october 1995 - new energy times

COMMERCIALIZATIONOFNUCLEARPOWER NOW!

Thisspecialissuehonorsallthosescientists,engineers,andeducatorswhohavelaboredtosolvetheworld'senergyproblems. Wegivespecial recognitiontoDr.JamesPattersonforhisPattersonPowerCellTM. Weurgeallreaderstoget involvedinthisnewenergydevelopment. Funding is available.

ISSN 1051-8738 Copyright 1995

-- Since 1989 --Fusion Facts Now Reports on Both Cold Fusion and Other Enhanced Energy Devices.

VOLUME 7 NUMBER 4 FUSION FACTS OCTOBER 1995

CONTENTS FOR OCTOBER 1995

A. DRAMATIC DEMONSTRATION................. 1B. THERMONUCLEAR SPECIALISTS............ 4C. THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE................. 5D. LEST WE FORGET! ...................................... 7E. NEWS FROM THE U.S. ................................. 8F. NEWS FROM ABROAD ................................ 11G. SHORT ARTICLES ........................................ 13H. LETTERS ......................................................... 17I. WHO AND WHAT IS FIC? ............................ 18

COMMERCIAL COLUMN ............................. 19

A. DRAMATIC COLD FUSION DEMONSTRATIONSEEN BY HOT FUSION SCIENTISTS

By Hal Fox

Thisdemonstration of a "new hydrogen energy" device wasnot a 10% excess heat device with small temperaturesdifferences and subject to questions of accurate calorimetry.Thiswas ademonstrationwhere the output temperatureof theflowofelectrolytewas severaldegreesCentigrade higher thanthe input temperature. Forexample,duringthedemonstration,where I checked the data, the flow rates of the electrolytethrough the cold fusion reactor was 19.98 milliliters perminute. The inlet temperature was 33.9 C and the outlettemperature was 37.2C. This calculates to beabout 4.26wattsof thermal power being produced. The input electricalpotential was 2.98 volts and the current was 0.02 amperesgiving a wattage input of almost 0.06 watts. The ratio ofoutput thermal power to input electrical power wasover 70, not 70 percent but 70 times!

This editor was thrilled with such a cold fusionaccomplishment. Often during the past six years criticismshave been ladled onto this publication and the staff for ourcontinued optimistic forecasts for the progress of the newscienceof cold fusion. Many discussions havebeenheld withscientists whocould not,orwouldnot, acknowledge that therereally are scientists in thirty countries who have achievedexperimental successes in cold fusion experiments. "Badequipment", "contamination", "improper procedures","artifacts", "bad science" were the type of demeaning wordsand phrases flungagainst this new science. At present theonly thing that all scientists agree upon is that we don'tunderstand, as yet, the theory behind this anomalousexcess heat production. We have a wonderful opportunityto learn more about the real inner world of matter and to findthe source of this anomalous thermal power. If there are onlychemical ornuclear reactions that can possibly explain thisscientific marvel,nearlyall of thoseskilled in the art insist thatit cannot be only chemical processes. That leavesnuclear reactions. What an exciting trail of discovery liesbefore us!

2 FUSION FACTS OCTOBER 1995

©1995 by Fusion Information Center, Inc. COPYING NOT ALLOWED without written permission. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

This advanced cold fusion demonstration was a partof theexhibits shown at the SOFE '95 (Symposium on FusionEngineering) held at the Chancellor Convention Center inChampaign, Illinois. Dr.DennisCravens hasbeen retainedbyClean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI) of Dallas, Texas, toworkclosely with faculty and students of the Fusion StudiesLaboratory, Nuclear Energy Program, at the University ofIllinois at Champaign-Urbana. This department of theU/Illinoishasspecialequipment for sputteringselectedmetalsontovarious other materials, in this case onto small spheres.The spheres were plated with layers of palladium and nickel.The preparation and use of these spheres are a part of thepatented invention of Dr. James Patterson,now known as thePatterson Power CellTM. The Patterson Power CellTM

originated from the pioneering cold fusion invention of Drs.Pons andFleischmann, the exclusive rightsofwhichbelong toENECO, Inc., of Salt Lake City. It is this Patterson inventionwhich has been developed into the demonstration unitprovided by the joint efforts of CETIand the University ofIllinois. CETI now has five patents covering this system andthemethodologyfor theirdeviceand themetalcoatedspheres.

In the demonstration, thereactor (the electrochemicalcell)used is about four inches long and less than two inches indiameter. In the interior of the cell is a layer of less than one-half inch of metal-plated tinyspheres. Refer to Fig. 1. Theelectrolyte (about 1 molar lithium sulfate in distilled water) ispumped through the reactor and through the bed of platedbeads. Apre-heater is used to control the input temperature ofthe electrolyte, especially during startup of the cell. Thepreheated electrolyte moves through the bed of metal-coatedspheres. The spheres touch each other and carry the electricalpotential from the platinum screen through the whole bed ofcoated spheres. Thus the cathode of this electrochemical cellis the platinum screen and the plated spheres.

The anode of the cell is also a platinum screen separated fromthe bed of beads by aporous Nylon insulator. Without theinsulator, themetal-platedbeadswouldshort thecathode to theanode. During operation, the application of an electricalpotential and the resulting electric current causes theelectrolyte to be disassociated into hydrogen and oxygen.Some of the hydrogen ions (protons) enter into the nickelmetal layer and also, presumably, into the underlyingpalladium layer. In Fig. 1 the electrical flow is shown ascurrent flow. By definition,current flows fromthepositivepole of the battery (or power supply) through the externalcircuit and back to the negative terminal. Hydrogen ions andLi ions, being positively charged, flow in the direction of theelectrical current. The electron flow is in the oppositedirection. Therefore, electrons flow out of the beads, into theelectrolyte, to the anode, and carry the negatively chargedoxygen ions and sulfate ions toward the anode of theelectrochemical cell.

The nuclear reaction (presumed) on or near the surface of theplated beads, formsheat and that heat is conducted into theelectrolyte which flows upward in this diagram. The oxygenand unusedhydrogen is allowed to escapefromthe electrolyteinto the atmosphere. The electrolyte, which contains lithiumsulfate inabouta 1 molar solution, circulatesback through thepump, through a flow meter, and through the pre-heater backtothe reactor. Thermocouples (K type or standard mercurythermometers) can be used to measure the inlet and outlettemperatures to the reactor. These are shown in this diagramas TIN and TOUT thermocouples.

