People often ask, "What exactly is the Hutchison Effect?" This brief essay is an attempt to answer that question to the satisfaction of the majority.

First of all, the Hutchison Effect is a collection of phenomena which were discovered accidentally by John Hutchison during attempts to study the longitudinal waves of Tesla back in 1979. In other words, the Hutchison Effect is not simply a singular effect. It is many.

The Hutchison Effect occurs as the result of radio wave interferences in a zone of spatial volume encompassed by high voltage sources, usually a Van de Graff generator, and two or more Tesla coils.

The effects produced include levitation of heavy objects, fusion of dissimilar materials such as metal and wood (exactly as portrayed in the movie, "The Philadelphia Experiment"), the anomalous heating of metals without burning adjacent material, spontaneous fracturing of metals (which separate by sliding in a sideways fashion), and both temporary and permanent changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metals.

The levitation of heavy objects by the Hutchison Effect is not---repeat not---the result of simple electrostatic or electromagnetic levitation. Claims that these forces alone can explain the phenomenon are patently ridiculous, and easily disproved by merely trying to use such methods to duplicate what the Hutchison Effect has achieved, which has been well documented both on film and videotape, and has been witnessed many times by numerous credentialed scientists and engineers. Challengers should note that their apparatus must be limited to the use of 75 Watts of power from a 120 Volt AC outlet, as that is all that is used by Hutchison's apparatus to levitate a 60-pound cannon ball.

The fusion of dissimilar materials, which is exceedingly remarkable, indicates clearly that the Hutchison Effect has a powerful influence on Van der Waals forces. In a striking and baffling contradiction, dissimilar substances can simply "come together," yet the individual substances do not dissociate. A block of wood can simply "sink into" a metal bar, yet neither the metal bar nor the block of wood come apart. Also, there is no evidence of displacement, such as would occur if, for example, one were to sink a stone into a bowl of water.

The anomalous heating of metal without any evidence of burning or scorching of the adjacent materials (usually wood) is a clear indication that possibly the nature of heat may not be completely understood. This has far-reaching implications for thermodynamics, which hinges entirely on the presumption of such knowledge. It should be noted that the entirety of thermodynamics is represented by the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is insignificant in a context of 0 Hz to infinite Hz. The anomalous heating exhibited by the Hutchison Effect shows plainly that we have much to learn, especially where thermodynamics and electromagnetism meet.

The spontaneous fracturing of metals, as occurs with the Hutchison Effect, is unique for two reasons: (1) there is no evidence of an "external force" causing the fracturing, and (2) the method by which the metal separates involves a sliding motion in a sideways direction, horizontally. The metal simply comes apart.

Some temporary changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metals are somewhat reminiscent of the "spoon bending" of Uri Geller, except that there is no one near the metal samples when the changes take place. One video shows a spoon flapping up and down like a limp rag in a stiff breeze. In the case of permanent changes, a metal bar will be hard at one end, like steel, and soft at the other end, like powdered lead. Again, this is evidence of strong influence on Van der Waals forces.

The radio wave interferences involved in producing these effects are produced from as many as four and five different radio sources, all operating at low power. However, the zone in which the interferences take place is stressed by hundreds of kilovolts.

It is surmised by some researchers that what Hutchison has done is tap into the Zero Point Energy. This energy gets its name from the fact that it is evidenced by oscillations at zero degrees Kelvin, where supposedly all activity in an atom ceases. The energy is associated with the spontaneous emission and annihilation of electrons and positrons coming from what is called "the quantum vacuum." The density of the energy contained in the quantum vacuum is estimated by some at ten to the thirteenth Joules per cubic centimeter, which is reportedly sufficient to boil off the Earth's oceans in a matter of moments.

Transmutation, The Alchemist Dream Come True

Not just base metals into gold; but the profuse creation of elements that is rewriting the book of genesis. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

A fully referenced and illustrated version of this article is posted on ISIS members’ website. Details here

An electronic version of this report, or any other ISIS report, with full references, can be sent to you via e-mail for a donation of £3.50. Please e-mail the title of the report to: report@i-sis.org.uk

Cold fusion scientists have managed, not so much to transmute base metals into gold (although there have been unconfirmed reports to that effect), but more spectacularly, to make a whole range of elements on the lab bench, with equipment not much more sophisticated than what the ancient alchemists might have used. In the process, nuclear energy is released - safely and without toxic or radioactive wastes - that could be harnessed for heating or to generate electricity [1] (see From Cold Fusion to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, SiS 36).

In addition, there is the attractive possibility of solving the world’s nuclear waste problem  (see Box) by transmuting highly radioactive and toxic nuclear wastes from conventional nuclear reactors into safer non-radioactive elements [2].

Transmutations galore

Transmutation reactions come in two classes [5, 6]. The first class of reactions result in a large array of products with mass numbers spanning across the periodic table; these may involve the formation of a heavy compound nucleus that can decay and split into different elements (but see later). The second class of reactions give distinct, isolated products directly, without the compound nucleus intermediate.

These ‘cold’ or low energy transmutation reactions are remarkably easy to accomplish compared to the conventional ‘hot’ nuclear reactions that are supposed to take place in stars or supernova explosions, or else only at millions of degrees K.

