nearly resonant with the virtual neutron, and which
    alpha decayed.

    If the capture at the acceptor is preceded by energy transfer to the
    lattice during the donor transfer (which has now been shown explicitly to
    be allowed at least mathematically), or during scattering of the
    intermediate state virtual neutron, then the coherent neutron capture
    proceeds into long-lived ground state nuclei, which are born essentially
    at rest. This mechanism could account for heat production (accepting onto
    light interstitials such as {6}Li or {10}B) and anomalous slow tritium
    production (accepting onto deuterium).

    The primary difficulty with any reaction mechanism that involves a
    virtual free particle is that such intermediate particles do not go very
    far (typically fermis) from where they are born. I presented the results
    of computations of the virtual neutron Green's function including lattice
    effects,{88} and found that under conditions that phase coherence among
    neighboring hydrogen isotopes is maintained in a periodic lattice, that a
    usefully large and long-range contribution to the Green's function may
    occur that would lead to observably large net reaction rates. Quantum
    diffusion is conjectured to be able to set up the required coherence.

    One weakness of the approach which has become apparent following the
    conference is that the diffusion of hydrogen in metals generally proceeds
    by a hopping mechanism, which would likely not establish phase coherence
    of the sort required by the theory. In a loaded PdD lattice, some
    population of the tetrahedral sites would be expected; this is of
    interest since the tetrahedral to tetrahedral site barrier is expected to
    be considerably lower than the octahedral to octahedral site barrier,
    which might help the situation. The issue of coherence for such a
    diffusion mechanism is under study.

                              WHAT WAS NOT PRESENTED

    In spite of the relatively numerous set of papers that were presented at
ICCF3, there were several key players in the field who were not present or did
not give papers. I felt that the conference suffered from the absence of K.
Wolf, H. Menlove, E. Storms, E. Cecil, F. Will, S. Szpak, F. Lanza, and
several other key players in the field. Additionally, a paper from G. Chambers
(of NRL) that I had hoped to see was withdrawn by order of an associate
director of NRL.

    Possibly controversial was the absence of a presentation by Ishida of
experiments at Kamiokande. During the past year and a half, a very large
number of measurements seeking neutrons from various cold fusion experiments
were carried out. Kamiokande is famous as one of the world's premier neutrino
detection facilities, and received considerable attention following the
observation of neutrinos from the 1987 supernova. A positive result of
observation of anomalous neutron emission at Kamiokande would be a very big
event, since Kamiokande is well-respected in the physics community.

    Ishida's master thesis summarizes the results of over 100 cold fusion
experiments that were done at Kamiokande. Although it is a fact that neutrons
were observed at low levels, there are questions about what is the origin of
the neutrons. In the thesis, Ishida proposes that the neutrons are due to
naturally occurring radioactive contaminants.

    In the end, I think that the results from Kamiokande make either a weak
case in support of the existence of anomalous neutron emission, or else a
possibly disputable case in support of the non-existence of an effect. This
requires further explanation.

    The emission of neutrons from Ti shavings in deuterium gas was reported
early on by Scaramuzzi from Frascati. Attempts to replicate the experiment met
with success at LANL, where both random and large bursts of neutrons have been
observed with high efficiency {3}He neutron detectors. Low level random
emission of neutrons is claimed, and bursts of up to several hundred neutrons
in a 100 mu sec period were observed. The reproducibility of these experiments
is not great, and in spite of the progress made at LANL in improving the
reproducibility of the effect, the success rate reported in the Como
proceedings was about 10%.

    Menlove worked with the Japanese team to attempt a confirmation of the
LANL results. Due to the constraints imposed by the nature of the facility,
the number of runs which were attempted on Menlove's samples were 6. According
to Menlove, one of these samples might have shown something. If a case were
then to be made that the Kamiokande results disprove the Menlove's
observations at LANL, this argument is at best weak, since the probability of
obtaining a null result is on the order of (0.9){6} = 0.53 for these
experiments.

    Some have made the case that since no very large bursts (~100 neutrons)
were observed in any of the more than 100 experiments (which would improve the
statistics), that this refutes Menlove's positive observations of large burst
obtained at LANL and reported at Como. Lacking from this argument is an
estimate of expected frequency of bursts from the various experiments that
were done. If the expected rate of large neutron bursts were negligible in the
Portland cement experiments, for example, then doing many of them should not
alter a conclusion regarding a Menlove experiment.