Indiscussions withDr.Cravensduring the demonstration, thefollowing information was obtained: When the reactor is firstturned on, it takes from afew minutes to a fewhours beforeexcess heat is produced. Refer to Fig. 2. If the current isslowly raised (by increasing the voltage, for example), theexcessthermal poweroutput soon exceeds the input power(potential times current). As the current is slowly increased,a point is reached where the current is optimal in terms ofachievingamaximum Power AmplificationFactor. PowerAmplification Factor is merely the ratio of thermal power

OCTOBER 1995 FUSION FACTS 3


(calculated in watts) to input electrical power. Typically

(dependent on manyparameters), this type of electrolyticcellranges from10toover400 in termsof thepoweramplificationfactor. One would expect that if the input electrical power isincreased that the output thermal power should increase.There seems to be a limit in that the reactor bed of platedspheres can only use so many hydrogen ions. If more currentis used, the hydrogen bubbles up and escapes,therefore, asshown in Fig. 2, the power amplification factorgradually decreases with an increase in cell current.

Continuing with Fig. 2, if the cell has been operated for sometime athigh current levels and the current is decreased, thepower amplification factor (PAF)can go to very large values.The explanation is that the protons "loaded" into the surfaceplatings of the spheres will continue to supply protons for thenuclear reaction, even after the current applied reacheszero. Obviously, if any thermalpower isbeing produced withzero current, by definition the PAF can become increasinglylarge (dividing by zero). It will take a lot of operating databefore this residual thermal power production is fullydelimited. Someof theexperimentalparameterswillprobablyinvolve the ratio of the thickness of the underlying palladiumlayer to theoverlaid nickel plating. One would hypothesizethat a thicker palladium layer would take longer to load(initially) but would sustain the production of residual powerfor longer timeperiods. As amatter ofexperimental data, thisresidual power production has continued for minutes andhours. It is not a short-lived effect. Also, after resumption ofcurrent flow, the cell is soon operating at optimal levels.

Ifonedesires to design a light-water, lithium-electrolyte, cold-fusion, electrochemical reactor thatwillproducemore thermalpower,what are the design parameters? This questioncannotbe fully answered, as yet. However, as showninFig. 3,one oftheobviouschanges is tomakea reactor with a largerdiameterto increase the size of the bed of plated spheres. It is quiteobvious that one would expect the power production toincrease with the square of the reactor diameter (withinreason). As shown in Fig. 3, this is the type of power outputcurveversus cell diameter thatonewould expect. Obviously,thecell current will increase. However, the current per unitarea of the spherical surfaces would be expected to remain aconstant. If nothing else in the cell design were changed, onewouldexpect togetessentially thesameincrease inelectrolytetemperature through the cell (but an overall increase involumetric flow and the transporting of more heat power).

The next concept concerns the production of a higher thermalpoweroutput. Just raising the temperature of the electrolytebyafewdegrees isnot theanswer to commercializationof thisproduct. As shown in Fig. 4, it has been determined (but notfully explored) that the power amplification factor alsoincreaseswithan increase in the temperatureof theelectrolyte.If we are fortunate, we would get a linear (straight line)increase inpoweroutput aswe increase the temperatureof thecelloperation. Temperature is definedas the rootmeansquareof the random motion of the molecules. Therefore, highertemperature means amoreenergeticmotionof theelectrolyte,including in the vicinity of the cathode of nickel-platedspheres. If the reaction is a process where nuclear reactionsarecatalyzed,one would not besurprised to find an increasingeffect with increasing temperature.



Another conceptto be considered is the effect of having thecell operate under increasing pressure. If the effect is acatalysis of nuclear reactions, then we know that a smallelectrical potential has an enormous effect on the diffusion ofprotons into a metal lattice (provided the lattice is not opaqueto proton diffusion). As a first approximation, we wouldexpect that the power amplification factor wouldnot bemuchchanged by an increase in pressure. However, we do knowthat by increasing the pressure, we can increase thetemperature at which the electrolyte boils. Therefore,we can operate at higher temperatures, within limits.This function has been verified up to 150° C. The limit isprobablythe stage atwhich there is no longer a liquid-vaporinterface. At a critical temperature of about 700 degrees F forwater, we have only hot steam. As a result, we would expectthat the temperature, and therefore the pressure, would belimited by this critical pressure/temperature relationship.However, at 700 degrees F, we have achieved operatingtemperatures that have many commercial applications suchdistilling, sterilizing, cooking, and space heating.

Obviously, there are many cell parameters to be exploredbefore wefullyunderstand the limitationsand the capabilitiesof the Patterson Power CellTM. There will be many technicalpapers written about this advanced cold fusion or "newhydrogen energy" patented device.

WHAT ARE THE SUPPOSED NUCLEAR REACTIONS?

Asyet, we do not fully understand the precise nature ofthesupposednuclear reactions. Onehypothesis is that theprotons(hydrogen ions) combine with the lithium under some type of

nuclear catalysis. For example, p+ Lithium-7 could produceBeryllium-8 which is highlyunstable and splits into two alphaparticles (Helium-4 ions). This is a highly energetic nuclearreaction and would produce considerable heat.

Some may expect that high-energy gammas would beproduced. However, it has been shown that gammas are notpermitted,byclassicalphysics,undercertainconditions foundin or near a metal lattice. The allowed event is somewhatsimilar to aMossbauer effect in that the gamma becomes ashower of phonons which are taken up by the entire locallattice. The energyof the phonons increase the temperatureofthemetal lattice. Thus the only measurable "nuclear ash" isthe increasing amount of helium-4, which may be difficult tomeasure due to the potentially contaminating presence ofhelium-4 in the atmosphere. However, for commercialdevelopment to be achieved, wedon't have tounderstandthe details of the nuclear reactions. In the interest ofscience, we must learn to understand what is going on in thisvery real, and very practical "new hydrogen energy" device.

EDITOR'SNOTE:Companies interested indevelopingand/orcommercializingcold fusion devices should investigate thelicensing requirements. ENECO'S pioneering Pons-Fleischmann patents broadly cover devices that use "isotopichydrogen in a lattice material to produce excess energy."

CallFredJaeger,President ofENECOat801/583-2000orFax801/583-6245. Additional licensing requirements may berequired from other entities. For Patterson Power CellTM,contact Jim Reding at 214/459-7620 or Fax 214/458-7690.

