Review of Cold Fusion - Douglas Morrison
Vincent Cate
Douglas Morrison is about to come out with another review. It turns
out that in addition to putting all of his notes into an ftp directory
I should have posted the review he sent me at that time. Anyway,
I am posting it now. Watch this space for another review in the
near future.
Also, his notes can still be ftped from:
sam.cs.cmu.edu:/afs/cs/user/vac/ftp/morrison
-- Vince
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 11:38 GMT +1
From: MORRISON%VXPRIX.dec...@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
Subject: Review of Cold Fusion.
To: vincent.cate%sam.cs....@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU
X-Envelope-To: vincen...@sam.cs.cmu.edu
X-Vms-To: MINT::"vincen...@sam.cs.cmu.edu"
SEPTEMBER 1990.
REVIEW OF COLD FUSION.
Douglas R. O. Morrison
CERN, Geneva, Switzerland.
Presented at a Plenary Session of the World Hydrogen Energy Conference,
Honolulu, 24 July 1990.
ABSTRACT
Experimental results on Cold Fusion are reviewed. Most
experiments find no effect and the upper limits are appreciably lower than
the positive effects claimed in some experiments. It is concluded that (1)
there is no excess heat production, (2) the balance of evidence is
strongly against fusion products. A curious Regionalisation of Results is
observed where only negative results are found in some parts of the world
and only positive results in other parts. Further the ratio of positive to
negative results varies with time. Previous studies of Palladium indicate that
fusion should not occur inside it. Cold Fusion is best explained as an example
of Pathological Science.
SUBJECTS
1. Introduction
2. Milestones
3. Compilations of Experimental Results
3.1 First Compilation - including Non-Refereed work
Neutrons, Gammas, X-Rays, Tritium, Charged Particles, Calorimetry,
Muon-induced Fusion, High Pressure, Is There a Secret?
3.2 Results from Published Papers
3.3 Experimental Conclusions
4. Three Experiments Critical for Believers
4.1 David Williams et al. at Harwell
4.2 General Electric Co.
4.3 Independent Experiment in Pons's Lab
5. Previous Knowledge of Deuterium
6. Pathological Science
7. Conclusions.
1. INTRODUCTION
We are all ecologists now. So when Profs. Fleischmann and Pons announced
on 23rd March 1989, that at Utah, they had caused deuterium ions to fuse giving
out heat using electolysis in a simple cell at room temperature - Cold Fusion -
we all wanted to believe it. At first we were a bit sceptical, but then came
more information - they had measured excess heat and observed neutrons, gammas,
and tritium! And next day there were reports of independent confirmation from
Steve Jones[1] of nearby Brigham Young University. Other confirmations followed
quickly. The early days of April were the high point when perhaps 500 million
people had heard of Cold Fusion, of Fleischmann and Pons, and had dreams of sea
water yielding limitless amounts of heavy water that could provide energy
without pollution!
But scientists quickly realised a terrible discrepancy - for each Watt of
power there should be a million million neutrons per second but only a few were
observed - less than one per second for Jones. Thus the dream of power from
fusion divided into two experimental sets of results, firstly reports of
excess heat and secondly reports of the observation of fusion products such
as neutrons - but the two results were absolutely not compatible.
The Dream had gone.
Hopes were briefly revived again on 18 April when Prof. Scaramuzzi of
Frascati showed results of apparently high statistical significance and
suggested fusion was a dynamical effect. Since then hundreds of experiments
have been reported and most of them found no effect while some found positive
results.
The world became divided between "Sceptics" and "Believers" with the
latter concentrated in some parts of the world such as Utah and Texas. After
a while one felt that Cold Fusion could not be understood by normal Science
alone and Pathological Science was invoked. This review presents the status of
experimental results and attempts to understand the phenomenon of Cold Fusion.
