Cold Fusion
Home Natural Motion Universal Gravitation Cold Fusion Pulsing Thrust ShuttleFactor Challenger Studies STEMnP Oil Spill Disaster

 

 

Home
Natural Motion
Universal Gravitation
Cold Fusion
Pulsing Thrust
ShuttleFactor
Challenger Studies
STEMnP
Oil Spill Disaster

 

To be added:

AntiGravity

Failure Mechanisms

Cosmic Life Line

Sci Study of UFOs

Solo Sapiens

Philosophy of Science

AbuTaha's Cold Fusion Studies 1989, 2009


Cold Fusion - The Heat Mechanism
Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 9., No. 3, p. 345, 1990 (PDF 715KB)

With special thanks to Plenum Press, New York and London, for providing Internet-ready copy of the paper. The Paper can be found on www.springerlink.com with many science and technology publications. This paper was presented at the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Workshop on Cold Fusion in Santa Fe, New Mexico, May 23-25 1989.

"it certainly represents an aspect of 'cold fusion' that I have not seen discussed elsewhere with any authority."
Nature
Editor
July 20, 1989

abstract: The assumption that deuterium, and not palladium, is the fuel in the Pons-Fleischmann experiments1 led to high expectations of cold nuclear fusion. The conversion of mechanical energy to heat was neglected in studying the phenomenon. Considerable strain energy is stored in metals when processed from the ore. The initiation, growth, and propagation of cracks in the bulk disturb the energy balance within the metal. Deuterium induces and propagates cracks in metals and alloys, including palladium. The sudden discharge of fracture energy during crack propagation generates considerable heat. The abundance of deuterium in cracked palladium will not continue the heat generation process. The confident figures-of-merit of cold fusion have been based on the small energy input to the electrolytic cells and do not consider the substantial energy required to process (by melting) the palladium from the ore, or to recycle the cracked electrode samples. In this paper, the work-of-fracture is shown to be the likely mechanism responsible for the excess heat in cold fusion.

4. excess heat content, excess enthalpy: If cracks propagate at all possible locations and in all three directions, then the maximum heat that can be liberated is 27.6 MJ/cm2 or 5530 MJ/cm3. This condition is highly unlikely, but it demonstrates the tremendous potential for heat generation by the fracture of metals.

7. the fuel is palladium, not deuterium: When all the locations susceptible to crack nucleation and propagation in the palladium (or other material) are exhausted, the metal is, theoretically, burnt out. In order for the cold fusion process to continue, the crystallographic structure, required to produce more cracks and more heat, must be restored. The palladium electrodes must then be recycled (by melting) to continue the heat generation process; and the efficiency estimates must take this energy overhead into account- - - And just as combustion ceases when coal is turned to ashes, so the heat generation in cold fusion ceases when palladium is all burnt, or cracked. The abundance of air, in the case of carbon ashes, or deuterium, in the case of the cracked palladium, will not continue, or restart, the burning process.

8. conclusion - The heat mechanism in the Pons-Fleischmann experiments was identified as the fracture work of cracks induced in palladium by deuterium. The work-of-fracture was calculated and shown to correspond to the excess heat measured in the cold fusion experiments. The maximum heat that can be liberated from the process was shown to be considerable, but finite- - - The phenomenon, now popularly known as cold fusion, will find uses for heat storage in special applications, but the process must first be controlled. A similar process, the piezoelectric effect, converts mechanical energy to electrical energy, but only in asymmetrical crystals. Unlike piezoelectric devices, metal-burning devices will store energy in the bulk of a greater variety of metals and alloys for use when needed.

Cold Fusion - Engineering Perspectives
Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 9., No. 4, p. 391, 1990 (PDF 825KB)

With special thanks to Plenum Press, New York and London, for providing Internet-ready copy of the paper. The Paper can be found on www.springerlink.com with many science and technology publications. This paper was presented at the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Workshop on Cold Fusion in Santa Fe, New Mexico, May 23-25 1989.

abstract: - - -In this paper, comparable characteristics of cold fusion and embrittlement are established, relevant aspects of the extensive engineering database on hydrogen and deuterium embrittlement are reviewed, some areas of study and applications of the cold fusion process are identified, and parameters for controlling the ignition and heat release from metals are specified.

1. background: - - -Careful examination of the reported characteristics of cold fusion revealed outstanding similarities to an esoteric engineering subject: hydrogen embrittlement. This led to correlation of important properties of the two phenomena, explanation for the enormous disparity in heat production in cold fusion, and identification of specific parameters to ignite and control the process.