B. AN OPEN LETTER TO THERMONUCLEARSPECIALISTS

Dear Energy Expert,

Wedonot rejoice thatthe budget for further thermonuclearwork has been halved. We do offer you an alternative: Yourhelp is needed in the continuing effort to solve the world'senergy problems. Historically, from wood to coal to naturalgasandevenelectric furnaces,wehavesolved theproblems ofheating our homes. You know, far better than the averagecitizen, that we must now move from the use of fossil fuels tonewenergy sources. You are an expert who does not needconvincing of that fact. We must either solve the energyproblems orpollute the world. Over300 million dollars isbeing committed to this task by private investmentgroups. It is our judgement that by the end of 1996there will be considerably more funds being spent oncold fusion than on all of the thermonuclear projects.



This letter is a testimony to you that there is a realalternative energy system and that your skills areneeded to commercialize one or more new energyproducts. Over the past six and one-half years I have readand reviewed more than 2,500 papers on cold fusion andrelated topics. Over 600 papers, either peer-reviewed orpresented to peers at technical conferences, report on themeasurement of one or more nuclear byproducts (neutrons,tritium, helium, gammas, x-rays, and heat) from low-energynuclear reactions. Some of the best scientists in 30 countriesare includedin the list of authors of these papers. Over 200laboratories have been successful. I have personally visitedlaboratories in Russia, Belarus, and in the UnitedStates and have witnessed (and have somtimesreproduced in our own laboratory) several methodsofproducing nuclear reactions in relatively low-energysystems.

At the recent SOFE'95 exhibithall, yousaw (or couldhaveseen) aworkingcold fusiondevice thatwasproducing thermalpowerequal to more than seventy timesthe input electricalpower. My engineering calculations show that a 20megawatt plant would be about the size of twobasketball courts and about two stories high, ifdesigned around this new technology.

However, I'm not sure that this is the direction that we oughtto go. You are aware that we produce fewer main-framecomputers --wenowhavedistributeddataprocessing. Almosteveryprofessional has apersonal computer. I believe thatthe next step could be distributed energy systems withevery home owner having the choice to replace his/hernatural gas- or oil-fired furnace with a non-polluting,heat-producing coldfusion furnace. We don't have all oftheanswersyet, but it appears thatacommercial systemcanbedesigned so that maintenance will only have to be done on anannual basis. The fuel is probably lithium and hydrogen.(7Li + p = 8Be* = 2 4He + thermal energy. Phonons, notgammas, couple energy to the metal lattice).

WE NEED YOUR HELP.In addition to a lot of parametric studies, which arenow beingfundedbyseveralAmericancorporations,weneedagreatdealofengineeringtestinganddesigns. Herearesomesystems thatneed engineering design:

Sewage sterilization.Water purification.Greenhouse heating and air conditioning systems.Distillation apparatus.Heaters for steam jackets for cookers.Heaters for commercial fryers.Hot airheaters forhomes,offices, industry,andvehicles.Water heaters.Snow removal systems.Steam generators, etc.

THE MARKET SIZE FOR NEW ENERGYSYSTEMS IS $5 TRILLION ANNUALLY.Themarket fornewenergysystems is far greater than the totalelectronic industry! There will rapidly be an enormous needforeducatedscientists, engineers, inventors,and technicians tosupport thedesign,manufacturing,marketing,and installationof these systems. Again, we need your help. You, whoattended the SOFE '95 conference already have muchof the background knowledge that is required for thisimportant new energy development.

TheFusion Information Center is establishing a database ofpersonsand institutions that can further the development ofthis energy technology. At the present time there is only onecollege or university (known to me) that teaches any coldfusion topics. There are only seven colleges or universities inthe U.S. that are doing any cold fusion research. There is nodatabase of businesses and personnel whohavequalificationsin this enormously important technology. By contrast, inJapan there are over 90 colleges,universities, and researchgroups working on cold fusion! As the world's leadingfusion information center, we cannot fill the requeststhat we are receivingand will be receivingfor qualifiedcompanies and personnel!

If you can serve as either an employee or a consultantplease send us your resume as a scientist, educator,engineer, technician, inventor, designer, businessentity, etc. All data will be kept confidential except enoughto target your expertise. Inquiries will be sent directly to youfor your response, unless you instruct us otherwise.

Hal Fox, President of FIC

C. THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCECourtesy of Professor C.E. Singer

Clifford E. Singer (Nuclear Engineer Dept., Univ. Illinois),"Comments on the Low TemperatureFusion Session at the16th Symposium on Fusion Engineering," personalcommunication.

AUTHOR'S PAPER - [EDITOR'S COMMENTS]

[ProfessorSigner's paperwas distributedat SOFE'95after theMondayevening, October 2, 1995 panel discussion on coldfusionbyDrs.EdmundStorms,DennisCravens,YeongKim,and Howard Birnbaum (the token cold fusion opponent).]

As technical program chair, I resisted invitingpeople whohadmade strong attacks on cold fusion advocates to this session.Instead, I invitedasociologist well versed in this area inthehopes of shedding more light than heat on the topic, but my



confirmation of the time slot came after he had anothercommitment. I agreed to thescheduling of this session in partbecause the research I've done for an upcoming paper onscientificmethodology incontrolled fusionresearchsuggestedthatthe entire field might have something to learn from thecold fusion controversy.

While I'm not acareer expert in the sociology of science, Ihavebeendeeplyinvolvedenoughinmethodologicalproblemsrelated tohypothesis testingandfusioncommercialization thatI thought I might be able to partly make up for our missingspeaker.

Therearebasically twohypothesesconcerningwhyover2,000research works have reportedly been produced on the coldfusion question. [FIC has collected, read, and publishedreviews on over 2,000 cold fusion papers.] One [hypothesis]is essentially physical--that observable effects of nuclearreactions havebeen measuredbyat least one of these authors.[Thenumberofpapers reportingmeasurementsof"observableeffects of nuclear reactions" is over 600.] The other[hypothesis] is sociological--that many papers have beenpublished despite the absence of nuclear reactions withobservable physical effects.

Some ofthe problems withthe former hypothesisare beingdescribedat thismeeting. [Forexample, seeStorms'paperandtheFox &Bass paper.] The essential difficulty, I believe, isthe question of whether an independently reproducibleprescription for thepreparationofcatalytic substratewasmadeavailable early enough in the controversy for standardmechanismsofwhatThomasKuhncallednormalsciencetobeapplied to it. In the view of many people, this did not occur.[For those who have read the cold fusion literature, they willunderstand that the preparation of palladium or palladiumalloys that will "work" in a Pons-Fleischmann cell is still notfullyunderstood.] As a result, there has been concern thatcold fusion advocates have resorted to what are called"conventionalism stratagems" to make the theory"unfalsifiable," in the languageof Karl Popper's classic work,TheLogic of Scientific Discovery. [Falsifiable is defined as"capable of being proved false". Before the day of spacetravel, theconcept that the moon was made ofgreen cheesecould have been considered unfalsifiable.]