It has been well known for a century that Palladium and certain other metals
can absorb large quantities of hydrogen. The idea came independently to
Fleischmann and Pons and to Jones that if deuterium could be forced into
Palladium, two deuterium nuclei would come so close together as to fuse giving
out more power than was being put in. To do this they used a simple
electrolytic cell with heavy water as the electrolyte and with Palladium or
Titanium as the cathode at which the deuterium would be released.
The d-d fusion processes are well-studied and are;
d + d ---> 3He (0.8 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (1)
d + d ---> t (1.0 MeV) + p (3.0 MeV) (2)
d + d ---> 4He + gamma (23.8 MeV) (3).
This paper is an up-date of an article "The Rise and Decline of Cold
Fusion" which appeared in the Feb. 1990 edition of Physics World.
The other and preceding speaker at the 24 July Plenary Session was Dr.
John O'M Bockris of Texas A&M University.
2. MILESTONES
13 March Fleischmann informs David Williams at Harwell who starts experiments.
23 March Fleischmann and Pons press conference claim heat, neutrons, gammas
and tritium
24 March News that Jones of BYU claimed observation of neutrons
31 March Fleischmann lecture at CERN - very successful but admits they had not
tested with normal water.
7 April Meeting of American Electrochemical Society, Texas - great triumph.
9-12 April First copies of Fleischmann and Pons paper[2] received -found to
be unsatisfactory. Growing doubts, especially because of discrepancy
between amount of excess heat and very low numbers of neutrons claimed
David Williams says Harwell have not observed neutrons at the levels
claimed. The number of characteristics of Pathological Science
keeps rising.
15 April Most people believe in Cold Fusion except those receiving electronic
mail news who know of null experiments and of major discrepancies.
18 April Scaramuzzi (Frascati)[3] apparently finds strong evidence for a dynamic
origin for Cold Fusion using Titanium, D2 gas pressure and temperature
variations
24 April Report that Fleischmann and Pons claim helium has been detected.
Doubts about Scaramuzzi results on Email Network[4]
2,3 May American Physical Society meeting. Strong negative results from Nathan
Lewis (Cal Tech)[5] and Moshe Gai(Yale - BNL)[6]. Regionalisation of
Results reported - negative results in Northern Europe and in Region 1
of the USA (major labs plus North-east). Positive results from Southern
and Eastern Europe, Region 2 of the USA, and the rest of the world.
High score[7] on Pathological Science characteristics - 7 out of 12.
8 May American Electrochemical Society meeting - media triumph for Cold
Fusion - but Sceptics are excluded except token ones after protests.
23-25 May Santa Fe meeting on Cold Fusion organised by Los Alamos for DOE.
Most Americans (though not Fleischmannn nor Pons) plus some others
attended. Attention given to neutron bursts reported by Menlove of Los
Alamos and Jones[8]. Gai and Jones agree to do joint experiment at Yale
Although there were more negative results than positive, the organisers
tried to be "fair" and have equal numbers of positive and negative
results presented so that for most watching on satellite TV the
conclusions were unclear.
15 June Harwell press conference[9] - major series of experiments costing
$ 1/2 million and using $6 million worth of equipment, found no
effect and hence were stopped. And this despite initial help
from Martin Fleischmann. However other positive and negative results
continue to be reported. Utah particularly encouraged by reports of
large amounts of tritium found at Texas A&M
12 July DOE panel interim report[10] concludes"the experiments reported to date
do not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will
result from the phenomenon attributed to cold fusion". "No special
programmes to establish cold fusion research centres.... are justified"
August National Cold Fusion Research Institute established in Utah with money
from the State of Utah. it is hoped to get funding from the EPRI
(Electrical Power Research Institute) which has been subsidising
other groups.
August Japanese Fusion Research Institute gives $0.1 million for Cold Fusion
studies.
15, 16 Sept. Conference in Varenna. Italian groups either cannot repeat
positive results or find alternative explanations of effects.