By 2003, transmutation experiments have been studied in some detail by over 14 separate laboratories worldwide: Beijing University and Tsinghua University in China; Lab des Sciences Nucleaire in France; Frascati Laboratory and University of Leece in Italy; Hokkaido University, Mitsubishi Corporation, Osaka university, and Shizuoka University in Japan; SIA LUTCH, Tomsk Polytechnical University in Russia; Portland University USA, Texas A & M University, and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in the USA [5].

The minimum requirement for transmutation is a metal hydride film or membrane loaded up with hydrogen or deuterium to a high level, and kept in constant flux [5-8]. Electrode materials have ranged from carbon, nickel, to uranium. The metal hydride can be loaded by electrolysis of water or heavy water using a thin film of the metal as cathode; or else deuterium gas can be made to diffuse through the metal membrane by injecting the gas on one side and evacuating from the other side [9]. But a wide variety of experimental conditions have been used to trigger or speed up the reactions, including surface plasma electrolysis, plasma discharge, laser initiation and external electric or magnetic fields.

George Miley’s team at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in the United States is one of the main groups involved in transmutation [5]. They used multi-layer thin film nickel, palladium or titanium [6] coated by sputtering on polystyrene microspheres, and loaded up to a high level of hydrogen by packing the coated beads in the cathode of an electrolytic cell. The products of nuclear reaction were documented carefully with a combination of secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) and neutron activation analysis (NAA). SIMS detects most isotopes and is very sensitive but covers only a small area, typically a single microsphere, and is not very accurate. NAA on the other hand gives very accurate analysis of the entire electrode, but is restricted to detecting only certain elements. A combination of the two methods enabled the team to study a large number of isotopes. An overlap in the data set allowed a more accurate re-standardisation of the SIMS data to the more accurate NAA measurements.

A typical experiment is run continuously for 260 hours, resulting in a wide variety of elements. There are four high yield peaks in the atomic mass of 22-23, 50-80, 103-120 and 200-210. This pattern is generally consistent with results obtained by other research groups. Non-natural isotope distributions have been found for some elements, which is also a sign of nuclear reactions.

The most commonly reported elements are calcium, copper, zinc and iron. They were found in more than 20 different experiments. Forty percent of the least frequently observed elements were rare earths from the lanthanide group: lutetium, terbium praseodymium, europium, samarium, gadolinium, dysprosium, holmium, neodymium and ytterbium.

There were other effects associated with nuclear transmutation. These include energetic charged particles, protons (~1.6 MeV) and alpha (~16 MeV) emissions, and low level soft X-ray emissions. Excess heat was also produced simultaneously. Based on binding energy calculation, Miley concluded that the rate of transmutation correlates well with the excess power produced.

Transmutations have been obtained with both light and heavy water solutions, but heavy water appears to give a larger number of transmutation products under some conditions.

Direct transmutation of single elements

Yasuhiro Iwamura and colleagues at Mitsubishi’s Advanced Technology Research Center and colleagues have taken another approach to nuclear transmutation by concentrating on the direct transmutation of one element into another [10, 11].

They used D₂ gas permeation through a sandwich of thin alternating layers of palladium (Pd) and CaO sitting on a bottom layer of bulk Pd. Permeation of deuterium is forced through the layers by exposing the top of the sandwich with a thin Pd film to D₂ gas while the bottom is maintained under vacuum. On the D₂ gas side, dissociative absorption causes the D₂ molecules to separate into D atoms, which diffuse though the sandwich towards the vacuum side, where they emerge from the Pd metal, combine and are released as D₂ gas (see Fig. 1). The element to be transmuted is deposited on the top Pd film  of the Pd/CaO sandwich by electrolytic loading from a salt solution. Cesium (Cs), barium (Ba) and strontium (Sr) have been transmuted in this way. The analysis of elements was done in situ, without removing or disturbing the sandwich, using X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS) directed at the topside of the sandwich 

Figure 1. Transmutation by permeation (see text)

A typical experiment lasts for about a week or two. Cs has been transmuted into praseodymium (Pr) reproducibly in more than 60 experiments. Sr was transmuted into molybdenum (Mo) in three experiments lasting two weeks, the resulting Mo differed in isotope composition from natural Mo.

Based on an analysis of the depth profile of Pr, it appears that a very thin surface region of up to 10 nanometres is the active transmutation zone.

In the experiment involving transmutation of Ba to Sm, different isotopes of Ba resulted in the correspondingly different isotopes of Sm. ¹³⁸Ba transmuted into ¹⁵⁰Sm, and ¹³⁷Ba transmuted into ¹⁴⁹Sm, the increase in atomic mass was 12 in both cases, and atomic number 6. In both the transmutation of Cs to Pr and Sr to Mo, the increase in atomic mass was 8, and atomic number 4.            

            The role of the CaO layer was revealed in an experiment in which Cs was transmuted to Pr [10]. In all three samples with the normal Pd/CaO sandwich, Pr was found as the end product, but not in an experiment without a CaO layer; nor in two experiments in which the CaO layer was replaced by MgO. The CaO layer appeared to increase the deuterium density 10-fold compared to palladium alone. The layer also has a very negative free energy, so that the transition metal Pd serves as a source of interface electrons to screen the positive charges of the deuterons from one another [12], thereby facilitating fusion and transmutation. It is thought that fusion may have occurred between deuterons to form helium, ⁴He₂, which then further fuses with the heavier nuclei to give the end product.