Tounderstand how and why this might havehappened, it isuseful to look beyond PopperandKuhnto the workofmodernsociologists of science, such as Barnes and Picketing. Asignificant conclusion about scientific methodology incomplex systems such as controlled fusion devices is that theconcerns thatsome in this school have had about the role ofwhat they have called "interests" in determining what we callscientific truth can be addressed by more careful attention tohow one constructs tests of hypotheses concerning a systemwhose

properties can not currently be deduced solely from anunderstandingof the interactionsbetweenelementaryparticles.[Typical "interests" are the strong understanding that gas-plasma physics is applicable to metal-lattice physics andpossibly the $500 million per year previously allocated to thestudy of hot fusion by the DOE.]

Here, however, I would like to stick to a more qualitativeanalysisof the roleof theseso-called"interests" indetermininghow various people viewscientific truth, and what we maylearnabout bothcoldand thermonuclear fusionresearch in theprocess. So let us formulate a clearer statement of asociological hypothesis about cold fusion, and see whether ittells us anythingabout thermonuclear fusion research. Here issuch a hypothesis in a nutshell.

First, billions of dollars and decades of work have beeninvested by refugees from nuclear weapons research andothers in the idea that nuclear fusion might be made into apracticalenergy source. However, we have discovered thattokamak fusionpower reactors are expensive. This has led toa strong interest in alternative approaches, but none of thesehas definitively been shown to have a high confidence ofproducingeconomicallycompetitivefusionpowerproduction.[Until now.] The idea that fusion couldbe accomplishedon atable top has obvious appeal to people with an interest in thisquestion. [Intellectual and scientific curiosity appeared to bethe "strong interest" Pons and Fleischmann exhibited whenthey began studies in Pons' garage. Previously Fleischmannhad published over 100 papers, 50 of which were coauthoredwith Pons, many of which dealt with hydrogen and metallattices.]

Second,there were scores of laboratories with an interest inthis question that had the capability [but not the expertise] oftrying to reproduce the original reported experiment. WhenIwas a wet-behind-the-ears freshman here at the University, Iasked my Psychology 101 instructor what was the use of theusual 95%confidence criterion for publication if 20 peopletried the sameexperiment. It was a good, if naive, question.I don't expect that chance selection of positive results fromrandommeasurementerrors is thecompleteanswer to thecoldfusion controversy. But chanceselectionout of asample withvariance of calibration procedures may have played asignificant role in the publication of some of the results.[Good papers avoid this type of criticism because the authorsprovide experimental procedures and error bars onmeasurementsmade.] Hadeachnegativeexperimentcost $20million,we might have expected thatpressures to justify whatpeople do with so much money might have led to publicationof more results falsifying the original claim, but this was notthe case. [New scientific breakthroughs often involve thechange ofscientific modelsand are not falsifiable bynegativeresults, especially when the experimental falsification is



attempted by experimenters not skilled in the art of thediscoverer. At the time of the Wright Brothers' first flight atKittyhawk, there were dedicated scientists who could provethat you could not fly such an aircraft. The history of scienceis replete with the statement ofthen-famous scientists whoexplained why it couldn't be done.]

Random selection events can work not only among apopulation of scientific instruments, but also among apopulation of scientists who run them. With such a largepopulation of people interested and capable of doing coldfusionexperiments, there is also clearly the possibility thatselection of a sub-population with inadequate experimentaltechniqueand even peer review could occur. [True, but thisphilosophy is immediately rejected by skilled scientists whohave achieved dramatic positive results in cold fusionexperiments.]

The idea thata sizablenumberofpositive reports must containat least one grain of scientific truth ignores the type ofselection effects I have just described. A perfectly adequatesociological hypothesis is that it is just these selection effects,and nothing more, which has produced the clearly observablephenomenon of the publication of papers reporting theobservation of cold fusion effects. [One positive experimentcanadvance scientific knowledgefar beyond one thousandfailures.]

So what can the rest of us learn from this? The basic message,I suggest, is that controlled fusion research needs to be basedonmorethan wishful thinking. [And on more than outdatedmodels of nuclear reactions.] People in our Congress andelsewhereare askingseriousquestions about this. [Controlledfusion research.] It is easy to dismiss these people[Congresspersons] as being ignorant, short-sighted, or illintentioned, just as some cold fusion advocatesmight dismisstheir critics. But theseare serious questions, and theydeserveserious answers. The lesson of cold fusion for thermonuclearfusion research is that we must pay careful attention tomethodology in controlled fusion physics and engineeringresearch if our answers are to be taken seriously in the longrun.

[Another strong message is: When some world-class,honorable specialists (in the case of cold fusion, theelectrochemists) immediately replicate cold fusion, thendon'tcondemn the work because it does not fit standard models.Theconcept that nuclear reactions on or within a metal latticemust be consistent with high-temperature gas-plasmaphysics is falsifiable. A further strong message is thatscientists shouldnotbecomepolitical lobbyistsandattacknewdiscoveries. A further message is that scientists should readthe literature that impacts on their own areas of specialization.An excellent definition of a scientific fact is "the close

agreement of a series of observations of the samephenomena." Although "close agreement" may be subject toopinion or definition, low-energy nuclear reactions arenow ascientific fact!]

D. LEST WE FORGET!Courtesyof the IntermountainSoc.of InventorsandDesignersnewsletter.

DID YOU KNOW ...thatAlbertEinstein was considered retarded, Isaac Newtonwas thought to be a slow learner, Joseph Priestly (thediscoverer of oxygen) never took a science course, and LouisPasteur got a C in chemistry.

that in 1876 when G.G. Hubbard learned of his future son-in-law's invention,hecalled it "onlya toy." This daughter wasengaged to a young man named Alexander Graham Bell.

that in 1969 the New York Times published an apology foronce printing derisive comments about an inventor's theory.Robert Goddard was on the receiving end of the Timescriticism of his contention that rockets could operate in outerspace. The apology was printed the day after Apollo 11 leftearth orbit for the moon.

that in the early 1940's a GE engineer was charged with atask of utmost importance to the war effort: develop a cheapsubstitutefor rubber that could be used to produce tires, gasmasks, and a whole host of military gear. James Wrighttackled the task diligently -- and wound up inventing SillyPutty. Good thing he didn't work on the artificial heart.

that neither Wilber nor OrvilleWright graduated fromhighschool. However, they were both avid readers.

that Darryl F.Zanuck of 20th Century Fox thought TV wasjust a passing fancy. In 1946 he said, "Video won't be able toholdany market after the first six months. People will soonget tired of staring at a plywood box every night."

that in the fall of 1989 the Cold Fusion panel of the EnergyResearch Advisory Board to the DOE concluded, "The panelrecommends against special funding for the investigation ofphenomena attributed to cold fusion." [Added by Ed.]