SeptemberReports of experiment[11] in Pons's lab with counters under a table
which
had Pons's cells on top. They did not find neutrons or gammas. Lecture
in Utah summarising for the first time both positive and negative
results and concluding is Pathological Science. Director of the
National Cold Fusion Research Institute, Hugo Rossi says they have
found nothing so far and if still unsuccessful by February will
consider stopping. Interviews of people or administrators working on
Cold Fusion not allowed - censorship?
28 Oct. Gai and Jones report no neutrons nor neutron bursts
October NSF and EPRI sponsor conference - restricted attendence with token
sceptics - media success for Cold Fusion.
12 Nov. DOE Panel final report confirms earlier opinion
November Rossi resigns as Director of National Cold Fusion Research Institute
December Japanese press (and Wall Street Journal) gives prominence to reports
of large number of neutrons from two Japanese groups.( Later
examination causes these results to be doubted - see below).
Reports of some 200 scientists working on Cold Fusion.
Book of papers[12] from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay
describing some 6 experiments where neutrons or tritium were observed.
Over 50 scientists and engineers besides a large number of technicians
from more than ten divisions worked on these experiments.
1990
January Pons starts series of 32 experiments to be followed by a second
series of 32 experiments at the National Cold Fusion Research Institute
29-31 March First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Salt Lake City. Most of 200
participants and all talks are positive, but world media and even local
media is critical
April Lawyer of Pons and Fleischmann threatens possible legal action
against University colleagues
May Discovery of misuse of funds, University of Utah president asked to
resign
June Report in Science magazine of possible tritium contamination in
experiments at Texas A&M.
3. COMPILATION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
It is not easy to compile results
since many are released to the press, some are conference reports, many
are private reports and only some of all these are finally published much later
in journals where they are first refereed. Hence here two compilations will be
used; Firstly the experimental situation up to December based on experiments
that are at least moderately well described (most are unpublished and are
received by my electronic mail network or privately, so that the collection
cannot be complete but is large and any bias small); Secondly published
papers only up to June 1990. There are relatively few papers in the second
compilation that were not in the first, but many reports in the first have not
been published.
3.1 FIRST COMPILATION - INCLUDING NON-REFEREED WORK
A. Neutrons
A.1 Steady Production.
Ten positive results of which two have been withdrawn
(Fleischmann and Pons and Georgia Tech). Of the six of these for which the
actual measurement rate (before correction) and the background rate are known,
all had a neutron level 3 to 5 times the background. Thus although the claimed
rate varied between 0.04 and 40000 neutrons per second, no one had observed a
rate that was many times background and all were far from the rate of 1 E12
n/s which one Watt of power should give. Nineteen experiments have reported no
significant production of neutrons. If we take the level of Jones et al.[1] as
unity, then in general terms, eight of the experiments report upper limits that
are about a factor of ten lower and four give upper limits that are about a
factor of hundred lower than Jones et al.
A.2 Dynamic Effects - temperature and pressure changes, Frascati-type.
Prof. Scaramuzzi[3] showed provisional results suggesting that by varying the
pressure and temperature, the resulting non-equilibrium conditions could produce
neutrons. He has had difficulty in reproducing these results since April. Three
other groups were able to observe this effect initially but then were not
able to reproduce it and indeed found reasons to explain that their positive
observations were mistaken(acoustical effects, humidity, etc.). Four other
groups have reported finding no effect and two have given upper limits that
are a factor of a thousand less than that of Frascati.
A.3 Bursts of Neutrons.
At Los Alamos, Howard Menlove, Steve Jones et al.[8] found
bursts of neutrons at a very low level. Four other groups have found no bursts.
Steve accepted Moshe Gai's invitation to do a joint experiment at Moshe's lab at
Yale. They reported to the Dept. of Energy Panel[13] that they had found no
bursts that could not be accounted for by cosmic rays.