Laurence Hecht, editor of 21^st Century Science and Technology commented that Iwamra’s work implies a revolution in our understanding of the nucleus, a fundamental breakthrough in science, compared to which, practical applications, even one so necessary as a new supply of cheap, clean energy, is of secondary importance [13].

The most common products of conventional thermonuclear fusion are about 3 to 4 MeV, and that involves an enormous amount of energy input to accelerate apha particles to one-tenth the velocity of light. Iwamura’s transmutation yields 50 to 67 MeV, with the greatest of ease, or very little energy input by comparison.

Rewriting creation

Allen Widom at Northeastern University Boston and Lewis Larsen of Lattice Energy recently proposed a mechanism that could account for a wide range of fusion and transmutation reactions [7] (for an accessible account read How Cold Fusion Works [2], SiS 36). They suggested that the surface of metallic hydrides fully saturated with protons develop collective electron and proton surface plasma oscillations (plasmons) that enable the electrons to gain sufficient mass to be captured by protons resulting in ultra-low momentum neutrons.  In a subsequent paper, they showed how these ultra-low momentum neutrons could be absorbed (captured) by heavier nuclei to produce new elements across the Periodic Table [14]. The expected chemical nuclear abundances resulting from such neutron absorption fit the available low energy transmutation experimental data quite well.

The important feature of such nuclear transmutations is that they do not need special mechanisms to penetrate the high Coulomb barrier, as proposed in other models.

First of all, the experimental distribution in atomic mass number A of the low energy nuclear reaction products measured in laboratory chemical cells are similar to the nuclear abundances found in our local solar system and galaxy. Furthermore, these maxima and minima in abundances resemble those predicted in the ultra-low momentum neutron absorption reaction cross-section (the likelihood of interactions), treating the neutron as a wave. Thus, it raises fundamental questions as to whether the conventional astrophysical account of how the elements are created in our stars and galaxies under thermonuclear conditions is correct.

The prediction based on treating the ultra-low momentum neutron as a wave results in a quasi-periodic curve: the peaks of reaction corresponds to the neutron wave fitting inside the spherical model potential wells of the nuclei, the radius of the well varying with atomic mass.

Data on the yields of transmutation product in an experiment using light water containing Li₂SO₄ in an electrolytic cell are plotted on the graph (see Figure 2). As can be seen, there is a reasonable correspondence between the experimental points and the predicted peaks and troughs of the neutron cross-section. The magnitude of the transmuted nuclear yields varies from one experimental run to another, but the agreement with the predicted curve remains over all experiments, and regardless of whether the electrode is titanium hydride, palladium hydride or layered Pd-Ni hydride.

Figure 2. Experimental abundance of elements (filled circles) superimposed on neutron absorption cross-section as a function of atomic mass (continuous line)

When the neutron wavelength within the well reaches resonance with the radius of the well, a peak appears in the scattering strength. If we associate resonant couplings with the ability of the neutron to be virtually trapped in a region near the nucleus, then for intervals of atomic mass numbers around and under the resonant peaks, we could expect to obtain recently discovered neutron ‘halo’ nuclei (nuclei that have a clear separation between a normal core nucleus and a loosely bound low-density ‘halo’ of neutrons outside the core). The spherical potential well model predicts the stable regions for the halo nuclei and thus the peaks in observed nuclear transmutation abundances.

The neutrons yielding the abundances in our local solar system and galaxy have often been previously assumed to arise entirely from thermonuclear processes and supernova explosions in the stars. These assumptions may be suspect in the light of the evidence from low energy nuclear reactions. Widom and Larsen remark: “It appears entirely possible that ultralow momentum neutron absorption may have an important role to play in the nuclear abundances not only in chemical cells but also in our local solar system and galaxy.”

The story of our universe has been created may well have to be rewritten.

How Cold Fusion Works

Many ways for atomic nuclei to come close coherently and fuse together in condensed matter. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members’ website. Details here

An electronic version of this report, or any other ISIS report, with full references, can be sent to you via e-mail for a donation of £3.50. Please e-mail the title of the report to: report@i-sis.org.uk

Cold fusion with ease

The surprising thing about cold fusion is how easily it could be made to happen, and in many different forms [1, 2] (see From Cold Fusion to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and Transmutation, the Alchemists’ Dream Come True? SiS 36). This is in striking contrast to hot fusion, which requires temperatures of millions of degrees K.

The key to cold fusion is that it happens in condensed matter. Simply put, there are many ways for nuclei to come together coherently and fuse in condensed matter. Cold fusion is friendly fusion, and does not need to be forced by thermonuclear temperatures. 

First of all, the hydrogen or deuterium nuclei are trapped in the host lattice, and hence much closer together than they would otherwise be in the gas phase. Under these conditions, quantum effects take over. Energy levels are no longer discrete; instead, they merge into broad bands. Coherent vibrations of the trapped nuclei, the electron cloud and the host lattice interact, all of which conspire to let nuclei slip under the Coulomb barrier and fuse together.

Delocalised and overlapping wave functions in condensed matter

Retired physicist from the US Naval Research Laboratory Talbot Chubb describes cold fusion as using a “catalysed configuration” to replace the need for high-energy collision between particles in hot fusion [3].

