What is science? What isn't? A look at cold fusion

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

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

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

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

5. Fusion of deuterium according to conventional nuclear physics 3He + ~ 50 % 2H 4He* * 3H + ~ 50 % 2H 4He + g ~ 0.00001 % • Deuterium content in seawater: 0.015% (molar fraction of total hydrogen) • Energy of nuclear fusion about 4x108times heat of combustion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15. Cold fusion discredited, but research continues

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

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

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

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

20. Additional Text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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