    The poor reproducibility of the effect, in addition to the difficulty of
determining in a post-analysis what is the difference between a cell that gave
a signal and one that did not, prompted Scaramuzzi to recommend at Como that
this line of investigation should make way for other approaches which are less
frustrating. Research on Frascati cells has largely ceased in the field.

    The Kamiokande experiments were discussed in the talk by S. Jones,{90} who
was a collaborator in the experiments at Kamiokande. Jones argued that the
conjectures made by Ishida about radioactive contaminants had been
subsequently tested by introducing the proposed contaminants and measuring the
resulting signals elsewhere; the resulting neutron emissions did not agree
with the Kamiokande results. Jones therefore described the results as
supporting the presence of anomalous neutron emission.

    I do not think that we have heard the last of this discussion. I would
hope that in the future Kamiokande would try again, perhaps with experiments
which have larger signals and higher success rates. For example, the
experiment described by Kucherov would yield signals up to eight or nine
orders of magnitude above background at Kamiokande if there were any way to
field it there.

    Also absent from the conference were prominent US skeptics who have in
one way or another have made technical contributions to the field in the past.
The absence of such individuals indicates the lack of any significant respect
that the cold fusion field currently has among the scientific community. I
would have been interested in the response of such skeptics following many of
the papers presented at the conference; but alas, it was not to be. At the
conference, little in the way of substantive technical criticism of the best
heavy water calorimetry results was offered by any of the participants. If
there exist skeptics who are familiar with the Pons and Fleischmann
calorimetry or the SRI work and believe that they know what might be
technically in error, your technical input would be greatly appreciated.


                              CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

    Was the conference sufficiently strong technically to turn the tide, to
settle the seemingly endless controversy as to whether there is or is not any
new anomalous effect? I thought that it was. I regard the technical issue of
whether there is a reproducible anomalous excess power effect in heavy water
Pons-Fleischmann experiments to have been settled at this point; I think that
there is clearly an effect.

    For such a significant conference, it has been largely ignored by the
scientific community. Wrongly so, I think. The majority of scientists are
currently ill-informed of the experiments, the implications, the arguments, or
the goals of ongoing research in the field. At some point this needs to
change, but I confess that I do not see how it might happen in the foreseeable
future.

    The name "cold fusion" has been adopted by the field to some degree by
default. This name implies a generic physical reaction mechanism (fusion), and
because the experiments involve deuterium, the name further presupposes
specific reactions (*dd*-fusion reactions). But *dd*-fusion is expected to
produce neutrons and tritons, neither of which are quantitatively present with
the excess heat. Scientists who are not in the field are discouraged because
the expected fusion products are not present in quantities commensurate with
the observed energy production, and scientists working in the field have not
come up with an explanation in three and a half years as to why deuterons
should fuse that is acceptable to the scientific community.

    There have been proposals to change the name of the field: "solid state
nuclear physics" has been suggested; "nuclear effects in metals" has also been
put forth. I would strongly endorse a name change.

    A reviewer of this manuscript has pointed out that even these names
presuppose a nuclear component to the effect, which in the reviewer's eyes
remains to be demonstrated, and has recommended "hydrogen energy" or "hydrogen
in metals", with the understanding that "hydrogen" is to include the isotopes.

    The field continues to receive considerable bad press, which at this
point is not warranted. For example, I have recently obtained a copy of a
review of the Nagoya conference by D. O. Morrison, which has received very
wide distribution; it is unfortunate that the only updates about the field
received by most of the physics community is through such a biased channel.
This simply must change. I am open to suggestions as to how this situation
could best be changed.

    There are precious few sources of potential funding in this area,
especially in the US. I am convinced that DOE should be funding a significant
effort in the US, the goal of which should be to find out what is going on, so
that an informed and rational judgement can be made about any potential of the
effect to meet US and world energy requirements. One basic claim that has been
made is that excess energy at a level which must be nuclear (but is certainly
not conventional *dd*-fusion) is observed in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment
and variants; this is something that the DOE should be interested in.