In the typical experiments where deuterium is absorbed or generated in a palladium electrode, the deuterons (nuclei of deuterium) become delocalised as waves with periods of the host lattice; this is referred to as a ‘Bloch state’. Bloch states enable the waves of different deuterons to overlap, and at a certain point when the kinetic energy of the vibrations becomes greater than the potential energy of the Coulomb barrier, the latter becomes irrelevant and two deuteron waves fuse into one. The electrons will also be delocalised as Bloch waves and will serve to shield the like charges of the nuclei and enable them to come closer together, thus facilitating the fusion.

Two deuterons fusing together gives helium-4 and excess energy of 23.8 MeV. The excess energy is transferred to the host lattice as phonons (sound waves) and dissipated as heat. This could explain the results of many cold fusion experiments, including that of Fleishmann and Pons [4] that started the whole field.

However, it was already apparent in the Fleishmann and Pons experiments that excess heat was produced in at least two ways: a predictable steady state (when helium-4 could well be produced), and unpredictable bursts of intense activity associated with the production of tritium.

Electron capture for nuclear transmutation

Allen Widom at Northeastern University Boston and Lewis Larsen of Lattice Energy have recently proposed a mechanism that could account for a wide range of fusion and transmutation reactions, electron capture by protons or deuterons [4].

In nuclear physics, it is very well known that a proton can capture a negatively charged lepton (light particle) and produce a neutron and a neutrino, and a common form of nuclear transmutation in condensed matter can be understood in term of this reaction.

An electron that wanders into a nucleus with Z (atomic number) protons and N (= A (atomic mass) – Z) neutrons can be captured, producing a neutrino and leaving behind a nucleus with Z-1 protons and N+1 neutrons. There is no Coulomb barrier in this process, which makes it much more likely than other reactions. In fact, a strong Coulomb attraction between an electron and a nucleus favours electron capture for nuclear transformation.

While lepton capture is known to occur in the case of muons (leptons) mixed into hydrogen systems, it is regarded as difficult for electrons to be captured by protons. For the reaction to happen, the lepton must be sufficiently massive, such that in energy terms, M_lc² > M_nc²-M_pc² ~ 1.293MeV ~2.531M_ec² (where M_l,  M_n,  M_p,  and M_e are the mass of the lepton, neutron, proton and electron respectively, and c is the speed of light). The muon is more than sufficiently massive to be captured by the proton, but not the electron, which needs to be at least 2.531 times as massive.

However, the electron mass in condensed matter can be modified by local electromagnetic field fluctuations. For example, laser light fields can “dress” an electron with additional mass. The surface states of metal hydrides are very important in this respect.

Collective surface oscillations of charged ions are involved in the weak interactions responsible for electron capture in condensed matter. The radiation frequencies of these oscillation range from the infrared to the soft X-ray spectra. The surface protons are oscillating coherently, contributing to the large magnitude of electromagnetic fluctuations. The neutrons produced by electron capture have an ultra low momentum (with long wavelength) due to the size of the coherence domain of the oscillating protons, estimated to vary from about one to ten microns in length. The long final state neutron wavelength allows for a large neutron wave function overlap with many protons, which increases the coherent neutron production rate.

It is estimated that the electron mass enhancement due to the electromagnetic field fluctuations (collective proton oscillations) on the surface of palladium hydride is about 20.6 fold, which is much more than enough for electron capture by proton or deuteron. The proton field oscillations can be amplified by shining a laser light on the palladium surface, which can enhance the production of neutrons that in turn catalyse other reactions.

The neutron, n, can fuse with other nuclei in transmutation reactions. Lithium (Li) is present in the electrolyte. A Li ion near to the hydride (electrode surface) could initiate a chain of reactions as follows:

                        ⁶Li₃  + n  →  ⁷Li₃

                        ⁷Li₃ + n  →  ⁸Li₃

                        ⁸Li₃ →  ⁸Be₄  + e^- (electron) +v (neutrino)

                        ⁸Be_{4 →}  ⁴He₂  +  ⁴He₂

                                                            Q ~ 26.9 MeV

A large amount of energy, 26.9 MeV is generated by this chain of reactions.

Having produced ⁴He₂, further neutrons may react to build heavy helium isotopes, and regenerate Li as follows.

                        ⁴He₂  + n  →  ⁵He₂

                        ⁵He₂  + n  →  ⁶He₂

                        ⁶He₂   →  ⁶Li₃  + e^-  + v

                                                            Q ~2.95MeV

Other possibilities include direct lithium reactions

                        ⁶Li₃  + n  →  ⁴He₂  +  ³H₁

                        ³H₁   →  ³He₂  + e^-  + v

                                                            Q ~ 4.29 MeV

These examples show that a final product, such as ⁴He_2, does not necessarily constitute evidence for the direct fusion of two deuterons, which requires tunnelling through a high Coulomb barrier (see above). More importantly, final products such as helium-3 and tritium are also possible, as have been detected in many experiments.

Widom and Larsen are latecomers to the cold fusion field, and it is not clear to what extent their theory is accepted. I find it quite convincing especially for the low energy transmutation of elements [2], though it doesn’t necessarily exclude other mechanisms that depend equally on quantum coherence.

