• Li–Pd–Rh-D2O electrochemistry experiments at elevated voltage

    Carl Gotzmer, Louis F. DeChiaro, Kenneth Conley, Marc Litz, Marshall Millett, Jesse Ewing, Lawrence P. Forsley, Karen J. Long, William A. Wichart, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss, John Sullivan, Efrem Perry, Jr., and Oliver M. Barham


    NSWC Indian Head Division, Indian Head, Maryland 20640, USA

    NSWC Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, Virginia 22448, USA

    Energetics Technology Center, Indian Head, Maryland 20640, USA

    Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, Maryland 20783, USA

    U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland 21402, USA

    JWK Corporation, Annandale, Virginia 22003, USA

    Fibretek Incorporated, Herndon, Virginia 20171, USA

    Barham Scientific LLC, Washington, DC 20017, USA

    Submitted: 30 April 2023, Accepted: 1 November 2023

    "In 2013, the U.S. Navy disclosed an electrochemistry procedure intended to produce MeV-energy nuclear particles, based on eV-energy

    electrical inputs, which may be indicative of a new scientific phenomenon. This work is based on the 2013 disclosure and shows initial

    evidence validating the prior claims of nuclear particle generation. Additionally, several variations on the 2013 electrochemical recipe are

    made in order to find a highly repeatable recipe for future replications by other teams. The experiments described here produced dense

    collections of tracks in solid-state nuclear track detectors, radio frequency (RF) emissions, and anomalous heat flux, which are indicative of

    potential nuclear, or unusual chemical, reactions. Experimental results include tracks in solid-state nuclear track detectors similar in size to

    tracks produced by 4.7 MeV alpha particles on identical detectors exposed to radioactive Th-230; RF pulses up to 6 dB above the noise floor,

    which indicate that these signals were likely not background noise and not caused by known chemical reactions; and heat flux of 10 s of kJ,

    measured to 6σ significance, over and above input electrical energy, indicative of unknown exothermic reactions. Six out of six nuclear track

    detectors, utilized in experiments and interrogated for tracks post-experiment, produced positive results that our team attributes to thousands

    of individual particle impacts in dense clusters, likely with energies between 0.1 and 20 MeV. Similar nuclear particle, thermal, and RF results

    have separately appeared in prior reports, but in this work, all three categories of anomalous behavior are reported. Results indicate that the

    2013 procedure may be a useful guide toward a set of highly repeatable reference experiments, showing initial but not overwhelming evidence

    of a new scientific phenomenon. Repeatable recipes are shared so that other groups may replicate and extend the present work."

  • Advancements of intense terahertz field focusing on metallic nanoarchitectures for monitoring hidden interatomic gas-matter interactions

    "With the advancements of nanotechnology, innovative photonic designs coupled with

    the functional materials provide a unique way to acquire, share, and respond effectively

    to information. We found that the simple deposition of a 30 nm-thick palladium

    nanofilm on a terahertz metasurface chip with a 14 nm-wide effective nanogap of

    asymmetric materials and geometries allows the tracking of both interatomic and

    interfacial gas–matter interactions, including gas adsorption, hydrogenation (or

    dehydrogenation), metal phase changes, and unique water-forming reactions.

    Combinatorial analyses by simulation and experimental measurements demonstrated our

    distinct nanostructures, which led to significant light-matter interactions and

    corresponding terahertz absorption in a real-time, highly repeatable, and reliable manner.

    The complex lattice dynamics and intrinsic properties of metals influenced by hydrogen

    gas exposure were also thoroughly examined using systematically controlled ternary gas

    mixture devices that mimic normal temperature and pressure."

  • I uploaded an early paper by Claytor:

    Claytor, T.N., et al. Tritium and neutron measurements of a solid state cell. in NSF/EPRI Workshop on Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Materials. 1989. Washington, DC.


    A solid state 'cold fusion' cell was constructed to test for nonequilibrium D-D fusion in a solid. The stimulus for the design was the hypothesis that the electrochemical surface layer in the Pons -Fleischmann cell could be replaced with a metal- insulator-semiconductor (MIS) barrier. Cells were constructed of alternating layers of palladium and silicon powders pressed into a ceramic form and exposed to deuterium gas at 110 psia , resulting in a D/Pd ratio of 0.7. Pulses of current were passed through the cells to populate nonequilibrium states at the MIS barriers. One cell showed neutron activity and had a large amount of tritium. Other cells have produced tritium at a low rate consistent with neutron emission at or below the threshold of observability. The branching ratio for n/p was about 3 x 10^-9 in all the experiments where a substantial amount of tritium has been found."