The experimental history of cold fusionprovides hints that radioactive materialscan be stabilized!

E. NEWS FROM THE U.S.

UNCLE SAM, THE POLLUTERNeeded: Education of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions

KenMiller (Gannett News Service), "Meet Uncle Sam, theWorst Polluter," Salt LakeTribune, 17Sept. 1995, pp A-1,A-11.

EDITOR'S COMMENTS

In the year 1994, after years of studying the problem, theDepartment of Defense finally spent more money on cleanupthan onstudies. The DOD has 868 sites that are listed as onEPA'sHazardousWasteComplianceDocket. Of these342areArmy, 265 Air Force, and 261 Navy. Some are radioactivewaste sites. The DOE has 90 sites listed on the EPA's docket,however,manyof thesesitesareamongthemostcontaminatedsitesin the world. Ordered to make an estimate for clean upcosts, the DOE came up with $230 billion.

Every year, theestimates for the cost ofcleanup are increasedand the time it will take for the clean up also increases.Nowtheestimatesextend to theyear2070withanexpenditureof over one-quarter of a trillion dollars. We desperatelyneed to recognize that the radioactive sites must bestabilized and not just buried.

The traditional scientist using last generation's model of theatomwill notevenadmit that there isanychance of stabilizingradioactive elements except by high-energy bombardment.Theexperimental history ofcold fusion provides hints thatradioactive materials can bestabilized! There are over 600papers reportingoncold fusionexperiments inwhichevidenceof nuclear reactions have been measured.

Under current technical understanding, the only two ways totake care of radioactive waste is to store it or bury it for a fewhundredyears, while the radioactivity subsides. Now that it iswell known that nuclear reactions can be produced andcontrolledat relatively low energies, we must learn moreabout this technology and apply it to the stabilizationof radioactive wastes.

Here is a summary of whatwe havelearned fromwhich wecan build our low-energy nuclear reaction foundation ofknowledge:

1. Cathode materials have been found to exhibit isotopicchanges after operating in a cold fusion reactor cell.2. Tritium has been measured in both electrodes and inelectrolytes.3. Neutrons have been detected but not at sufficient numbersto agree with current scientific models.4. New theory papers show that under some circumstances,one can expect that it is more probable for protons anddeuterons to fusewithelementsofhighatomicmasscomparedto elements of low atomic mass.5. Thermal power is a byproduct of nuclear reactions and isnowbeingproducedrepeatedlyat ten times the inputelectricalpower in selected cold fusion reactors.[See lead article, page 1.]

WHAT MUST BE DONE

The original Cold Fusion Committee of the Energy ResearchAdvisoryBoard in the fall of 1989 advised that no researchfundsbe spent oncold fusion. Now that some forms of coldfusionreactorsarebeingcommercialized, it is stronglyevidentthatthe 1989 ERAB report was ill-founded and ill-advised.No new and costly investigation into cold fusion usinggovernment funds is required. A simple witnessing ofworking demonstrationsofcold fusionreactors is sufficient toestablish the realityof low-energy nuclear reactions. Existinglevels ofresearch fundsare morethan adequate for thetask. What is required is reallocation of funds fromnon-productive research to specific investigation bythose having demonstrated skills to support thediscoveries in the stabilization of radioactive elements.

Note: For further information see Proceedings of the Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Conference, edited by Hal Fox andavailable from Fusion Information Center.

CALIFORNIA - SRI FUNDED BY JAPAN

"Briefs," Infinite Energy, vol 1, no 3, Jul-Aug 1995, p 42.

SRI Cold Fusion Work Now Funded by Japan's NEDO

The top-notch cold fusion research program at SRIInternational in MenloPark,CA, formerly funded byEPRI ofPaloAlto,CA, isnowreportedly fundedata level of $700,000for the first year by Japan's New Energy DevelopmentOrganization(NEDO). Thefundingshiftwascausedbycross-the-board cutbacks in many of EPRI's research projects. Dr.Tom Passell is still assigned to cold fusion R&D at SRIInternational.



MASSACHUSETTS - COUPLING MECHANISMS

PeterL.Hagelstein (Massachusetts Inst. ofTech.,Cambridge,MA) "New Lattice-Nucleus Coupling Mechanisms andPossibleEnergyProduction,"SOFE '95SeekingaNewEnergyEra, Book of Abstracts, 16th IEEE/NPSS, Symposium onFusion Engineering, Sept. 30-Oct. 5, 1995, p 217.

AUTHOR'S ABSTRACT

We have recently found and studied a new mechanism that iscapable in principle of mediating anomalous energy transferbetween a lattice and its constituents. Vibrational energytransfer can occur through the creation or destruction ofphonons, which has been well studied and produces noanomalies; vibrational energy transfercanalso occur throughthe frequency shifting of phonon modes, which has not beenwell studied and appears to be capable of anomalous energytransfer.

The basic idea is that a phonon mode can jump across aphonon band gap upon the modification of the lattice at asingle site, and the associated energy transfer E can be

E = N

whereisthe phonon frequency shift and N isthe numberofphonons. If the phononmode is initiallyacontinuummode,then it is possible for Nto be verylarge in principle (this canbe true fora stronglydrivenphonon mode,or ifa phonon laseris operating on the mode). Alpha and beta decay rates arepredicted to increase in the presence of anomalous energytransfer.

We have also found another interesting new physicalmechanism that involvesnucleiand lattice interactions.Whilethephenomenonofelectronhopping incrystals iswellknown,the analogous effect for neutrons is presently unknown. Asneutrons are tightly bound, there is no first order overlap withnuclear wavefunctions at neighboringsites. But the boundneutron orbitalsat thedifferent sitesmixwith acommonsetofcontinuumorbitals (this isknownasconfigurationinteraction),leading to a second order coupling between orbitals atneighboringsites.Aneutronmixedvalencemodel (inanalogywith electronmixed valence models)hasbeen developed,andused to study thermally-induced neutron hopping in crystals.