Lochons

Krit Prasad Sinha and Andrew Meulenberg at the Indian Institute of Science Banagalore, India, propose the formation of deuteride or hydride (D^- or H^-) ions due to interactions of the deuterium or hydrogen with the phonon vibrations of the host lattice. ‘Local charged bosons’ (lochons) or local electron pairs can form on D⁺ to give D^- [5-7].

At the same time, the collective motion of the deuterons driven by the phonons can introduce ‘breathing’ modes in the Pd lattice. If these breathing modes are resonant with the deuteron motion, they enhance deuteron migration and the rapid refilling and regeneration of the active sites. If the resonant vibration is anti-phase, the Pd atoms could move apart as adjacent deuterons come together, thus allowing direct collision of the deuterons while an electron cloud helps screen the repulsion due to the deuterons’ positive charges.

The formation of D^- reverses the normal electrical repulsion between D⁺ ions, as D^- and D⁺ can attract each other. The D⁺D^- equilibrium positions in the lattice are much closer together than in free molecular D₂ because of the increased effective electron mass from phonon interaction, reducing the electron distribution size into the sub-nanometre range, and therefore the point at which the attraction begins to diminish. The paired D⁺D^- system has a much reduced zero-force distance (~2 nm) relative to that of a D₂ molecule (~7 nm). All that conspires to increase the probability of fusion.

The D^- and D⁺ fuse to form ⁴He₂ releasing a large amount of energy, 23.8MeV, which is carried by the alpha particle and the ejected electron pair. Sinha and Meulenberg calculated a reaction rate of about 1.5 x10¹¹ s^-1. This is comparable to the muon-catalysed reactions giving tritium plus proton (T + p) or ³He + n processes (see previous section).

This mechanism too, could be greatly enhanced by laser stimulation.

Selective resonant tunnelling

In November 1989, the Energy Research Advisory Board of the Department of Energy in the United States made five recommendations, among them, to check for excess tritium in the electrolyte  in which cold fusion was supposed to have occurred. However, the amount of tritium generated did not tally with neutron emission. The expected 14 MeV neutron was not detected.

But tritium has appeared since in experiments in Japan, Italy, Russia, USA, Canada, India and China, and according to Li Xing Zhong at Tsinghua University Beijing China, it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for condensed matter nuclear reactions, as it implies a new mechanism operating at low energy: selective resonance tunnelling [8].

A harmonic circuit is able to pick up the specific frequency from the air, but when the signal is weak, the resistance of the circuit must be low. It is the same with resonance tunnelling of the Coulomb barrier. At low energy, the Coulomb barrier is thick and high, hence the incident deuteron wave in the nuclear well is very weak. The amplitude of the weak penetrating wave may be enhanced by the resonance effect when the phase of the reflected wave inside the nuclear well is the same as that of the incident wave. This is resonant tunnelling. The damping must be weak, which is due to the fusion reaction itself, because the deuteron wave function disappears on fusion. Thus, this fusion reaction rate cannot be very fast, or it will kill the resonant effect. On the other hand, the rate cannot be too small, or it will give no fusion. As a result, the life-time of the deuteron wave function cannot be too large or too small. There is an optimum t_life to match a specific Coulomb barrier:

t_life~q²t_flight

q is a very large number for a thick and high Coulomb barrier, of the order of 10²² to 10³¹ or greater here. (1/q² is the ‘Gamow penetration factor’, the kinetic energy of the approaching nuclei relative to the energy of repulsion between the nuclei); t_flight is the flight time inside the nuclear well for the penetrating deuteron, and is of the order of 10^-23s.

The reason there is no neutron emission from resonant tunnelling at low energy is because the lifetime for a neutron emission process is too short at around 10^-23 s. Only the weak interactions (b-decay or k-capture, loss or gain of electron) might possibly provide the lifetime necessary.

Thus, selective resonant tunnelling provides the mechanism for penetrating the Coulomb barrier, and its selectivity explains why there are no neutron or gamma radiations after the resonant tunnelling at low energy.

If weak interaction is the only possible reactions for the resonant tunnelling at low energy, the possible reactions are between a proton p and a deuteron d:

                        p + d   →  T + e⁺ (positron) + n_e

                        p + d       →        T  + n_e

                        k capture

Usually the positron decay is faster than k-capture, the capture of an electron. In the case of resonant tunnelling, positron decay is too fast to meet the matching condition, so only k-capture is possible. This is consistent with experimental results. The annihilation of positron would produce 0.511MeV gamma radiation. But this is not observed in any tritium production experiments. The hydrophilic nature of the heavy water might explain the contamination by light water in the electrolytic cells, and that would be the source of protons for the resonant tunnelling reactions.

Solid state provides an energy band for deuterons or protons, thereby increasing the possibility of overlap with the resonant tunnelling state. Certain metals (Pd, Ni, Ti etc.) are particularly good because of their ability to absorb hydrogen, thereby filling this energy band to capacity.

ISIS Press Release 18/10/07

From Cold Fusion to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

Evidence for cold fusion accumulates as enthusiasts transform it into a new discipline. Cheap, clean, and safe nuclear energy on the horizon. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

A fully referenced and illustrated version of this article is posted on ISIS members’ website. Details here

An electronic version of this report, or any other ISIS report, with full references, can be sent to you via e-mail for a donation of £3.50. Please e-mail the title of the report to: report@i-sis.org.uk

The fusion that came in from the cold

Nuclear fusion, as conventionally understood, is a process whereby the nuclei of light elements fuse together to form heavier ones. (See Box for a quick primer on atoms and nuclei.)