    So what is it that should be done? The list is very long, but I will
attempt to enumerate some of what I think are a few relevant goals:

1.  Verification of a heat effect: I am convinced that the Pons-Fleischmann
    cells can produce excess energy of a nuclear origin based on the amount
    of energy per atom evolved. The scientific community does not accept
    this. This issue really needs to be put to rest, and the associated
    controversy ended.

    Pons and Fleischmann have been publishing further details of their own
    work in refereed journals and in readily available conference
    proceedings, and more papers are currently in the pipeline. Details of
    the work of many other groups is also readily available.

    Considerably more is known about the Pons-Fleischmann cells than in 1989,
    and the reproducibility of the effect has been improved considerably. SRI
    has produced documentation of criterion which, if met, carries the
    guarantee that similar experiments at SRI have produced heat reproducibly
    with a very high success rate. Palladium cathodes from sources other than
    Matthey-Johnson have now shown the effect.

    Significant deficiencies have been identified in the principal negative
    experiments which were done in 1989; the main criticisms of these
    experiments was that a high loading was not achieved and held. For
    example, the method developed at SRI requires very high loading (D/Pd
    ratio near 0.90) to be maintained for about a week. Since positive
    results have been obtained at lower loadings, this constraint is likely
    not to be absolute; nevertheless, many in the field believe that quite
    high loadings do improve the reproducibility of the effect.
    I do not know how this controversy is to be ended, but I know that it
    does need to be ended in a satisfactory manner. The basic experiments
    have been done, they have been repeated in many different ways by
    numerous groups, and the effect is observed with considerably better
    signal to noise ratio than in 1989.

    Scientists in the field have gone to extremes in attempts to satisfy
    skeptics. Cells were stirred, blanks were done, extremely elaborate
    closed cell calorimeters have been developed (in which the effect has
    been demonstrated), the signal to noise ratio has been improved so that
    positive results can now be claimed at the 50 sigma level, the
    reproducibility issue has been laid to rest; but still it is not enough.
    I have heard some skeptics saying that a commercial product is the next
    hurdle to be jumped through before any significant funding can be
    justified. This is simply not right.

2.  Basic reaction mechanisms for heat production: To date the claims of the
    observation of heat anomalies in metal deuterides have not been
    accompanied by any clear positive evidence for reaction mechanisms.
    Anomalous heat generation would have to have a fuel, and would have to
    have ashes; the confirmed identification of either fuel or ashes would
    help tremendously towards a determination of a reaction mechanism.

    I think that progress in this field is hindered by the absence of even a
    rudimentary understanding of the basic reaction mechanisms involved
    (there are of course theories, but to date there is no positive
    experimental confirmation of any proposed theory). At some point, the
    principal experimentalists in the field simply must take this issue
    seriously. Having an understanding of what the reaction mechanisms are
    would provide numerous benefits: (1) guidance as to what experimental
    parameters are expected to be important for optimizing reaction rates;
    (2) improvement of the general quality of the science being done in the
    field, especially as perceived by those not in the field; (3) allows
    those working in the field to focus more clearly on the issues that are
    most important. From the point of view of funders or potential funders, a
    knowledge of how the effect works allows the possibility of assessing
    more accurately potential future applications.

    The determination of fuel and ashes requires high sustained
    volume-averaged heat production. In the case of {4}He production, an assay
    of the gas stream is required; in the case of assays for other elements
    and isotopes, careful mass spectroscopy (and the presence of a small
    electrolyte volume) will likely prove to be most important.

3.  Verification and reaction mechanisms for other anomalies: Quite a few
    anomalies have by now been associated with deuterium in metals
    experiments, including observations of neutrons, gammas, fast ions,
    tritium, and helium production.

    None of these effects are currently accepted by the scientific community;
    as in the case of the heat effect, some way is needed to arrange for a
    consensus as to which of the effects are real. It would seem to me that
    the most dramatic claims come from the glow discharge experiments; most
    significant would be if these experiments could be further reproduced and
    verified.

    I think that experiments which produce energetic (MeV-level) nuclear
    products provide essential information relevant to the issue of reaction
    mechanisms. For example, a confirmation of significant isotope shifts and
    strong gamma emission from heavy elements would place very strong
    constraints on proposed reaction mechanisms. A detailed study of
    precisely which gamma lines are produced would likely shed light on how
    the gamma lines are excited, which provides further input on reaction
    mechanisms.