We have explored the possibility that these two effectstogether might lead to a new route toenergy production in thesolid state.

MASSACHUSETTS - ELECTRIC CARS PROVENTWICE AS EFFICIENT AS GASOLINE MODELSAT NESEA'S 1995 AMERICAN TOUR DE SOL

Electrifying Times, vol 3, no 2, Fall Edition, 1995, pg 9.

NESEA-GREENFIELD,Mass. For thefirst time,gasolineandelectric-poweredcarshavebeenrunside-by-side in real-worldconditions - the electric cars ran away with the efficiencyprize. The week-long series of tests found EVs twice asenergy efficient as their gasoline powered counterparts.

NEW MEXICO - COLD FUSION FUTURE

EdmundStorms (ENECO), "ChemicallyAssisted NuclearReactions," SOFE '95 Seeking aNew Energy Era, BookofAbstracts, 16th IEEE/NPSS, Symposium on FusionEngineering, Sept. 30-Oct. 5, 1995, p 218.

AUTHOR'S ABSTRACT

More than sixyears havepassed since the modern eraof "coldfusion" was started by Profs. Stanley Pons and MartinFleischmann(thenat the Universityof Utah).Theirclaims forbeing able to produce nonpolluting energy from a renewablesource using a simple apparatus created great initialexcitement. However, difficulties in repeating the workcombined with the absence of any acceptable explanationcaused most scientists to conclude that the claims were basedon delusion. Nevertheless, some people continued to explorethe possibilities. Criticisms made by skeptics were takenseriously, errors have been reduced or eliminated, and a widevariety of studies have been done using very modernequipment in many countries. The early problem ofreproducingthe effect has been largelyeliminated, nuclearbyproducts have been found, and theoretical explanationsabound. The problem now is more psychological thanscientific. In spite of this new and improved information,general skepticism about the effect continues within thescientific community and general rejection by theU.S. andmany other governments remains unchanged.

Nine international conferences have been held and severalprofessional societieshaveincludedsessionsaboutcoldfusion,themost recent being the American ChemicalSociety. Theliterature on the subject has grown to over 1300 publications,many peer reviewed by major scientific journals.A magazinecalled "ColdFusion" is struggling to surviveand 21stCenturyScience and Technology has regular articles. Non-technicalreaders can also obtain information from "Fusion Facts,""Cold Fusion Times." "Cold Fusion/New EnergyTechnology," "The Cold Fusion Newsletter" and "InfiniteEnergy." Occasionally,



theprintandTVMediahaveacknowledgedcontinued interest,sometimes with objectivity and sometimes not.

The field has expanded from claims of d-d fusion beingproduced in palladium using electrolysis to at least tendifferent method-environment combinations. Theseenvironments include normal hydrogenaswell as deuterium.Evidence ford-d fusion,p-(K,Rb) transmutation, and (p,d)-Pdtransmutation has been presented. A variety of nuclearproducts have been detected. Sufficient energy has beenobserved to encourage commercial development.

Thepresent statusof the fieldwillbesummarizedwith respectto whathas been discovered,where work is being done, andhowthis new field is expected toaffect conventional thinking.

NEW MEXICO - TRIODE CF CELL

"Briefs," Infinite Energy, vol 1, no 3, Jul-Aug 1995, p 42.

An announcement of a possible new direction in cold fusionelectrochemical cells was received 7 August 1995:

STATEMENT

CravensLaboratories inCloudcroft,NewMexico,has recentlyrun preliminary evaluation tests on a three-electrode (triode)Pons-Fleischmann typenuclear fusioncell. EvanRagland, theinventor of the triode cell, believes the third electrode affordsa degree of control of the cell loading and fusion rate. Resultsof initial tests are positively encouraging and provide newinsight intocell characteristics. Confirmationexperimentsandnewexploratory experiments are planned to be conducted.Thepresent work plan is to: 1) Confirm initial experimentalresults; 2)Evaluatesome heretoforeunobservedphenomena;3) Conduct experiments on improved cathode embodiments,and 4) Design and test new electronic control circuits.

From: Evan Ragland Company, 6640 Ahekolo Circle,Diamondhead, MS 39525-3461.

TENNESSEE - HOT FUSION CHAUVINSIM -A History Note

Courtesy of Dana Rotegard

ProfJ.R.Roth [wellknownhot fusionadvocate] (Dept.Electr.& Comp.Engr., U. ofTenn.), "On D-T (deuterium-tritium)Chauvinism in Physics," from "Comments of Draft PanelReport,"LunarHelium-3andFusionPower, proceedings of aworkshopheldatNASALewis Res.Ctr.,March1988,NASAConference Pub. 10018, p 221.

EXCERPTS

In the worldwide fusion community, there is awidespreadmindset which one can characterize as "D-T chauvinism",according to which it is considered disloyal to the nationalfusionprogram, or even a disservice to the entire subject offusion energy, to point out any of the very real engineering orsafety disadvantages of using the D-T reaction. I havepersonally encountered this mindset while advocatingadvanced fusion reactions;

Afeeling that the world fusion effort is so deeply committedto the D-T reaction that they are technically beyond the pointof no return;

That it is not useful to consider any other fusion reactionregardless of technical merits for political reasons;

A feeling that any questioning of the D-T reactionstrengthensthe position ofthe critics of nuclear and fusionenergy;

That it is somehow politicallyunproductive tocompare D-Tto other fusion reactions, lest the existence of somedisadvantages be used to the detriment of fusion energy as awhole.

I think that most of the members of this workshop are wellaware of this D-T chauvinism, and this form of technicalinertia will probably be the single worst obstacle to adoptionof D-3He or any fusion reaction other than (hot) D-T."[Probably including cold fusion. Ed.]

WASHINGTON - SECOND LAW PARTIALLYINDEFINITECourtesy of author

DonaldS.Ross (Bremerton,WA), "Experimental Indicationsthat the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as does Law of theSimple Gravity Pendulum, May Have Fringes ofIndefiniteness."

Brownian motion and heat pumps very temptingly inviteefforts to harness molecular energy which seems largelytraceable to the sun but, being indirect, is merely diminishedby nightfalls and clouds.