As conventionally understood, nuclear fusions only take place in our sun and other stars, and produce all the chemical elements starting from the lightest, hydrogen. The fusion of light elements releases enormous amounts of energy, whereas the synthesis of the heaviest elements absorbs so much energy that it only take place in supernova explosions [1].

It takes a lot of energy to force even the lightest nuclei to fuse. This is because all nuclei have a positive charge due to their protons, and as like charges repel, nuclei strongly resist being too close together. However, should they get beyond this Coulomb barrier, a strong nuclear attractive force will take over and cause the nuclei to fuse. This can be achieved by accelerating the nuclei to very high speeds, i.e., heated to ‘thermonuclear’ temperatures in excess of 10⁶ K. Only then would the nuclei can get close enough to fuse. Once the fusion reaction starts, it generates so much excess heat that it becomes a sustained chain reaction. The hydrogen bomb is an uncontrolled fusion chain reaction.

The deuterium-tritium fusion reaction is currently considered the most promising for producing clean nuclear energy. It produces helium and a neutron, together with 17.6 MeV (megaelectron volts) of energy.

²H₁ + ³H₁   →     ⁴He₁ (3.5MeV) + n (14.1MeV)

However,  there has been no success as yet in producing a workable design for a hot fusion reactor that is safe and controllable.

In 1989, Martin Fleishmann at the University of Southampton in the UK and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah Salt Lake City in the United States published a preliminary note claiming that atomic nuclei could be made to fuse at ordinary temperatures, with the release of considerable ‘excess energy’, i.e., energy in excess of input and much more than could be accounted for by ordinary chemical reactions [2].

A barrage of disbelief and derision greeted their publication, as it was tantamount to claiming that nuclear reactions similar to those that created the hydrogen bomb could be made to happen on an ordinary lab bench, with nothing more sophisticated than passing current through metal electrodes immersed in some salt solutions.

“Cold fusion” has had such a bad press over the past 18 years that I heard of one woman referring to having sex with her estranged husband in those terms.

But a small international community of scientists became impressed, especially when Fleischmann and Pons published more substantial results in 1990 [3], documenting the accuracy of their measurements and answering many of the criticisms made against their preliminary findings published the year before.

These cold fusion enthusiasts managed to keep the research going with small sporadic funding from their governments or private investors. They held well over a dozen international conferences, and in 2004 renamed their subject more appropriately, “Condensed Matter Nuclear Science” [4] in recognition of the important feature that atomic nuclei trapped in condensed matter can react at far lower temperatures than the usual thermonuclear reactions taking place by random collisions of highly energetic nuclei.

At the beginning of 2007, The Royal Society of Chemistry put “cold fusion back on the menu” in a report with that title [5]. There was an invited symposium focusing on cold fusion - also referred to as low energy nuclear reactions - at the American Chemical Society (ACS) 2007 Conference in Chicago. This was the first such symposium that anyone could remember. The programme chair of the ACS’ division of environmental chemistry felt that with the world facing an energy crisis, it was worth exploring all possibilities.

More significantly, a lot of evidence has accumulated to vindicate Fleishmann and Pons’ cold fusion claim, the latest coming from the US Space and Naval Warfare Systems Centre  (SPAWAR) in San Diego California.

Fleishmann and Pons packed deuterium into a palladium lattice by electrolysis of heavy water. The palladium electrode absorbed a lot of deuterium and the nuclei fused together, generating energy far in excess (about 1 000 fold) of any ordinary electrochemical reactions.

The SPAWAR researchers deposited palladium and deuterium together onto an electrode and speeded up the fusion process with an external electric field (parallel to the electrode surface). And using a plastic detector placed next to the electrode, the expected products of the nuclear reactions were identified [6].

The implications of cold fusion are enormous. It means that a cheap, much safer and controllable source of nuclear energy is on the horizon. Furthermore, it may be possible to use the same kinds of low energy nuclear reactions to transform existing hazardous radioactive nuclear wastes into more stable, non-radioactive elements.

The Fleishman-Pons reactions

The Fleishman-Pons reactor is a simple electrolytic cell enclosed in a Dewar flask (a sophisticated thermos flask, an insulated container having a double wall with a vacuum between the walls and silvered surfaces facing the vacuum), which enabled them to make accurate measurements of the rates of heat generation as light or heavy water is split by electrolysis [3]. Light water is ordinary H₂O, while heavy water is deuterium oxide, D₂O, deuterium being an isotope of hydrogen with the same atomic number and twice the atomic mass.

In the electrolytic cell, palladium (Pd) was the cathode and platinum the anode. The electrolyte solution contained lithium salts dissolved either in light or heavy water. When electric current is passed through the electrolyte, the water splits into hydrogen/deuterium at the cathode and oxygen at the anode. Pd is used because it absorbs hydrogen/deuterium avidly, thus bringing the atoms close together in its lattice (regularly spaced arrangement of atoms in the solid state).

Blank experiments gave a slightly negative rate of heat generation, on account of heat loss due to evaporation and so on. By contrast, the electrolysis of heavy water resulted in a positive excess rate of heat generation, this rate increasing markedly with current density I, at least as a function of I², reaching 100 Watt cm^-3 at about 1A cm^-2.