    One of the cells produced a substantial amount of tritium:

    ". . . [T]ritium analysis showed that cell 2 had 1300 times the fill gas concentration of tritium, amounting to 3.5 x 10^15 atoms of tritium. This level, although substantially above background, is equivalent to only 65 ppb."

    The NSF/EPRI Workshop is described here:

    These experiments are also described here:

    Several other experiments produced large amounts of tritium, such as Bockris, Storms and Will. See:

    Skeptics ignore the tritium because it is compelling proof that cold fusion is a nuclear reaction. They pretend that heat is not compelling, even though it exceeds the limits of chemistry thousands of times over. They want to claim that cold fusion does not produce clear evidence of a nuclear reaction, even though anyone can see that it does. They mean it does not produce the evidence they want to see. They are looking for proof that cold fusion is actually plasma fusion, and it produces a deadly flux of neutrons and no significant heat. They want that because it fits their theories and -- more importantly -- because it means cold fusion has no practical use, and does not threaten plasma fusion funding. Messinger correctly described the infuriating, know-nothing attitude of the skeptics at ARPA-E and elsewhere:

    "The hypothesis is that excess heat is caused by the release of nuclear binding energy through low-energy nuclear reactions. But, as I have written before, and ARPA-E stressed in their funding opportunity announcement, such kind of evidence for LENR is insufficient due to the ambiguous nature of heat . . ."

    I have uploaded a number of new papers lately:

    Most recent papers

  • Quote

    In 2005, inventor and materials scientist B. Naranjo et al. showed that gently heating a pyroelectric crystal of lithium tantalate in a deuterated atmosphere can generate fusion on a desktop (Figure 3)[Naranjo 2005]. While this toaster-sized device cannot function as a nuclear fusion machine at room temperature (since it does not support a self-sustaining thermonuclear reaction), the team saw its scope to treat cancer and power spacecrafts.

    During its mechanism-of-action, the electrostatic field of the crystal in a deuterated environment can generate and accelerate a deuteron beam, that strikes a deuterated target to produce large-scale neutron flux for applications in a simple, palm-sized neutron generator. Since the commonly available forms of radiation therapy tend to blast healthy cells alongside cancerous cells, even at present, the applications in life sciences are relatively direct. This invention from the archives offers a mechanism for precision radiation oncology of cancer cells with potential for interventional radiotherapy at a targeted tumor area, in a potentially biocompatible and piezo-compatible contraption that can be turned on and off at will.



    While progress in fusion research continues with magnetic and inertial confinement, alternative approaches--such as Coulomb explosions of deuterium clusters and ultrafast laser-plasma interactions--also provide insight into basic processes and technological applications. However, attempts to produce fusion in a room temperature solid-state setting, including 'cold' fusion and 'bubble' fusion, have met with deep scepticism. Here we report that gently heating a pyroelectric crystal in a deuterated atmosphere can generate fusion under desktop conditions. The electrostatic field of the crystal is used to generate and accelerate a deuteron beam (> 100 keV and >4 nA), which, upon striking a deuterated target, produces a neutron flux over 400 times the background level. The presence of neutrons from the reaction D + D --> 3He (820 keV) + n (2.45 MeV) within the target is confirmed by pulse shape analysis and proton recoil spectroscopy. As further evidence for this fusion reaction, we use a novel time-of-flight technique to demonstrate the delayed coincidence between the outgoing alpha-particle and the neutron. Although the reported fusion is not useful in the power-producing sense, we anticipate that the system will find application as a simple palm-sized neutron generator.

    Observation of nuclear fusion driven by a pyroelectric crystal - PubMed
    While progress in fusion research continues with magnetic and inertial confinement, alternative approaches--such as Coulomb explosions of deuterium clusters…

    This work would seem to rhyme quite nicely with Nasa's LCF work.

    Edited once, last by orsova ().

  • Posting here, for its "setting the historical record straight" value, the paper from S. B, Krivit and M. H. Miles that is derived from the work presented by S.B. Krivit at ICCF 25th. It was published in the Journal of Electrochemistry (Chinese Journal).


    Confirmation of Anomalous-Heat Report

    Steven B. Krivit and Melvin H. Miles


    Abstract: This study identifies, for the first time, critical calculation errors made by Nathan Lewis and his co-authors, in their study presented May 1, 1989, at the American Physical Society meeting in Baltimore, Maryland. Lewis et al. analysed calorimetrically measured heat results in nine experiments reported by Martin Fleischmann and his co-authors. According to the Lewis et al. analysis, each of the experiments, where calculated for no recombination, showed anomalous power losses. When we used the same raw data, correct calculations indicate that each experiment showed anomalous power gains. As such, these data suggest the possibility of a new, energy-producing physical phenomenon.