5. the fused and melted electrodes: - - -The sudden release of substantial energy from palladium in the hydrogen environment can be correlated to the explosive crack propagation phenomenon. A comparable scene to the palladium electrode meltdown was seen in titanium, a similar transition metal, electrode in the early 1970s. During the study of surface hydride formation on titanium3 (the same tests in Fig. 1), "In one test run, however, a violent reaction occurred between the titanium alloy and the hydrogen environment immediately following the introduction of hydrogen into the chamber. This reaction continued for approximately 3 min, ejecting material continuously, with a resulting crater. . . ." A photograph of the crater is reproduced from Ref. 3 in Fig. 3.

9. environmental considerations: The enormous heat that can be liberated by the fracture of metals may have a detrimental effect on local and worldwide environments. Massive piles and large storage fields of discarded cars, planes, trains, and other metal structures can be a source of enormous heat in concentrated locale. Such stockpiles were introduced around major cities in the last half century and their heat-generation impact on local and world environment may have gone undetected to date. The seriousness of the problem is demonstrated below.

- - -Approximation of the heat generated from a stockpile of discarded cars indicates that the metal piles may act as small, but invisible, volcanoes- - - Such effects on local weather can be studied by charting temperature variations around major cities from Earth Resources Satellites and other weather systems.

Cold Fusion - The Heat Source
April 30, 1989 (PDF 670KB)

4. the open system - time effect: The validity of the Pons-Fleischmann experiments relies heavily on the assumption that the Pd-D electrolysis cells is a closed system, Fig. 3. Here, heat, or energy, does not flow into or out of the system, and the system is presumed to be independent of the environment. But this is not the case.

Before the palladium electrodes were used in the tests, the sheet, rod and cube Pd samples underwent a series of production steps which included melting, cooling, working, alloying, and other processes. These treatments introduce a variety of effects in the metal, some of which are exhibited only with time- - -

Cold Fusion Flyers - April - May 1989 (PDF 985KB)
DOE and LANL Workshop on Cold Fusion, Santa Fe, NM, May 1989

Just as coal, and not air (oxygen), is the combustion fuel; so is palladium, and not deuterium, the fuel in cold fusion. The abundance of air, in the case of carbon ashes, or deuterium, in cracked palladium, will not produce heat.

Method for Controlling the Properties of Materials (PDF 1.3MB)
Patent Application
, August 17, 1989

A method comprising temperature regulation and heat control during the processing, manufacture, production, operation, or maintenance of materials to improve or control the physical, chemical, mechanical, electrical, metallurgical, magnetic, and thermal properties, whereby the adverse effects of fixed boundaries which are formed by non-regulated thermal gradients in present and previous methods and which severely affect the properties of materials are minimized or controlled... to achieve desirable properties, such as, superconductivity at warmer temperatures, improved semi-conductors, corrosion resistance, superior magnets, and other attractive properties.

On March 23, 1989, the announcement was made that nuclear fusion was possibly attained at room temperature, in what became known as "cold fusion." 

In a paper to the Workshop, Cold Fusion - The Heat Mechanism, the inventor identified the work-of-fracture of cracks nucleating and propagating in the palladium electrodes as the mechanism responsible for the liberation of substantial heat in cold fusion; specified that the metal (palladium) and not the heavy hydrogen (deuterium) as the fuel, just as coal and not oxygen or air is the fuel in that combustion; and calculated that far more energy is stored in the metal than was released by the original researchers.

The Physics of Solids and Cold Fusion
August 23, 1989 (PDF 1MB)

1. introduction: For nearly a century, the extreme difference between the measured and theoretical cohesive strengths of materials has been noted, but no discernible effort was made to explain the extreme difference or to harness the enormous strength potential. The typical strength of a steel alloy is about 300 MN/m2 (50,000 psi) whereas the theoretical cohesive strength can reach 30,000 MN/m2 (5,000,000 psi): a phenomenal 100:1 ratio. The present techniques of alloying and metalworking fell far short of the theoretical values.

The unregulated outside-to-inside cooling process of solid materials produces severely stretched elemental bonds in the bulk, and this is the primary mechanism responsible for the great strength reduction. Regulated cooling of solid materials can achieve superior material properties.

9. cold fusion:  The classical atomic model of the solid crystal and quantum mechanics do not account for the immense energy stored in solid crystals in the form of severely stretched and compressed bonds. Thus, the present models were inadequate to resolve the recently reported phenomenon of cold fusion.