Prolonged polarization of the palladium electrode in heavy water also resulted in bursts of high rates of heat generation, with the output energy exceeding the input by factors of 40 or more during these bursts.

The total specific energy output during the bursts as well as the total specific energy output of fully charged electrodes subjected to prolonged polarization was 5 – 50 MJ cm^-3 (of electrode volume), and is 100 to 1 000 times the heat of ordinary chemical reactions.

But what exactly were the reactions?

One major factor contributing to the initial scepticism against nuclear reactions was that the excess energy released was not due to the established thermonuclear fusion reactions, which result in a tritium plus a hydrogen, or a helium plus a neutron. These reactions and the energies of the products are as follows:

²D₁ + ²D₁  →  ³T₁ (1.01 MeV) + ¹H₁ (3.02MeV)

²D₁ + ²D₁  →  ³He₂ (0.81 MeV) + n (2.45MeV)

Although low levels of tritium and, possibly, of neutrons were detected, the amounts could not account for most of the excess heat generated. (Nevertheless, some investigations have been more successful in finding tritium, which suggests that more than one reaction might have occurred.) 

The researchers experimented with different dimensions of electrodes and currents and recorded their results. The highest excess power generation achieved was 105 W cm^-3 with the 0.1cm (thinnest) x 1.25 (shortest) palladium rod electrode run at 1.024 A cm^-2, and it happened at about 1 500h after the start of the experiment.

The excess heat generated tended to go up exponentially with the current. There was a steady rate that appeared to increase slowly with time, with bursts of very high rates superimposed on the slowly increasing steady state.  The bursts occurred at unpredictable times and were of unpredictable duration. Following such bursts, the excess heat production returned to a baseline, which could be higher than that prior to the initiation of the burst.

The heat produced was so great that the electrolytic cells were frequently driven to boiling point, when the rate of heat production just became extremely large. It was not possible to make a quantitative estimate of the heat as the cells and instrumentation were unsuitable for making estimates under those conditions. Also, Fleishman and Pons adopted a policy of discontinuing the experiments (or at least reducing the current density) whenever the water started to boil. At such times, the palladium electrode also started to dissolve, which generated still more heat. They decided to avoid such conditions for fear of uncontrollable energy releases. These bursts of rapid increases of temperature were accompanied by marked increases in the rate of tritium production, suggesting that the nuclear reaction(s) occurring were different from those in the steady state.

Indeed, tritium production has been observed by many other labs since, and is considered by some to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence for condensed matter nuclear science, as it suggests an entirely new mechanism whereby nuclear reactions could occur at low temperatures (see How Cold Fusion Works, SiS 36).

Fleishman and Pons concluded in their 1990 paper co-authored with other cold fusion enthusiasts [3]: “It is our view that there can be little doubt that one must invoke nuclear processes to account for the magnitudes of the enthalpy [heat] releases.”

Fleishmann and Pons’ evidence for nuclear reactions was indirect, and depended on the excess heat generated that could not be explained by known ordinary physical or chemical process. No definitive nuclear products had been identified, and at the time, other investigators often had difficulty reproducing the results.

Since then, substantial progress has been made in the reproducibility of excess heat generation and in measuring nuclear products. The SPAWAR researchers are among the major groups that have carried out such experiments successfully.

The SPAWAR reactions

The research team led by Stanislaw Spzak and Pamela Mosier-Boss at SPAWAR used a modified procedure in which palladium and deuterium were deposited together on a cathode consisting of a thin metal film [6]. In 1995, they first found indications of nuclear activity when the electrolytic cell emitted X-rays with a broad energy distribution, and occasionally with well identifiable peaks. Tritium was detected sporadically and often at low rates. Nevertheless, there were active periods that persisted for days, with tritium produced at approximately 6 x 10³ atoms/s.

Ten years later in 2005, they obtained further evidence of nuclear activity: heat generation, hot spots, mini-explosions (see Fig. 1), radiation, and tritium production; more importantly, they discovered that by placing the electrolytic cell in an external electrostatic field, the reaction(s) could be much speeded up, and new elements produced, among them Al, Si, and Mg (see Transmutation, the Alchemists' Dream Come True? SiS 36).

Figure 1. Infrared camera image of the cathode in an active electrolytic cell

The central red area with yellow and green borders is the hot cathode surrounded by cooler electrolyte solution; the white spots on the cathode are hot spots with temperatures off the top end of the scale (bottom of image); these hotspots are very dynamic flashing on and off from different parts of the electrode surface as can be seen in the video recording [7, 8].

In their latest report [6], Spzak and coworkers present direct evidence of low-energy nuclear reactions in the Pd lattice and the emission of charged particles in amounts far greater than the background level. The density of tracks registered by the CR-39 detector, a simple piece of plastic placed next to the cathode, was “of a magnitude that provided undisputable evidence of their nuclear origin.”

Under normal conditions when the cell operation is controlled by the cell current and temperature, the nuclear products consisted of X- and g-rays, tritium, and excess heat. However, when the operating cell was placed in an external electric field, the reaction products included the formation of “new elements” as well as the emission of charged particles such as p⁺ (protons) and a²⁺ (alpha particles consisting of two protons and two neutrons).