                              References

1.  M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, "Excess enthalpy generation in the region of
    the boiling point in Pd-type cathodes polarized in D[2]O," paper 24-
    PII-14.

2.  M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, "Calorimetry of the Pd-D[2]O system: from
    simplicity via complications to simplicity," preprint of the ICCF3
    proceedings.

3.  M. C. H. McKubre, S. Crouch-Baker, A. M. Riley, R. C. Rocha-Filho, S. I.
    Smedley and F. L. Tanzella, "Excess power production in D[2]O electrolysis
    cells: A comparison of results from differing cell designs," paper 22-
    PII-25.

4.  M. C. H. McKubre, S. Crouch-Baker, A. M. Riley, R. C. Rocha-Filho, S. I.
    Smedley and F. L. Tanzella, "Excess power observations in the
    electrochemical studies of the D/Pd system; the influence of loading,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

5.  K. Kunimatsu, "Deuterium loading ratio and excess heat generation during
    electrolysis of heavy water by a palladium cathode in a closed cell using
    a partially immersed fuel cell anode," paper 22-PII-27.

6.  K. Kunimatsu, N. Hasegawa, A. Kubota, N. Imai, M. Ishikawa, H. Akita and
    Y. Tsuchida, "Deuterium loading ratio and excess heat generation during
    electrolysis of heavy water by a palladium cathode in a closed cell using
    a partially immersed fuel cell anode," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

7.  N. Hasegawa, K. Kunimatsu, T. Ohi, T. Terasawa, "Observation of excess
    heat during electrolysis of 1 M LiOD in a fuel cell type closed cell,"
    paper 24-PII-19.

8.  N. Hasegawa, K. Kunimatsu, T. Ohi, T. Terasawa, "Observation of excess
    heat during electrolysis of 1 M LiOD in a fuel cell type closed cell,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

9.  A. Kubota, H. Akita, Y. Tsuchida, T. Saito, A. Kubota, N. Hasegawa, N.
    Imai, N. Hayakawa and K. Kunimatsu, "Hydrogen and deuterium absorption by
    Pd cathode in a fuel-cell type closed cell," paper 22-PII-8.

10. T. Nakata, Y. Tsuchida, K. Kunimatsu, "Absorption of hydrogen into Pd
    foil electrode: effect of Thiourea," paper 22-PII-9.

11. L. Bertalot, F. DeMarco, A. De Ninno, A. La Barbera, F. Scaramuzzi, V.
    Violante, P. Zeppa, "Study of the deuterium charging in palladium by the
    electrolysis of heavy water: search for heat excess and nuclear ashes,"
    paper 24-PII-21.

12. L. Bertalot, F. DeMarco, A. De Ninno, A. La Barbera, F. Scaramuzzi, V.
    Violante, P. Zeppa, "Study of deuterium charging in palladium by the
    electrolysis of heavy water: search for heat excess and nuclear ashes,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

13. A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Experimentally
    defined ratio of nuclear reaction products flows intensity at glow
    discharge in deuterium," paper 22-PII-23.

14. A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Gamma spectroscopy at
    glow discharge in deuterium,"  paper 24-PI-15.

15. A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Heavy charged
    particles registration at glow discharge in deuterium," paper 24-PII-7.

16. A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Nuclear product ratio
    for glow discharge in deuterium,"  *Phys. Lett. A* 170 265 (1992).

17. L. Heqing, X. Renshou, S. Sihai, L. Hongquan, G. Jimbang, C. Bairong,
    "The anomalous effects induced by the dynamic low pressure gas discharge
    in a deuterium/palladium system," paper 24-PI-3.

18. L. Heqing, X. Renshou, S. Sihai, L. Hongquan, G. Jimbang, C. Bairong,
    "The anomalous effects induced by the dynamic low pressure gas discharge
    in a deuterium/palladium system,"  preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

19. L. Heqing, S. Sihai, L. Hongquan, X. Renshou, Z. Xinwei, "Anomalous
    effects in deuterium/metal systems," paper 24-PII-6.

