Mainstream journalism is becoming a little more friendly toward cold fusion. So, various people have suggested we try to publish a letter or an op-ed in a major newspaper. Here is a draft we have come up with. We hope to publish this with as many signatures as we can muster, especially signatures from prominent scientists.
Appeal version 2 Notes This is either a letter to the editor or an op-ed. An op-ed would be better. I do not think a newspaper would want to publish this version with all the endnotes. They can be deleted. They can appear in the Extended Online Version. I want to avoid controversy and rancor. The tone should be upbeat. I hope everyone in the field agrees with the technical assertions in this document. Paragraph 4. I could add many more to this list, such as people with university research facilities named after them (Yeager and Arata), but I think this is enough. Ref. [8] is on p. 13-3. The purpose of the Technical Addendum is to make scientists and engineers enthusiastic about cold fusion. Friendly, open minded scientists. Neither the letter nor the Addendum is meant to convince skeptics. That is a waste of time. The Technical Addendum outline lists my reasons for wanting cold fusion. Perhaps readers here have other reasons, or a more technical approach that you think will appeal to scientists. Does anyone know whether any Japanese government agency is presently funding cold fusion? If so, is there a website or online reference to it? - Jed DOCUMENT We urgently need your help! A new source of fusion energy has been discovered which could bring an end to burning fossil fuels and produce pollution-free, carbon-free energy in unlimited amounts. We refer to cold fusion (the Fleischmann-Pons effect). This was announced in 1989. [1] It caused great controversy at first. By late 1990 the discovery was widely replicated in dozens of major laboratories, and many positive results were published in major scientific journals. The results showed that cold fusion is a real nuclear effect, and that it could become a practical source of energy. Unfortunately, some early attempts to replicate failed, and many scientists jumped to the conclusion that the effect is not real. Electrochemist Prof. Heinz Gerischer, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin, described this misunderstanding in 1991: [2, 3] “In spite of my earlier conclusion, — and that of the majority of scientists, — that the phenomena reported by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 depended either on measurement errors or were of chemical origin, there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys.” Hundreds of other distinguished scientists replicated the experiment and published similar positive assessments. These included the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, [4] the author of the leading textbook on electrochemistry, [5, 6] a Fellow of the China Lake Naval laboratory, [7] the designer of the Tritium Systems Test Assembly at Los Alamos, [8] and many, if not most, of the world’s top electrochemists. [9] Cold fusion is still a laboratory scale phenomenon. It is not yet well understood, so it cannot be fully controlled. If we learn to control it, we can probably scale it up. It has achieved power levels of 100 W lasting for 30 days continuously, at temperatures and power densities comparable to a fission reactor core. [10] Cold fusion produces thousands of times more energy than any chemical reaction, with no chemical fuel. It produces no carbon dioxide, and unlike nuclear power plants or plasma fusion tokamak reactors, no dangerous radiation or radioactive waste. There is enough cold fusion fuel on earth to power civilization for billions of years. In short, cold fusion could halt global warming, and give everyone access to as much clean energy as they need, while ending our use of oil and fossil fuel. Even better, cold fusion is closer to becoming a practical source of energy than plasma fusion tokamaks or advanced fission, and it is far cheaper and safer than these alternatives. A great deal of technical progress has been made since 1989, and mainstream acceptance is growing. The DoE is now funding cold fusion research, [11] and so are the government energy research agencies in the EU [12] and Japan. NASA, the U.S. Army and Navy researchers announced important breakthroughs this summer. [13-15] Japan’s largest boiler manufacturer hopes to have prototype cold fusion reactors in a few years. [16] But DoE funding is only $10 million per year. Much more is needed if we are going to make rapid progress, to end the energy crisis and stop global warming. Many enthusiastic young researchers want to begin research in this field. We should fund them, and encourage them. There is still lingering opposition to the research, and ignorance of its importance, because of the unfortunate misunderstandings in 1989. We must put that behind us. We need scientists and science-literate members of the public to make the