http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/March/22030701.asp

Cold fusion back on the menu

22 March 2007
Most chemists would rather forget all about cold fusion. After the barrage
of criticism dismissing Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann's sensational
1989 claims that nuclei could be forced to fuse and release excess energy at
room temperature, only a small core of researchers has kept the idea from
fading away entirely. 
Yet preparations are under way for an invited symposium focusing on cold
fusion and low-energy nuclear reactions at the American chemical society's
(ACS) 2007 conference in Chicago next week. Isolated presentations have been
scattered around ACS meetings before, and the American physical society
(APS) groups together a number of cold fusion researchers every year, but
the last comparable session was 'so far off I can't remember', according to
cold fusion advocate George Miley, of the University of Illinois, US. Even
Fleischmann himself has a paper at the ACS, though the eighty-year old
chemist will not be attending.   

'I feel there is a strong rebirth of interest in cold fusion,' said Miley.
He and other cold fusion supporters are taking their ACS presence as one
more indication of the subject's growing respectability. Organiser Jan
Marwan said he was very surprised at how easy it was to gain acceptance for
the symposium. But Gopal Coimbatore, program chair of the ACS's division of
environmental chemistry, felt that unless a forum was provided, the subject
might never get discussed; and 'with the world facing an energy crisis, it
is worth exploring all possibilities'.  

The chances of cold fusion meeting that crisis may seem remote, but
enthusiasts point to recent research from the US navy's Space and naval
warfare systems center (Spawar) in San Diego, California. Here, Stanislaw
Szpak and Pamela Mosier-Boss have claimed a ream of evidence for nuclear
reactions occurring in a system similar to the 1989 reports. 

Pons and Fleischmann suggested that electrolysis could pack deuterium nuclei
into a palladium lattice so tightly that they were fusing together; Szpak
and Boss now claim to have speeded up this process by co-depositing
palladium and deuterium onto a thin wire subjected to an electric field.
They have used plastic films - so-called CR-39 detectors - to track charged
particles emerging from their reactions, publishing most recently
in Naturwissenschaften. And, unlike the original 1989 experiments, the
researchers claim their results are easily reproducible, with other groups
reportedly detecting products of nuclear reactions such as alpha particles
and gamma rays. 
  
Acceptance by the scientific community is still the main target for cold
fusion advocates - hence the importance of replication, appearing at major
conferences, and publishing in peer reviewed journals. In this at least,
success seems imminent: Miley says his cold fusion paper is the first to be
accepted to the Journal of Fusion Energy, which normally covers 'hot'
thermonuclear fusion or sonofusion (which uses pulses of sound to rapidly
compress bubbles in liquids). Meanwhile, Scott Chubb, who chaired a cold
fusion session at an APS meeting in March, feels that Physical Review
Letters, one of the top physics journals, may finally start accepting papers
in the field. Avowed critics of cold fusion don't see anything to shout
about, though. Frank Close, of the University of Oxford, UK, says he sees no
renewed interest, 'just the usual suspects recycling'. Indeed, Fleischmann's
ACS report is a re-presentation of research from the 1990s, showing that his
calorimetry measurements were accurate. Bob Park, at the University
of Maryland, US, agrees, but concedes that 'there are some curious reports -
not cold fusion, but people may be seeing some unexpected low-energy nuclear
reactions'. 

But will the flare-up of cold fusion excitement last? Chubb is sure of it,
but Fleischmann himself is less bullish. He approves of the Spawar research,
but, as he told Chemistry World, 'my optimism is tempered by realism'. And
Close's opinion is clear: 'Let's not confuse noise with signal'.
   
Richard Van Noorden


Reply via email to