  • Yang-Koldamasov device revisited [2019]

    "A sample of unadditized diesel fuel was passed through an optically accessible model diesel injector return valve, which consisted of two successive nozzles connected to an intermediate fuel gallery. The first nozzle was cylindrical, while the second nozzle was stepped. The fuel was observed to produce a multi-phase, cavitating flow and a luminous blue-violet emission at the entrance to the second nozzle hole. The flow in the upstream intermediate fuel gallery and the first nozzle hole remained single-phase. Spectral analysis of the luminous emission revealed a spectrum with thermal features containing broad spectral lines and peaks at 358, 389, 405, 412, 430 and 475 nm, suggesting that the emission was dominated by π*→π transitions in the alkylated mono-, di-, and tri-aromatics, with additional spectral contributions from CH, C2, C3 and hydrogen (H)."

  • Шаровая молния и её продукты. Гравиэлектромагнитный диполь. Глава 1. Атмосферная шаровая молния (Александр Александрович Шадрин)
    Шаровая молния и её продукты. Гравиэлектромагнитный диполь. Глава 1. Атмосферная шаровая молния (Александр Александрович Шадрин) Перейдите на сайт, чтобы…

  • Someone suggested I upload papers about the controversies in cold fusion, and papers by skeptics. So I uploaded some papers about this. I mentioned these two already:

    Editorials from the early history of cold fusion, in New York Times and others. 1989.

    APS, Information from the APS meeting in Baltimore, May 1-2, 1989. 1989.

    I added --

    Two papers that were published together in New Scientist magazine:

    Close, F., Cold Fusion I: The Discovery That Never Was. New Scientist, 1991. 1752: p. 46.
    Bockris, J., Cold fusion II: The Story Continues. New Scientist, 1991. 1752: p. 50.

    Hoffman, N.J., Book Review BAD SCIENCE The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion. Fusion Technol., 1994. 25: p. 225.

    Five papers about the controversy between Jones and Miles, which are together in one file:

    The essence of the dispute was summarized by Miles in his second response:

    "My journal publications criticized by Jones and Hansen report only experimental results; hence, theoretical arguments are not germane to this debate. In science, theory guides but experiments decide."

    Miles said some unkind things about Jones, such as:

    "More serious errors by S. E. Jones et al. are found in their presentation of the electrochemical aspects of the cell operation. In particular, they stated that the exchange current density depends on the electrode surface area. The exchange current density always has dimensions of A/m2 or similar units; hence, it cannot depend on the electrode surface area. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an exchange current density for their reaction 4 in ref 8. This cell reaction consists of the oxidation of hydrogen at the anode and the reduction of oxygen at the cathode; hence, there are two distinctly different exchange current densities associated with the cell reaction."

    (Jones said that current density depends on the surface area. That is a geometry error. Current density is a function of surface area. It is as if Jones said that mass density varies with volume. Or that joules per gram of fuel depend on how many grams you have.)

    Skeptics wrote many papers attempting to show theoretical reasons why cold fusion is wrong. But there are only a few papers by skeptics that attempt to find actual experimental errors. For a while I thought that Morrison versus Fleischmann was the only one that was formally published in a journal:

    I knew there was a dispute between Jones and Miles. I have seen letters between them. But I forgot that they both published journal papers about this. So I should say that both Morrison and Jones attempted to find errors.

    So did Shanahan. That is rather strange, and more like a theoretical objection than an experimental one. As I recall, he does not point to any specific experiment that has the problems he describes.

    As always the most recent uploads are listed here:

  • The paper

    When you first posted that paper last month on another thread, you probably did not know but I copied it above on this thread and also on the NASA thread. I only do that if I consider it important. I think, as do you, this story deserves much more scrutiny than it has received from the community.

    Thanks as always. No one is better at digging up stuff than you.

  • Here are two positive results that I did not recall:

    Yun, K.S., et al., Calorimetric observation of heat production during electrolysis of 0.1 M LiOD + D2O solution. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 306: p. 279.

    Qi, B.-J., et al., Anomalous heat production in hydrogen-loaded metals: Possible nuclear reactions occurring at normal temperature. Accuiti Science & Engineering, 2015.

  • Thanks for your sharing.

    Now these 2 works are quite differents.

    The first one relating one more electrolysis experiment, when the second one followed the "Rossi's/Parkhomov" way, good or bad.

    This is the Shongsheng work in lithium hydrides.

    This second one would have deserved to be extended.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.