20. L. Heqing, S. Sihai, L. Hongquan, X. Renshou, Z. Xinwei, "Anomalous
    effects in deuterium/metal systems," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

21. N. Wada and K. Nishizawa, "Nuclear fusion in solid," *Jap. J. Appl.
    Phys.* 28 L2017 (1989).

22. E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishioka, "Direct evidences of nuclear fusion
    reactions in deuterated palladium," paper 24-PI-3.

23. E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishioka, "Direct evidences of nuclear fusion
    reactions in deuterated palladium," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

24. M. H. Miles and B. F. Bush, "Search for anomalous effects involving
    excess power, helium, and tritium during D[2]O electrolysis using
    palladium cathodes," paper 24-PI-4.


25. J. O'M. Bockris, C. Chien, and Z. Minevski, "Tritium and helium
    production in palladium electrodes and the fugacity of deuterium
    therein," paper 24-PI-11

    See also: C. Chien, D. Hodko, Z. Minevski and J. O'M. Bockris, "On an
    electrode producing massive quantities of tritium and helium," *J. of
    Electroanalytical Chemistry*, Vol 338, p. 189 (1992)

26. S. Isagawa, Y. Kanda and T. Suzuki, "Search for excess heat, neutron
    emission and tritium yield from electrochemically charged palladium in
    D[2]O," paper 24-PII-31.

27. S. Isagawa, Y. Kanda and T. Suzuki, "Search for excess heat, neutron
    emission and tritium yield from electrochemically charged palladium in
    D[2]O," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

28. C. M. Wan, C. J. Linn, C. Y. Liang, S. K. Chen, C. C. Wan and T. P.
    Perng, "Repeated heat bursts in the electrolysis of D[2]O," paper 24-
    PII-18.

29. C. M. Wan, S. K. Chen, L. J. Yuan, C. C. Wan and C. Y. Liang,
    "Simultaneous and reproducible detection of neutrons and excess heat in
    cold fusion experiments," preprint, Sept. 1992, from the materials
    Science Center, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.

30. L. J. Yuan, C. M. Wan, C. Y. Liang, and S. K. Chen,  "Neutron monitoring
    on cold fusion experiments," paper 24-PI-34.

31. A. Takahashi, A. Mega, T. Takeuchi, H. Miyamaru, and T. Iida, "Anomalous
    excess heat by D[2]O/Pd cell under L-H mode electrolysis," paper 24-
    PII-12.

32. A. Takahashi, A. Mega, T. Takeuchi, H. Miyamaru, and T. Iida, "Anomalous
    excess heat by D[2]O/Pd cell under L-H mode electrolysis," preprint of the
    ICCF3 proceedings.

33. E. Mallove, presented during the Panel discussion on the Takahashi
    method.

34. E. Storms, "Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann type
    electrolytic cell using palladium sheet," paper 22-PII-26. This paper was
    presented by T. Claytor, as Storms was unable to attend.

35. F. Celani, A. Spallone, P. Tripodi and A. Nuvoli, "Measurements of excess
    heat and tritium during self-biased pulsed electrolysis of Pd-D[2]O,"
    paper 24-PII-13.

36. F. Celani, A. Spallone, P. Tripodi and A. Nuvoli, "Measurements of excess
    heat and tritium during self-biased pulsed electrolysis of Pd-D[2]O,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

37. N. Oyama, T. Terashima, S. Kasahara, O. Hatozaki, T. Ohsaka and T.
    Tatsuma, "Electrochemical calorimetry of D[2]O electrolysis using a
    palladium cathode in a clodes cell system," paper 22-pII-29.

38. T. N. Claytor, D. G. Tuggle and H. O. Menlove, "Evolution of tritium from
    palladium in the solid state gas cell," paper 24-PI-10.

39. V. A. Romodanov, V. I. Savin, and Yu. M. Timofeev, "Reactions of nuclear
    fusion in condensed media," paper 22-PI-2.

40. V. A. Romodanov, V. I. Savin, and Yu. M. Timofeev, "Nuclear fusion in
    condensed matter," preprint UDC: 539.172.13.

41. R. Notoya and M. Enyo, "Excess heat production in Electrolysis in
    K[2]CO[3] solution with Ni electrodes,"paper 24-PII-35.

42. R. L. Mills and S. P. Kneizys, "Excess heat production by the
    electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the
    implications for cold fusion," *Fusion Tech.* 20 65, (1991).