Such harnessing is widely deemed energy-losing or evenimpossible, and Artificial Intelligence pioneer Thomas Ross(Scientific American,April 1933,etc.) agrees withmost otherphysicists that any embodiment of Professor Maxwell's"demon" toward thatharnessing would almost surely bemoreoperationalenergy-demanding thanenergy-delivering;faintest



criticismof that great scientist's genius not intended, for his"demon"concept was never presentedasa possible path toanenergy revolution. Physicist Ross's agreement withmainstream scientists is against a background of havingcreated andco-created supposedly impossiblemaze-learnerswhichweresuccessfully demonstrated at Yale Universityandthe University of Washington, respectively, so "demon"creationpossibilities werenotcasuallydismissed. Hisentirelydifferent "molecular check-valve" approach merits, he feels,investigation instead ofencounteringmentalblocks caused byimpracticalities of other approaches.

Toward testing that different approach, circa 1953, anordinary-looking little "squeeze-tube" of dry graphite locklubricant from a neighborhood hardware store was fastenedupright, thestopper removed,and asteel sphere about 1.5mmdiameter was placed atop the nozzle. Almost immediatelywhena tinyair-admitting pinholewaspunchednear the tube'sbottom, the little sphere began moving and re-seating severalcycles per minute; my memory is uncertain concerningfrequency, likely within six to 10cpmrange.Hour-after-hourconsistencyandambient temperaturestability seemingly ruledout the Charles's Law explanation[gas expands whenheated.Ed.]. Several hours later, likely due to nozzle blockage, thetubeemitteda "puff"ofgraphite dust that blackened asurfaceseveral inches distant, indicating significant pressure.

Apparently, ashadbeen theorizedmighthappen,airmoleculesentering thepinhole pushed theirway upwardmore readilythan they could return, somewhat asa literally "pushy"personmight force passage through adense crowd towardan openfieldmore readily thanreturning toward ahighbrickwall, dueto interacting opposition.

Had statistically astounding preciousness of that casuallypurchased graphite dust been suspected in time to haveprevented loss, its analysis might have led to economicalproduction inbulk,perhaps tocausecheapspinningof turbinesturning electric generators, or that analysis might have led tomoreeffectivemolecularcheck-valveapproachbetter than theuse of graphite flakes. Some unusual ratio of particle sizes, asfromstart or ending of aproduction run at the factory, mayhave accounted for the "Lost Chord" self-compression of air.

Unusual circumstances providing opportunity to experimenthaving largely ended, pursuit of possibilities went "backburner" except that for several years thereafter, until breakingof glass tubes in a move, much larger amounts of readilyobtained graphite dust in much more sophisticatedapparatus,consistently produced extremelyweak pressure build-ups.Glass tubes four feet long of one-inch inside diameter, about10 in number, had ends heat-flared for proper reception ofrubber stoppers with short lengths of about eighth-inch glasstubes through their centers. Supported in a round wooden

rack, the large glass tubes were filled withabout-half-inch-separated "cells" of graphite dust about twoinches deep, on filter disks prevented from sliding downwardby friction of slightly broken "Os" of flat TV lead-in.Connected in closed-circuit series by short lengths of rubbertubing and slender four-foot glass tubes, the cells had a verysensitivebut unfortunatelynotcalibrated pressure-differentialindicator in that closed circuit. A glass valve shunted theindicator. If memory servescorrectly,verygentleairpressurewas applied,prior toclosingof the circuit to exclude room air,tohelp"accustom" thegraphite flakes toupwardpassageofairmolecules. For those several years whenever the shuntingvalve was opened the indicatorneedlewould fallback to shownopressuredifferential. Closingthe valve was followed byvery slow needle movement ending in about 10 minutes withgreat consistency.

Only atmospheric pressures, except for the conditioningpressure, were employed. Pressures above or belowatmospheric should probably be tried in closed-circuitapparatus. Gases with molecules heavier than air offersfascinatingpossibilities. Finely groundmica flakes instead ofgraphite flakes might be well-worth trying, suggestsexperimenter Ross to this experiments-assisting and nowexperiments-reportingbrother. Possiblyworth tryingwouldbemetallic flakes so finely ground that atmosphere withoutoxygen would be needed to prevent combustion.

Whether the impossibility of the practical harnessing of amolecular energy dike has actually leaked,and whether just aleakorthe forerunner of anenvironmentally benign energyrevolution, it seemingly merits investigation no less than doescold fusion.

Donald S. Ross, Bremerton, WashingtonAugust 30, 1994

F. NEWS FROM ABROAD

BRITAIN - 'EUREKA'- AN ENERGY ECHOFROM A CATHODE?

By Harold Aspden, Received 28 Sept. 1995

In the September 1995 issue of IEE REVIEW, the monthlyJournal of the Institute of Electrical Engineers in U.K., thereis the story of the success of Professor Alec Broers who,aftera career in research with IBM in U.S.A., returned to U.K. asProfessor of Electrical Engineering at Cambridge, becameMasterof his old college, Trinity, and has now become ViceChancellor of the University.

Theaccount includes the following text: "In 1965 he moved toIBM'sThomasJ.Watsonresearch laboratoriesatYorktownto



work on the development of the world's first gigabit [sic]read-only memory... The huge data sets involved - mainlyresults from tests from Los Alamos - required that the systemshould operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Unfortunately,the tungsten cathodes had the habit of burning out after littlemore than20hours. Asustaineddevelopmenteffort increasedthe tungsten lifetime to 80hours. However, this figure wassoon to be shattered by Broer's development of the firstpracticalcathode using lanthanum hexaboride, which, in itsinitial test, ran for over 1,000 hours with no visible physicaldeterioration. 'A real eureka achievement' according toBroers. Lanthanum hexaboride remains in useas an electronmicroscope cathode material to this day."

I was interested in this story because the main part of mycareer was with IBM and I had also been a research student atTrinityCollege,Cambridge, my Ph.D.being also in electricalengineering. That caused me to read the above text ratherclosely,whereuponmy attention was arrestedby the referenceto 'lanthanum hexaboride.' Having recently, in New EnergyNews (at p 1 and p 15of the August 1995 issue and atp 1 ofthe September, 1995 issue), pointed out how warmsuperconductors and magnets sharea common feature in theirmolecular compositions,based on anear-to-102 atomic massunit quantity, I just wondered if cooling involving heatconversion to electricity in the predicted 'supergraviton'resonance occurs also in that cathode material discovered byBroers. Maybe that could explain why the lanthanumhexaboride cathode is so durable.

I had never heard of that substance before, but I rushed tocheck its molecular mass as noted in chemical reference data.I found that lanthanum hexaboride LaB6 is listed as having amolecularmass of203.78,which is twice101.89. Thatcausedme to exclaim "Eureka!"