Tracks can be recorded after only 1 h of exposure. The researchers suggest that ‘coherent domains’ are formed in the cathode shortly after activation by the external electric field, and these coherent domains correspond to the hotspots of nuclear reactions (see Fig. 1).

Although the nature of the nuclear reaction(s) is still unclear, the emission of soft X-rays indicates that electron capture is occurring. The electron may be captured by a nucleus X, where X may be the deuteron (deuterium ion) D⁺, a doubly charged deuteron D²⁺, a lithium ion Li⁺ (from the electrolyte) etc, with a neutrino n escaping the reaction volume (see How Cold Fusion Works, SiS 36).

 ^A(X)_z + e^-   → ^A(X)_z-1  + n

The SPAWAR experiments are by no means the only replication of the Fleishman-Pons effect in the sense of nuclear reactions occurring in an electrolytic cell. The most notable feature about the effect is the heterogeneity of reactions, and the variety of conditions under which they could happen.

Excess heat and helium

One major product of cold fusion experiments involving deuterium appears to be helium, or helium-4, the usual abundant isotope. This was confirmed in three different sets of experiments conducted in another US Navy laboratory (NAWCWD) at China Lake, California between 1990 and 1994, funded by the Office of Naval Research [9]. There was a correlation between excess heat produced and the excess helium-4 measured in 18 out of 21 experiments.  In experiments where no excess heat was generated, 12 out of 12 also produced no helium-4. This was a total of 30 out of 33 experiments that agreed with the hypothesis that the excess heat was correlated with producing helium-4. The measured rate of helium-4 production was always in the appropriate range of 10¹⁰ to 10¹² atoms per second per Watt, in accordance with the reaction:

 ²D₁ + ²D₁   →  ⁴He₂  + 23.8 MeV

When H₂O was substituted for D₂O, neither excess heat nor helium-4 was generated. However, the excess heat generated in the China Lake experiments was modest, and did not exceed 30 percent of input.

Several other groups have confirmed the production of helium-4 correlated with excess heat. But the most spectacular results came from the experiments of Yoshiaki Arata and Yue-Chang Zhang at Osaka University, Japan [10].

Instead of a solid palladium cathode, Arata and Zhang used powdered palladium, or palladium black, which greatly increased the absorption surface area for deuterium. The palladium black was placed inside a container kept under a vacuum at constant temperature for 2-3 days before deuterium or hydrogen gas was injected at a constant low flow rate until the powdered palladium was fully saturated with the deuterium/hydrogen.

Using palladium black with extremely small particle size (15 to 40 nm), a high fusion rate was obtained, amounting to >10^{15 4}He₂ atoms in the closed inner space of the cathode. In contrast, no ⁴He₂ (or excess heat) was ever generated when hydrogen was used instead of deuterium, or when bulk palladium was used.

Arata and Zhang also developed other materials that better absorbed H₂/D₂. In one experiment, Pd particles of 5 nm were embedded inside a matrix of ZrO₂. ZrO₂ on its own does not absorb H₂ or D₂, but ZrO₂-Pd easily absorbed about 3 D atoms per host Pd atom. Arata and Zhang proposed that the D atoms absorbed are effectively solidified as an ultrahigh density deuterium lump inside each octahedral space within the unit cell of the Pd host lattice. These “pycnodeuterium” (heavy deuterium) are dispersed to form a metallic deuterium lattice with body-centred cuboctahedron structure (see Fig. 2) [11].

Figure 2. Proposed structure of pycnodeuterium in palladium lattice. (a) lump of deuterium atoms in an octahedral site between palladium atoms in host lattice, (b) lump of pycnodeuterium, (c) metallic deuterium lattice of pycnodeuterium (filled circles) forming a body-centred cuboctahedron structure

In a solid ‘nuclear fusion reactor’ using pycnodeuterium as fuel, the fuel sample was kept in an evacuated quartz glass cylinder chamber for two days at 130 C. After that, D₂ gas was injected until pressure built up to 10 atm. Laser light was then applied as a repeated rectangular pulse (20 pulse per second for 10 seconds) with pulse width of 2ms (height of 7.5Kwatt, and pulse energy of 15J/pulse).

Electron microscope pictures showed that after the ‘laser welding’ the ZrO₂ matrix and nano-Pd particles had melted, creating smooth spherical shapes as consistent with intense heat from nuclear reactions.

How well did the cold fusion reactor compare with hot fusion? It so happened that in 2002, laser stimulation had been used in hot fusion. With an extremely high power pulse of 10¹⁹ watt/50 picosecond (10^-12s) applied to a plasma (hot ionised gas) at a temperature of 10⁴ eV, a maximum of 10¹³ atoms of ⁴He₂ were generated per pulse.

In contrast, the laser welding nuclear fusion reactor of Arata and Zhang used 300 watts, and generated 10¹⁹ to 10^{20 4}He₂ atoms per 10 seconds period of laser stimulation. The researchers own a patent on their reactor.  At the latest International Conference on Cold Fusion which took place between 25 June and 1 July 2007, at Sochi, Russia, at least two different research groups reported replication of Arata and Zhang’s results using a variant of the procedure that involved loading D₂ gas into nano-scale palladium black [12]. Watch this space.

Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.

The Hutchison Effect -- An Explanation
Casimir Force
You're on Your Own When You Violate the Laws of Physics (and Don’t Take Notes)

First Responder Statements