43. V. Noninski, "Excess heat during the electrolysis of a light water
    solution of K[2]CO[3] with a nickel cathode," *Fusion Tech.* 21 163,
    (1992).

44. M. Srinivasan, A. Shyam, T. K. Shankarnarayanan, M. B. Bajpai, H.
    Ramamurthy, U. K. Mukherjee, M. S. Krishnan, M. G. Nayar, and Y. Naik,
    "Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of aqueous
    solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode," paper 22-PII-28.

45. M. Srinivasan, A. Shyam, T. K. Shankarnarayanan, M. B. Bajpai, H.
    Ramamurthy, U. K. Mukherjee, M. S. Krishnan, M. G. Nayar, and Y. Naik,
    "Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of aqueous
    solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode," preprint of the ICCF3
    proceedings.

46. R. T. Bush and R. D. Eagleton, "Calorimetric studies of an electrolytic
    excess heat effect employing light water-based electrolytes of some
    alkali salts," paper 24-PII-32.

47. T. Ohmori and M. Enyo, "Excess heat produced during the electrolysis on
    Ni, Au, Ag and Sn electrodes in alkaline media," paper 24-PII-36.

48. S. Pons and M. Fleischmann, *Il Nuovo Cimento*, 105A 763 (1992).

49. D. R. Coupland, M. L. Doyle, J. W. Jenkins, J. H. F. Notton, R. J. Potter
    and D. T. Thompson, "Some observations related to the presence of
    hydrogen and deuterium in palladium," paper 22-PII-2.

50. D. R. Coupland, M. L. Doyle, J. W. Jenkins, J. H. F. Notton, R. J. Potter
    and D. T. Thompson, "Some observations related to the presence of
    hydrogen and deuterium in palladium," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

50. D. Gozzi, P.L. Cignini, R. Caputo, M. Tomellini, E. Cisbani, S. Frullani,
    F. Garabaldi, M. Jodice, and G. M. Urcioli, "Experiment with global
    detection of the cold fusion products," paper 24-PI-7.

51. M. Nakada, T. Kusunoki, Y. Fujii, M. Okamoto and O. Odawara, "A role for
    lithium for the neutron emission in heavy water electrolysis," paper 22-
    PII-15.

52. S. Miyamoto, K. Sueki, H. Iwai, M. Fujii, T. Shirakawa, H. Miura, T.
    Watanabe, H. Toriumi, T. Uehara, Y. Nakamitsu, M. Chiba, T. Hirose, and
    H. Nakahara, "Measure of protons and observations of the change of
    electrolysis parameters in the galvanostatic  electrolysis of the 0.1M-
    LiOD/D[2]O solution," paper 24-PI-37.

53. S. Miyamoto, K. Sueki, H. Iwai, M. Fujii, T. Shirakawa, H. Miura, T.
    Watanabe, H. Toriumi, T. Uehara, Y. Nakamitsu, M. Chiba, T. Hirose, and
    H. Nakahara, "Measure of protons and observations of the change of
    electrolysis parameters in the galvanostatic electrolysis of the 0.1M-
    LiOD/D[2]O solution," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

54. M. Corradi, F. Ferrarotto, M. Giannini, V. Milone, B. Stella, L.
    Storelli, F. Celani, and A. Spallone, "Evidence for stimulated emission
    of neutrons from deuterated palladium," paper 24-PI-17.

55. Y. Fukai, "The ABC's of the hydrogen-metal system," paper 22-PII-3.

56. Y. Fukai, "The ABC's of the hydrogen-metal system," preprint of the ICCF3
    proceedings.

57. K. Watanabe, Y. Fukai, N. Niimura and O. Konno, "A search for fracture-
    induced nuclear fusion in some deuterium-loaded materials," 24-PII-8.

58. E. Choi, E. Eriji, and H. Ohsumi, "Limit on fast neutrons from dd fusion
    in deuterized Pd by means of Ge detectors," paper 24-PI-30.

59. S. Miyamoto, K. Sueki, H. Iwai, M. Fujii, T. Shirakawa, H. Miura, T.
    Watanabe, H. Toriumi, T. Uehara, Y. Nakamitsu, M. Chiba, T. Hirose, and
    H. Nakahara, "Measurement of protons and observation of the change of
    electrolysis parameters in the galvanostatic electrolysis of the 0.1M-
    LiOD/D[2]O solution," paper 24-PI-37.