In the proceding talk at this Plenary sesion, Dr. Bockris stated that there
was an important new result reported in the previous day's Wall Street
Journal that was convincing proof of Cold Fusion. This is not a new result - it
was known in December, submitted in January and published in April - Wada et
al.[14] of Nagoya wrote that after a powerful high voltage discharge through
D2 gas, from lightly loaded Pd cathodes (D/Pd < 0.3), three decreasing bursts
of neutrons were detected. They were not able to repeat these results later.
They claimed a peak rate 10 000 times background but only used one BF3 counter
and these are notoriously unreliable, could not check if the counts were
caused by neutrons (since the cathode was damaged) and did not try a control
with normal hydrogen gas. The most likely explanation is that the physical
shock of the discharge created apparent bursts of neutrons.
B. Gammas.
The only positive result was that by Fleischmann and Pons and
that has been withdrawn. Nine groups have reported finding no gammas, with
levels as low as one gamma per second.
C. X-Rays.
When palladium is excited it emits 21 keV X-rays. The creation by
fusion of protons, tritons, 3He or gammas in the palladium should cause the
palladium to be excited. Four labs have reported that no 21 keV X-rays have
been observed giving strong evidence for the absence of fusion products and
hence of fusion.
D. Tritium.
The situation is confused. The original claims of Fleischmann
and Pons have been withdrawn. Texas A&M[15] report copious production with
published rates corresponding to E-3 to E-8 Watts. In Los Alamos[16] some cells
are said to give tritium but most do not. Two groups have unpublished reports
of finding tritium. Workers at BARC[12] report finding tritium in large
quantities. Five groups find no tritium production and give low upper
limits. If the Texas A&M findings were correct, enormous rates of neutrons
should have been produced (since the rates of reactions (1) and (2) are known to
be equal) and these are not observed. It is concluded by many believers that
the tritium to neutron ratio must be 100 million to one - however this is in
disagreement with the many experiments of fusion which all give the ratio of
one as expected from charge symmetry. It should be further noticed that
cold fusion catalysed by neutrons (which is at almost zero energy) also gives
a ratio of unity.
E. Charged Particles.
In a recent headline-making report in Japanese
newspapers, Taniguchi et al.[17] of Osaka report measurement of charged
particles
using a silicon surface barrier detector placed next to one wall of the detector
which is actually a 10 micron thick palladium and steel cathode. The counting
rates are very low and no attempt was made to exclude cosmic rays which must
have given occasional higher counts(as was found for instance by Gai and Jones).
F. Calorimetry.
Although one might think calorimetry to be easy, it is not, unless
careful experiments are done.
The original Fleischmann and Pons electrolytic cells had a
simple design and are "open" which means the D2 and O2 gases produced are
allowed to escape. Many later workers used similar cells. The estimates of
excess heat depend on the calibration where the cell is heated and its
rate of cooling observed. It has been shown that the results depend critically
on the calibration and there are important assumptions frequently employed.
A safer technique is to use a constant temperature bath, CT, where the cells
and their surroundings are heated to a temperature slightly higher than ambiant
- any excess heat is measured by the reduction of heating required to restore
the constant temperature. The best design is a "closed" cell where the D2 and O2
gases are recombined with a catalyst (usually Pd) inside the cell and the whole
kept at a constant temperature.
Of the 8 labs that reported excess heat, all were "open" and not kept at
constant temperature. While most of the reports were of 8 to 50% excess heat (or
more accurately power), Fleischmann and Pons have claimed 10 to 50 Watts.
Of the 14 labs reporting no excess heat, 7 were of this "open" type and gave
upper limits of 0.2 to 2% excess heat or < 0.3 Watts.
Of the 5 labs using constant temperature cells, all found no excess heat
giving upper limits between 0.3 and 9% or 0.1 Watt.