- - -The primary objection to my proposed "heat mechanism" in cold fusion has been the vast disparity between the energy content in the palladium metal, as accurately calculated or measured from the ionization potential or the electron ev content in the metal, and the energy level reported by the researchers7 or the amount of energy calculated in my papers6,8 on the subject. The details in this paper provide clear answers to the objections raised to date.

Controlled Release of Stored Energy in Metals
Preliminary Cold Fusion Tests at the Royal Scientific Society, Amman, Jordan
October 22, 1990 (PDF 191 KB)

Preliminary experiments to release internally stored energy in metals were conducted at the Royal Scientific Society (RSS) in Amman, Jordan on October 22, 1990. By varying test parameters, hot-spots (38oC above ambient, see Fig. 2) were measured and recorded on the fractured surfaces of carbon steel samples. The tests demonstrated the propensity of metals to liberate heat due to mechanical work, or the-work-of-fracture, Ref. 1. The formation of cracks, voids, and other defects in electrodes used in the "cold fusion" process has already been confirmed in the United States, Japan, and elsewhere.

The experiments were preliminary in nature, and were conducted during the UNDP's sponsored TOKTEN (Transfer of Know-how Through Expatriate Nationals) mission of Ali F. AbuTaha to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and under the auspices of the Royal Scientific Society.

The experiments conducted at the Royal Scientific Society in Amman, Jordan, are the first of their kind and have demonstrated that considerable amount of heat can be produced by mechanical work on metals.

In all tests, distinct hot-spot(s) developed, and were recorded, on the fractured surfaces...

In all tests, the hot-spots persisted for several minutes, and the IR unit recorded slow dissipation of heat.

...The test program must aspire to determine the specific parameters to ignite, control, and terminate the heat-liberation process. This effort should lead to patentable discoveries and commercial benefits.

Cold Fusion Articles and Editorials 1989 - 1991 (PDF 820KB)
Cold fusion theory takes critics' heat, Florida Today, May 6, 1989
FIT engineering expert spurns fusion theory, The Orlando Sentinel, May 6, 1989
Jordanian Researcher explains heat in cold fusion, Jordan Newspaper, June 6, 1989
Cold Fusion Explained, Access to Energy, December 1990
Fadeout for cold fusion, The Washington Times, January 30, 1991

"I believe the cold fusion story is at last nearing its end with an explanation provided by materials engineer Ali AbuTaha in two papers to be published in MIT's Journal of Fusion- - -

To explain AbuTaha's explanation, let me start off with a high-school puzzle: what happens to the energy stored in a compressed spring when you dissolve it in acid?" Professor Petr Beckmann, Access to Energy, December 1990.

Back to Top


Cold Fusion - The Energy Balance Sheet (PDF Document)
November 2009

The Correct Energy Balance Sheet was missing from the initial 1989 and subsequent pronouncements of cold fusion, or nuclear fusion at room temperature, or low energy nuclear reaction (LENR).

Three weeks after the March 23, 1989 news of cold fusion, my alma mater, the George Washington University (GWU), asked me to give a lecture on cold fusion on the UNET, the University Satellite Network. Everyone was hungry for definite news about the process. The first Item in my Lecture was “A Correct Energy Balance Table in Cold Fusion.” The coast-to-coast telecast course was then canceled. On May 12, 1989, the Continuing Engineering Education Program (CEEP) administration at GWU wrote me to “confirm the scheduling of your new course no. 1600DC, “The Heat Mechanism in Cold Fusion” for presentation in Washington, DC- - -” That 3-day course was also canceled. Around the same time, my course on the Space Shuttle Challenger Investigation, which received the highest ranking in more than 1,500 CEEP courses, was also canceled (see Shuttlefactor web page). My Energy Balance Table for cold fusion would have focused federal, private and academic effort, which was getting out of hand then.

In April 2009, the CBS 60-Minutes ran a piece on cold fusion. That created a tiny burst of reaction from reputable science groups, but nothing like the 1989 ruckus. The 60-Minutes program and the reactions show that the “Correct Energy Balance Sheet” for cold fusion remains obscure. Here, I will describe how everyone ignored the most important energy term in cold fusion. If you have seen a daily balanced budget, you will instantly recognize the Correct Energy Balance Sheet in Cold Fusion.

In their initial paper and statements on cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann (P&F) vaguely claimed that they achieved 1,000% of break-even and projected that their process could achieve 1,000,000% (one million). Let’s unravel these claims. P&F write, “this (heat generation) is maintained for experiment times in excess of 120 h during which typically heat in excess of 4MJ cm-3 (four million joules per cubic centimeter) of electrode volume was liberated.” The latter number was the most dramatic claim in the P&F paper.