60. D. Morrison, "Review of cold fusion experiments," paper 24-PI-9.

61. D. R. O. Morrison, "The third international cold fusion conference,"
    *Cold Fusion Update* 7 on the computer network, Nov. 1 - Dec. 6, 1992.

62. J. Huizenga, "Cold fusion claims," post deadline paper.

63. G. Preparata, "Theory of cold fusion in deuterated palladium," paper 22-
    PI-1.

64. S. Chubb and T. Chubb, "Ion band state fusion," paper 22-PI-20.

65. S. Chubb and T. Chubb, "Ion band state fusion,"  preprint of the ICCF3
    proceedings.

66. T. Matsumoto, "Review for Nattoh model and experimental findings during
    cold fusion," paper 22-PI-8.

67. A. Takahasi, "Nuclear products by D[2]O/Pd electrolysis and multibody
    fusion," Proc. Int. Symp. Nonlinear Phenomena in Electromagnetic Fields,
    Nagoya (1992).

68. K. Tsuchiya, K. Ohashi and M. Fukuchi, "Mechanism of cold nuclear fusion
    in palladium," paper 22-PI-13.

69. N. Matsunami, "A mechanism for cold nuclear fusion: barrier reduction by
    screening under transient coherent flow of deuterium," paper 22-PI-15.

70. Q. Q. Gou, Z. H. Zhu, and Q. F. Zhang, "The possible theoretical model
    and it's experimental evidences of cold fusion," paper 22-PI-32.

71. V. I. Vysotskii, "Nonthreshold cold fusion as a result of nonequilibrium
    deuterium Fermi-condensate in microholes of crystal," paper 22-PI-28.

72. K. Yasui, "Fractofusion Mechanism," paper 22-PI-30.

73. N. Yabuuchi, "Quantum mechanics on cold fusion," paper 22-PI-26.

74. G. V. Fedorovich, "Nuclear fusion in the E-cell," paper 22-PI-29.

75. A. Tenenbaum and E. Tabet, "Temporal sequence of nuclear signals in a dry
    cold fusion experiment," paper 22-PI-23.

76. K. Fukushima, "A new mechanism for cold fusion -- sono-fusion," paper 22-
    PI-16.

77. Y. E. Kim, M. Rabinowitz, R. A. Rice and J. H. Yoon, "Condensed matter
    effects for cold and hot fusion," paper 22-PI-25.

78. Y. E. Kim, M. Rabinowitz, R. A. Rice and J. H. Yoon, "High density fusion
    and the solar neutrino problem," paper 22-PI-31.

79. Y. E. Kim, M. Rabinowitz, R. A. Rice and J. H. Yoon, "Condensed matter
    effects for cold and hot fusion,"  preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

80. X. Li, D. Jin, L. Chang, X. Zhang and W. Zhang, "Combined resonance
    tunneling in low energy D-D nuclear reaction," paper 22-PI-17.

81. L. Fonda and G. L. Shaw, "Anti-diquark catalysis of cold fusion," paper
    22-PI-18.

82. V. A. Chechin and V. A. Tsarev, "On non-stationary quantum mechanical
    origin of cold nuclear fusion," paper 22-PI-7.

83. V. A. Tsarev and D. H. Worledge, "Cold fusion studies in the USSR,"
    *Fusion Tech.* 22, 138 (1992).

84. J. Yang, "Abnormal Nuclear Phenomena and Weak Interaction Processes,"
    paper 22-PI-9.

85. J. Yang, "Dineutron model of the cold fusion," paper 22-PI-10.

86. T. Tani and Y. Kobayashi, "Tunnel disintegration and neutron emission
    probability," paper 22-PI-5.

87. P. L. Hagelstein, "Coherent and semi-coherent neutron reactions," paper
    22-PI-4.

88. P. L. Hagelstein, "Coherence effects: theoretical considerations," paper
    22-PI-3.

89. P. L. Hagelstein, "Coherent and semi-coherent neutron reactions,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.

90. S. Jones, "Update on BYU research," paper 24-PI-1.