case for cold fusion, and to urge legislators and decision makers to support research. It is not certain that cold fusion can be made practical, but it is likely. The cost of doing this would be trivial, and the benefits will be immeasurable. See: The Online Extended Version of this letter [URL], which includes references to the scientific literature and more technical detail. McKubre, M.C.H., Cold Fusion (LENR) One Perspective on the State of the Science. [URL] Hagelstein, P.L., et al., New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides. [URL] This paper includes 130 references. LENR-CANR.org, a library of 1,900 scientific papers on cold fusion [Signatures] EXTENDED ONLINE VERSION Technical Addendum Outline Cold fusion was widely replicated, often at high signal to noise ratios. Examples. Reasons to believe cold fusion is real: heat, helium, tritium (Storms list). In a few experiments, cold fusion has achieved power density comparable to a fission reactor core. (Specific numbers). This proves it is possible to make cold fusion into a practical source of energy. It is compact. It does not need shielding. It does not need a fuel distribution network; all of the fuel can be added during manufacturing. This makes it ideal for distributed generation and vehicle propulsion. [Cite NASA paper about aircraft?] The materials used in cold fusion cells are not expensive or rare. Temperatures and power density are high enough that conventional heat engines can be used with it. These engines will be optimized for low cost because the fuel is thousands of times cheaper than fossil fuel. Therefore, the cost of electricity, mechanical power, and vehicle propulsion will be roughly 20 times less than fossil fuel, wind, solar, or nuclear power. References 1. Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, *Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium.* J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. *261*: p. 301 and errata in Vol. 263 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanelectroche.pdf. 2. Gerischer, H., *Memorandum on the Present State of Knowledge on Cold Fusion*, J. Bockris, Editor. 1991 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf. 3. Gerischer, H. *Is Cold Fusion a Reality? The Impressions of a Critical Observer*. in *Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion"*. 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SIFthescience.pdf#page=480. 4. Iyengar, P.K., *Preface and Summary*, in *BARC Studies in Cold Fusion*, P.K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan, Editors. 1989, Atomic Energy Commission: Bombay http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IyengarPKprefaceand.pdf. 5. Bockris, J. and A. Reddy, *Volume 1: Modern Electrochemistry, Ionics*. Vol. 1. 2002, New York: Springer. 6. Bockris, J., A. Reddy, and M. Gamboa-Aldeco, *Volume 2: Modern Electrochemistry, Fundamentals of Electrodics*. Vol. 2. 2001, New York: Springer. 7. Miles, M., K.H. Park, and D.E. Stilwell, *Electrochemical calorimetric evidence for cold fusion in the palladium-deuterium system.* J. Electroanal. Chem., 1990. *296*: p. 241. 8. EPRI. *NSF/EPRI Workshop on Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Metals*. 1989. Washington, D.C.: Electric Power Research Institute http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf. 9. Will, F.G., *Groups Reporting Cold Fusion Evidence*. 1990, National Cold Fusion Institute: Salt Lake City, UT http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf. 10. Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. *Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Run at IMRA Europe*. in *Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy*. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf. 11. *U.S. Department of Energy Announces Up to $10 Million to Study Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions*. 2022, ARPA-E, U.S. Department of Energy https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/press-releases/us-department-energy-announces-10-million-study-low-energy-nuclear . 12. *Clean Hydrogen Metal Energy consortium*. 2020, European Union’s Horizon2020 Framework Programme http://www.cleanhme.eu/. 13. Benyo, T. *A Theory for Transmutations Observed as a Result of Deuterium Gas Cycling of a Palladium Silver Alloy*. in *ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit*. 2022. Mountain View, CA: NASA Glenn Research Center, USA. 14. Barrowes, B. *New US Army LENR Replication Efforts: HIVER Co-deposition and Gas Loading*. in *ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit*. 2022. Mountain View, CA: US Army Corps of Engineer, USA. 15. Barham, O. *US Navy HIVER an Active Solid-State Energy Research Program*. in *ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit*. 2022. Mountain View, CA: US Navy NSWC-IHD. 16. Hayashi, M. *Clean Planet: New Future: Inventing an alternative to fire*. in *ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit*. 2022. Mountain View, CA.