This says that a small palladium (Pd) cube, roughly the size of a chicken or beef flavored bouillon cube you find in the supermarket, produced 4 million joules (about one million calories). This is dramatic. Why? A similar small wooden cube releases less than 10,000 joules. You can fill up a living room with logs of wood that contain the same energy released from the tiny metal cube. P&f, and then others, reported that it took a meager electric current, e.g., from a battery, to light up deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, in the palladium.

To Pons and Fleischmann and everyone else, the Energy Balance Sheet for Cold Fusion looks like this:

Table 1 – Cold Fusion Energy Balance Sheet That Amazed the World in 1989

Energy In

Columns intentionally left blank

Energy Out

% Break-even

400 joules

 

 

4,000,000 joules

1,000,000%

         

Go To Table 2

The dramatic break-even percentage, which was widely reported in 1989, is simply obtained as follows: ((4,000,000/400) x 100) = 1,000,000 (one million).

Anyone with the above Energy Balance Sheet deserves a Congressional Hearing, and that was what P&F, the University of Utah, and cold fusion got on April 26, 1989.

I sat in the last row of the hearing room with my cold fusion Energy Balance Sheet on my lap. I had spoken with the staff of the Congressional Committee about it, but, at the time, the staffers were weary from my Challenger accident input and the barrage of dismissals from NASA. I had hoped that by 1989, NASA would have told the Congress about the massive “excess” forces that I identified in Space Shuttle design in 1986. That would have given my word some credibility with the Congress. But that did not happen. You can read about the “excess” forces in my report, “The Problem with the Space Shuttle and the Space Program,” Section 7, Measurement of the “Dynamic Overshoot” in the Shuttle. There, I write how “…experts were literally bewildered by the excessive dynamic overshoot force component, which they labeled excess upward force,” or surplus upward force!” The “excess” heat in cold fusion was greater than the “excess” forces in the Shuttle. I was overwhelmed by the colossal mistakes and by the colossal opposition to my effort to clarify the blunders.

From the outset, ‘cold fusion’ faced two critical questions: (1) is there really nuclear fusion in the process? And, (2) how do you explain the reported “excess” heat? Professor Ronald G. Ballinger from MIT pinned down the two points in his testimony before the Committee, “From our standpoint, the key point of verification is the detection of neutron radiation. From an engineering point of view, however, the importance of excess heat production is critical.” The scientists complained about the scarcity of data from P&F, Ballinger testifying, “And so the scientific community has been left to attempt to reproduce and verify a potentially major scientific breakthrough while getting its experimental details from the Wall Street Journal and other news publications.” I was also getting my input from the WSJ and science and general media reports. Everyone recognized the importance of energy balance in cold fusion, Ballinger testifying, “it is critical that a total energy balance over time be done,” (my emphasis). How do you do total energy balance in cold fusion over time? Well, you take all the energy that goes into the process and all the energy that comes out of the process. Ballinger summarized the mood of the scientists as “excited,” “skeptical,” and “frustrated.” The primary reason for the frustration was that no one took all the energy input in cold fusion into account, including, Pons and Fleischmann.

The Committee listened to others, including Pons and Fleischmann. Perhaps, the most dramatic testimony was delivered by a non-scientist, Ira C. Magaziner, who began with the blunt words, “I am not from Utah Nor would I recognize a piece of palladium or a fusion reaction even if I were staring right at them.” Ira lambasted everyone for many great inventions and discoveries and nearly zero follow-up on production, jobs creation, and economic benefits. The decorum of congressional hearings prevented me from putting my Energy Balance Sheet for Cold Fusion in front of Magaziner to have him give an impromptu dramatic description of the situation to the Committee. Nothing was resolved in the Hearing.

The Department of Energy (DOE) started several initiatives to deal with the cold fusion subject. DOE and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) arranged “A Workshop on Cold Fusion Phenomena” for May 23-25 1989 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. About 500 experts attended from around the world, including me. I had written 4 papers on the subject by then. I submitted two papers, “Cold Fusion – The Heat Mechanism” and “Cold Fusion – Engineering Perspectives” to the organizing committee. My papers were accepted as poster papers. I tried to include the first paper in the oral presentations at the Workshop, so that everyone could hear about the Correct Energy Balance Sheet in Cold Fusion, but I was not successful. My papers described how hydrogen-embrittlement, or deuterium-embrittlement could account for the “excess” heat in cold fusion. I had done extensive research and tests in these and related subjects in the early 1970s.