Two labs (British Columbia[18] and Karlsruhe[19]) used "closed" cells. They
gave upper limits of 0.3% of the 4 to 18 Watt range and 1 to 3% of the 10 to
30 Watt range resp.
The balance of the evidence is that excess heat cannot be produced in a useful
manner. The positive results are generally said to give excess heat erratically
and in bursts which are claimed to last for many hours. It is hard to prove or
to disprove such claims and many neutral people feel that some interesting
physics might come out of further careful peer-reviewed studies. On the other
hand when Dr Salamon and his colleagues[11] had his neutron and gamma detectors
installed under the table in Dr Pons's lab and Dr Pons's group had four cells
running on that table for a total period of 5 weeks in May and June, it is
surprising that they were not able to produce any excess heat for their
colleagues and indeed no neutrons and gammas were observed. Similarly when the
DOE panel visited Utah, Texas A&M etc. they were never able to see a cell that
was working although their visit was notified well in advance.
G. Muon - induced Fusion
Since it is known that muons can replace
electrons in a D2 molecule pulling the nuclei together and causing fusion (Steve
Jones is an expert on this), it was hoped that muons would do the same in
palladium. Muon beams have been fired into Palladium at MIT and KEK but no
effect has been found. KEK deduce that cosmic ray muons should produce less than
1 E-6 neutrons per second. Tests with cosmic rays confirm this.
H. High Pressure
High D2 gas pressures of 105 kbar and a megabar have been
tried but no appreciable number of neutrons have been observed.
I. Is there a Secret?
In Pathological Science when an effect cannot be
repeated, it is often said that there is a secret and the reason that someone
does not find it is not because the effect does not exist, but because he
does not have the special technique or secret. Hence in early April asked both
Martin Fleischmann and Steve Jones if there were a secret - both replied
laughingly that there was no secret - a simple table-top experiment!
3.2 COMPILATION OF RESULTS FROM PUBLISHED PAPERS
Most experiments are
not published. From contacts in many countries, would estimate that
about 80% of experiments are not published, and most of these are negative.
Of 97 experimental papers, 33 are positive, 63 are negative and one is
undecided.
Of theoretical papers, 53 are positive, 24 are negative and 14 make no
decision. Most of the "positive" papers are of the kind where one assumes the
positive experimental result is true and then derives conclusions Only a very
few start from a basic standpoint and derive that cold fusion should exist -
have shown these papers to theoretical colleagues and found they do not
support them.
The nature of the experimental papers are;
Positive Negative
Excess heat 6 21
Neutrons 27 47
Tritium 5 8
Gammas 6 12
Charged particles 1 3
Helium 2(both 3He) 5
Other (X-Rays..) 1 5
Fracto-fusion Neutrons 2 positive and 3 negative
Scaramuzzi -type neutrons 2 positive and 11 negative.
3.3 EXPERIMENTAL CONCLUSION
1. The balance of experimental evidence is strongly against excess heat.
2. The evidence against the observations of the various fusion products
is very strong except possibly the tritium observations, however this would
require a tritium to neutron ratio of 100 million which is in contradiction
with a wealth of good experiments which shows the ratio is unity.
4. THREE EXPERIMENTS CRITICAL FOR BELIEVERS
For scientists who are
unbiassed, there is more than enough experimental evidence to indicate that
the balance of evidence is strongly against Cold Fusion, but as we have just
heard, Believers only believe positive results and discount negative results.
But there are three critical experiments which should worry Believers as they
were very carefully carried out and were performed by people having close
relations with Fleischmann, Pons or their co-workers;
4.1 David Williams et al. at Harwell
This is probably the biggest and most
complete experiment performed in the world. It was carried out by scientists of
different disiplines, electrochemists, nuclear chemists, physicists. David was
and is a good friend of Fleischmann and Pons. He was the first outsider to be
told - on 13 March. They have what I consider to be the world's best
calorimeter and experts to whom I have described it, do not disagree with this
potentially controversial statement.
They found no excess heat, no neutrons, no helium, and no gammas.
4.2 General Electric Co.
They had a special arrangement with Pons
and Fleischmann and had help from them in trying to repeat their experiments.