In the Workshop, many experts described errors they found in the work of P&F. Some called for “a correct energy balance” (my emphasis), but everyone seemed to have a different idea about “correct energy balance” in cold fusion than I did. Anticipating the frosty atmosphere, P&F did not attend the Workshop. I had sent copies of my papers to Dr. Pons to apprise him and the University of Utah of my work.

The Workshop atmosphere can be best described with one word; “uncertainty.” Some scientists reported heat from the cold fusion process, but many scientists did not detect any heat at all. Those who detected heat measured varying amounts. Most papers concentrated on nuclear byproducts, and these were more variable and uncertain than the heat measurements. Some scientists reported detecting neutrons, protons, tritium, helium, gamma rays; and many scientists did not detect any of these at all. Some papers in the Workshop were authored by 10 or 20 scientists; one paper authored by more than 25 experts. Unless you were a member of the physics thermonuclear community, you had no idea where was the Workshop going. To me, one number stood out: 4 million joules per cubic centimeter, 4MJ in a bouillon-sized cube. It takes tens of donkeys to haul that much energy in the form of logs of wood. I concentrated on this number.

I prepared a Flyer for the Workshop, and I discussed my work with other experts. Many were amazed at the possibilities I raised. The Workshop facilities could not keep up with the demand for the Flyer. I arranged with a local shop in Santa Fe to produce hundreds of copies; “all went,” I wrote in my notes. The last paragraph in the Flyer contains my “correct energy balance sheet” for cold fusion in plain words.

“The heat liberated in palladium-deuterium is considerable. Professors Pons and Fleischmann projected 1000% excess heat from their process and expect one million per cent thermal yield. The confident figures are based on the small energy input to the electrolytic cells, but do not consider the substantial energy required to process (melt), or recycle, palladium. In this paper, I show that less than 50% of break-even has been attained, and that break-even may not be possible. The heat mechanism and other parameters are described. Though the process may be better described as Metal Burning or Rapid-Corrosion, and not Nuclear Fusion, it leads to vital scientific and technical studies and applications, some of which are identified by this author.

I thought that I could bring a halt to the “uncertainty” in the Workshop. The buzz was primarily about the 1,000,000% of break-even that P&F announced. I drafted a ‘Motion’ for the Workshop to declare that (1) cold fusion did not achieve break-even, and (2) the process could not even achieve break-even. I spoke with many physicists about it. They were fascinated, but declined to second (sign) my Motion because they were not acquainted with the hydrogen-embrittlement phenomenon. I then spoke with metallurgists, who should be familiar with the hydrogen- and deuterium-embrittlement subject. Even Robert Huggins of Stanford University did not know enough about the phenomenon to sign my petition. The Workshop concluded. Everyone went home. There was no consensus on what cold fusion was. There was no “correct energy balance sheet,” even though it was the simplest thing to do (see below).

Before and after the cold fusion Workshop in Santa Fe, NM, I spoke with executives and experts in energy, and with others involved in the subject. I spoke with Robert Park of the American Physical Society (APS), David Lindley, editor with Nature, Robert Pool of Science and others whose coverage was followed closely by experts and non-experts. Lindley wrote me about my paper on July 20, 1989, “it certainly represents an aspect of ‘cold fusion’ that I have not seen discussed elsewhere with any authority.” It took a year and a half before my papers were published in the Journal of Fusion Energy. Still, no one has come forward with a clear-cut energy balance sheet for cold fusion. So, let’s do it together here in plain language.

Look again at the Energy Balance Sheet for cold fusion that I reconstructed from the P&F’s words:

Table 1 – Cold Fusion Energy Balance Sheet That Amazed the World in 1989

Energy In

Columns intentionally left blank

Energy Out

% Break-even

400 joules

 

 

4,000,000 joules

1,000,000%

         

The first column gives the tiny electric current that the researchers apply to the electrolytic cells. As I show in my papers, hydrogen and deuterium can light up a transition metal, like palladium or titanium, without any current at all. Some scientists went as far as to invent new methods and instruments to accurately measure this value. We are not going to split hairs over this tiny number.

The “Energy Out” column is the excess heat reported by P&F from their 5-years of experiments. Unless there was outright deception on the part of P&F (which I categorically reject), this number must be taken seriously. Even if this value was measured in only “one” of “thousand” runs, it must be accepted. P&F describe a dramatic event that happened in their tests relating to this item, which is discussed in my papers.

We now come to the two columns that I intentionally left blank in Table 1. Column 2 contains the most important energy term in ‘cold fusion.’ It was the negligence of the scientific community to incorporate this energy term for 20 years that led to the message of the CBS 60-Minutes program in the first place.

The Energy Balance Sheet of Table-1 is correct if, and only if, the palladium samples that P&F and others use in cold fusion experiments grow on trees or sprout out of the ground in gardens immediately adjacent to the laboratories. In that case, the energy of walking to the garden to pluck the Pd rods can be ignored. But palladium, like all the other metals, requires considerable energy to find (energy), mine (more energy), transport (energy), process, especially by melting (lots of energy), reprocess, form and transport to the labs. P&F wrote the following short Acknowledgement in the 1989 paper, “We thank Johnson Matthey PLC for the loan of precious metals for this project,” (my emphasis). The reader will agree that the loan, or gift, of metal samples does not mean that the samples were developed energy-free.

It takes considerable energy to mine, gather heaps of dirt to extract the ore, transport, melt, form, re-melt, and reform the metal to produce the final samples that are used in the labs. How much energy? I calculated it takes about 10 MJ to produce 1 cm3 palladium cube. From published energy values required to produce one metric ton of titanium, a transition metal like palladium, I found that it takes more than 8 MJ to get 1 cm3 titanium cube. I do not know if the latter value includes the energy needed to transport dirt and metal on ships, trains, trucks, and, maybe, airplanes. Also, palladium is rare and can only be found in the State of Montana in the U.S., potentially requiring more energy to produce than the more abundant titanium.

The energy consumed in producing the Pd, or other metal, samples for cold fusion must be part of the Energy Balance Sheet. We are not cheating nature when we pretend that the palladium samples came energy-free; we are cheating ourselves. The 10 MJ needed to produce a small Pd cube comes from burning oil, gas, coal and wood. Nature spent considerable work (energy) and time to develop these fuels that we use. And the energy from oil, gas, coal and wood that is used to produce the laboratory Pd samples must be taken into account in any Energy Balance Sheet.

And so, my Correct Energy Balance Sheet for cold fusion, in 1989 and in 2009, looks like this:

Table 2 – The Correct Cold Fusion “Energy Balance Sheet” 1989, 2009

Energy In

Processing Energy

Total Energy In

Energy Out

% Break-even

400 joules

»10,000,000 joules

10,000,400 joules

4,000,000 joules

» 40%

Back To Table 1

The Table is dramatic. It shows that P&F did not exceed break-even and could not even achieve break-even with the cold fusion process. It shows that the ‘Motion’ I drafted for the Workshop in Santa Fe in 1989 was a valuable contribution. It should have been considered and adopted.

In the DOE and LANL Cold Fusion Workshop in 1989, Professor Robert Huggins of Stanford described a process that he used to produce heat from his palladium samples. His process consisted of melting the Pd samples 10 (ten) times. That was widely discussed in the Workshop and widely reported in the media. It can be seen from the above Correct Energy Balance Sheet that the efficiency in this case was less than 5% (less than five percent) of break-even.

Some advocates of cold fusion might argue that after the fusion of deuterium two or three times in the Pd samples, break-even is reached, and that subsequent fusion will produce extra, or excess, heat. Not so. My papers show that the formation and propagation of cracks in the palladium samples is itself the mechanism responsible for the heat produced in cold fusion. One complete highly successful cold fusion run (4MJ), a completely cracked palladium sample, and then back to the oven (10MJ) to melt and reform the metal for the next run – a complete loss of 6MJ energy from oil, gas, coal and wood!

By the end of 1989, researchers from the U.S., Japan and elsewhere began to find cracks in the palladium samples used in cold fusion. Professor Nobuhiko Wada of the Nagoya University in Japan reported that he detected neutrons in his cold fusion setups. Most importantly, Wada said that after examination, he found “many cracks and holes” in the Pd rods. Other centers in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere also found “cracks” in the Pd samples used in the cold fusion process. These widely reported results were crucial “peer review” verifications of my 1989 proposed solutions of the cold fusion process. You see, the cracked (or spent) Pd must be melted again to get rid of the cracks and rebuild the crystallographic structure to start another round of random metal burning, metal cracking, or metal rusting and heat generation.

Back to Top


Home ]

Comments or Questions; send mail to: info@shuttlefactor.com
Copyright © 2010 Ali F. AbuTaha