This work was secret and the GE people have never told me or anyone else, their
results (though if they had been able to find excess heat or other effects as
claimed by Fleischmann and Pons, it would have been surprising if the world had
not been informed!). However just before this WHEC meeting, I was invited to
give a lecture to GE on Pathological Science (Irving Langmuir's lecture was
given there in 1953) and was told that they had carried out a very large series
of experiments on Cold Fusion which were completely independent of the
confidential arrangement with Fleischmann and Pons.
They found no excess heat, no neutrons, no tritium, and no gammas.
4.3 Independent Experiment in Pons's lab
At the request of the University of Utah and in agreement
with Dr. Pons, a group of 10 scientists led by Michael Salamon, set up
counters below a table in Pons's lab on which four of his cells were operating.
Despite efforts to make the cells work, in five weeks in May and June 1989,
no evidence for any neutrons or gammas were found giving upper limits of
one million millionth of a Watt. And this even though at one time a cell was
observed to boil, but Dr. Pons said it should not be considered. The experiment
was off for 50 hours with a power failure. Recently Dr. Pons announced that for
2 hours during just these 50 hours, there was an "excess thermal release". At
first Salamon et al. did not think they could respond, but it was pointed out
that they had a sodium iodide counter there would occur the reaction
23 Na + n ---> 24 Na.
The 24 Na isotope decays emmiting an electron with a half-life of 15 hours
which would be good for the detection of fusion products from this "excess
thermal release". They re-analysed their data and found no effect giving upper
limits of less than one-hundreth of a Watt for tritium production and less than
one millionth of a Watt for neutron production. This confirms again that
whatever is causing "excess thermal releases", is not fusion. It was after this
that most of the authors were threatened with lawsuits by the North Carolina
lawyer of Dr. Pons.
In conclusion, they found [11] no evidence of fusion products from dd or dp
fusion giving neutrons or tritium.
5. PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF DEUTERIUM IN PALLADIUM
It is important to ask if it
is reasonable to expect deuterium to undergo fusion when forced into
Palladium?
A major criticism of the original proposers who expected deuterium fusion in
metals such as palladium, is that the literature shows that the deuterium ions
are actually much further apart in the Palladium than they are in simple gaseous
deuterium so that no useful fusion is to be expected. In gaseous or liquid
deuterium the two deuterium nuclei have a separation of 0.74 A. The palladium
nuclei in the crystal are 3.89 A apart but as the deuterium is loaded in they
are moved apart to 4.03 A. When the deuterium is first loaded, up to D/Pd = 0.8,
the deuterium nuclei go into the octahedral spaces and are 2.85 A apart. If it
is possible to increase the loading (e.g. by ion implantation), then the O-D
separation is 1.74 A. To increase the probability of fusion it is necessary to
bring the deuterium ions much closer together, e.g. when a muon replaces an
electron, the nuclei are pulled together and the separation is only 0.0035A and
the fusion rate is reasonable. Thus the expectation of fusion in a continuous
fashion is unreasonable. For it to occur in a dynamic fashion is also
unlikely as there is lots of space for the deuterium ion to wander between
the ions in the lattice. Furthermore there is a theory of hydrogen ions in
Palladium which is very well tested (by neutron and muon scattering, etc.) and
which describes the distribution of the electrons very completely. Similarly one
does not expect muons to cause measurable fusion in loaded palladium.
6. PATHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
The overwhelming evidence, both experimentally and
theoretically, is that Cold Fusion in metals does not exist. But there are
positive results and and there are scientists who believe very strongly in
Cold Fusion.
How to understand the contradictory results? In 1953 Irving Langmuir gave
a delightful lecture on Pathological Science (reprinted in the Oct. 1989 issue
of Physics Today) where he discussed some cases such as N-Rays, where a number
of good scientists reported wrong results. He gave six characteristics of
such cases. One, which I have slightly modified, is to say that there are three
phases; in Phase One the original report is quickly confirmed; in Phase Two
there are about equal numbers of positive and negative results; and in
Phase Three there is an avalanche of negative results. In preparing a review
of Cold Fusion for the May APS meeting, was surprised to find that in Northern
Europe and the USA area 1 (the major labs and the North-West) the results were
almost all negative whereas in Eastern and Southern Europe, Asia, Latin
America and USA area 2 (the rest of the USA) the results were almost entirely
positive. The numbers were statistically significant being one positive
and 18 negative in the first regions and 25 positive and 2 negative in the
second case. Thus the first area was already in Phase Three while the other
was in Phase One. During the month of May this Regionalisation of Results
continued with the first area giving 2 positive and 16 negative while the
remaining regions of the world switched to six positive and 11 negative, i.e. it
entered Phase Two. This regionalisation has continued with most of the world
finding negative results (in Phase Three) and only Utah, Texas, India and now
Japan being in Phase Two where both positve and negative results are reported.
In 1976 I increased the number of characteristics of Pathological
Science to 12 and in 1989 to 15, this then allowed a significant
separation between false results and true results (which may have scores of
0, 1 2 or 3 characteristics. Cold Fusion has close to the maximum score and is
significantly far from the score for true results.
The final conclusion may be that a desire to achieve the result expected in
one's local community, does influence a certain number of scientists for a long
or a short time. Most face up to the totality of evidence fairly quickly, but a
few never do. Thus after Blondlot's N-Rays were exposed as illusionary, he
none the less published a book on N-Rays a year later, omitting the negative
evidence.
7. CONCLUSIONS
Everyone makes mistakes - everyone.
It is how you handle your mistakes that makes the difference; it is essential to
be self-critical.
Pathological Science will continue, it will happen again and again as it has
happened in the past, that a group of Believers will continue to believe
despite evidence to the contrary.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is a pleasure to acknowledge that the compilation of
published results was largely based on the bibliographic work of Dieter Britz
of Aarhus which was distributed by Email, and to thank him.
REFERENCES
[1] S. E. Jones et al., Nature 338 (1989).
[2] M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261 (1989)
and erratum 263 (1989) 187.
[3] A. de Ninno et al. Europhys. Lett 9 (1989) 221
[4] D. R. O. Morrison, Cold Fusion News No. 10, Email, 1989.
[5] N. Lewis et al., Nature 340 (1989) 525.
[6[ M. Gai et al., Nature 340 (1989) 29.
[7] D. R. O. Morrison, review talk at APS meeting, Baltimore 2 May 1989
and Cold Fusion News No.13, Email.
[8] H. E. Menlove et al. Workshop on Cold Fusion, and submitted to Nature
[9] D. E. Williams et al., Nature 342 (1989) 375
[10] Interim Report of the Cold Fusion Panel to the Energy Advisory Board
(US-DOE), Co-Chairmen John Huizenga and Norman Ramsey.
[11] M. H. Salamon et al. Nature 344 (1989) 401.
[12] "BARC Studies in Cold Fusion", eds P. K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasen,
Bhabha Atomic Energy Research centre, India, BARC-1500, (Dec. 1989).
[13] Cold Fusion Research, a Report of the Energy Advisory Board (US-DOE)
Co-Chairmen John Huizenga and Norman Ramsey.
[14] N. Wada and K. Nizhizana, Japanese J. of Appl. Phys. 28 (1989) 2017
[15] N. J. C. Packham et al., J. Electochem. 270 (1989) 451.
[16] E. Storms, priv. comm.
[17] R. Taniguchi et al. Japanese J. of Appl. Phys. 28 (1989) 659.
[18] M. E. Hayden et al. Univ. of Brit. Columbia preprint, Santa Fe workshop.
[19] G. Kreysa, G. Marx and W. Plieth, J Electroanal. Chem. 268 (1989) 437.
SD558F Course - GD Peterson
families have 'disapeared'. Their houses are for sale and their kids
have been taken out of school.
Does anyone know whats up?