As more and more evidence of this kind comes to light,thismust add to the suspicion that thismass-resonanceproperty is a way of defeating the second law ofthermodynamics. Surely, therefore, we can hope that somecorporateventure such as IBM might direct effort at the cleanenergy challenge ofgeneratingelectricalpower fromambientheat by asking a new generation of 'Broers' to eschew thisparticular problem.

ENGLAND - THE NUCLEAR SUN IS WANINGCourtesy of Steven Roen

Staff writer, "At the going down of the nuclear sun," TheEconomist, Science & Technology section, Sept 16,1995,pp93-96, illus.

EDITOR'S SUMMARY

The nuclear sun, as designed by hot fusion scientists, hasculminated in a 1985 joint proposal for the InternationalThermonuclearExperimentReactor (ITER). TheU.S.,Russia,Japan, and Western Europe have subscribed to the concept,andpreliminarydesigns of the requiredsuper-strongmagneticconfinement "bottle" have been advanced. Furtherdevelopment of the ITER is now dependent ongovernmentswho desire to fund big science. The articlestates, "In the industrial countries little effort is going into thedevelopment of new forms of fission..."

The ITER proposes to use deuterium and tritium as fuel.Deuterium is plentiful in the world's water and tritium can bemadein a reactor byhitting lithium with neutrons to split thelithiuminto twotritium atoms. The alternative to the ITERproject is inertialconfinement fusion(ICF)where laser beamsare proposed to blast deuterium and tritium into fusion. BothFrance and the U.S. have ICF experiments costing over abilliondollars. The ITER project is designed to advance hotfusion beyond the achievements of the tokamak (huge donut-shapedreactors) as developed byU.S., Japan, and theJointEuropean Torus in Britain. These reactors are not largeenough to produce self-sustaining fusion. The ITER willsupposedly bybigenoughfor"ignition". Butbig isexpensive.Theproposedsuperconductingmagnetswouldcostabout40%of the multi-billion dollar ITER budget.

There are budget problems ahead. In the U.S., the President'sCommittee onScienceand Technology has recommended anincrease in the fusion budget to $645 million a year between1995 and2005,but will settle for $320 million per year. Evena proposed smaller ITER will cost an estimated $4 billion andwould not be sufficient to achieve "ignition". The proposed$320 million annual budget has been cut to a proposed$229 million for 1996 which would leave no funds forcontribution to an international ITER. WithoutAmerican dollars, the ITER will probablynot be built.

Thealternative to fusion is nuclear fission. Italy has nofissionpower plants and none are planned. U.S. has 109 fissionpowerplants that provide20% of the U.S. electrical power.[But at enormous future costs for clean up of radioactivewastes.Ed.] The neutrons from proposed fission plants makethe containment structure radioactive. Each plant, it isestimated, will require replacement of these structures everytwoyears and will produce hundreds oftons of radioactivewastes witheachreplacement. Inaddition lithiumisproposedto be used to trap the neutron flux. The result is theproduction of a tritium-load lithium, a combinationwhich is considered highly dangerous as lithium canburn in air and release huge quantities of radioactivetritium. With the huge size of the proposed ITER, anaccident could release



radiation equivalent to the Chernobyl accident, this articlereports.

The article concludes with "There is no doubt that the world'senergyneeds are increasing rapidly. Eventually, fossil fuelswill become harder to find, and their environmental cost maybecomeunbearablesooner. However, fusion isnot theanswerto these linked problems -- at least not in the short term.Billedas aclean, safe solution to theworld'senergyproblems,fusionis notnecessarily muchcleaner orsafer than fission,and it is a lot less practical."

Editor'sConclusions: What The Economist has yetto learnis that the new science of cold fusion or "new hydrogenenergy" isnowfarmoredeveloped than thehot-fusiondeviceswill ever be. There is now no reason for anygovernment to spend billions of dollars on hot fusionresearch. Except for military uses, there is no reasonforany government to finance "new hydrogen energy"research. The progress is sufficient to attractcorporate research and development funds.

HUNGARY - SUPER-THICK, SUPER-FLUIDETHERCourtesy of Sam Faile

László Gazdag (Janus Pannonius Univ, Pécs, Hungary),Beyond the Theory of Relativity,Szenci Molnár Literary andScientific Society, Hungary, c1995, in Hungarian.

EDITOR'S SUMMARY

The first chapter of the English translation includes thefollowing: "The superfluid ether is not static. It has differentimpulsed components (bosons). It is even a superthick (supercompact) medium. Look at the Planck equation."

Indescribing how dense the ether is, Gazdag uses the MaxPlanck equation (c1910) which Max Planck formulated torelate the electromagnetic energy distribution of the vacuum.This equation has a term which is ignored as being too small.However,Gazdagstresses the fact that if theethersupports theconduction of very high frequency radiation (up to 1044 Hz)then this term can become enormously large -- up to 1093

kilogram per cubic meter of mass converted to energy byEinstein's formulaof E=mc2! The author notes that matter,which ismuch less dense, "floats" in this sea of etheric energymuch as a deep-ocean fish swims in sea water havingenormous pressures.

It is important to note that this figure of etheric energyis consistent with Hal Puthoff's similar calculations ofthe energy density of the vacuum zero-point energy.[H.E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications forEnergy

Research," Speculations in Sci. & Tech., vol 13, no 3, p 247-257.]

See also the following article:

László Gazdag (Janus Pannonius Univ, Pécs, Hungary),"Einstein's second postulate,"Speculations in ScienceandTechnology, Vol 18, pp 150-152, 1995, 1 fig.

JAPAN - ELECTRON BOMBARDMENT

K. Kamada (Natl. Inst. for Fusion Science, Nagoya), H.Kinoshita and H.Takahashi (Dept. of Eng., Hokkaido Univ.,Sapporo, Japan),"Anomalous Heat Evolution ofDeuteronImplanted Al on Electron Bombardment,"SOFE '95Seekinga New Energy Era, Book of Abstracts, 16th IEEE/NPSS,Symposium on Fusion Engineering, Sept. 30-Oct. 5, 1995,p217.

AUTHORS' ABSTRACT

Anomalous heatevolution,which is presumed to continue forabout 2 x 10-11 seconds,was observed in deuteron implantedAl foils on 175 keV electronbombardment. Local regionswith linear dimension of more than 100 nm each showedsimultaneous transformation from single crystalline topolycrystalline structure in roughlyoneminuteof the electronbombardment, indicating the temperature riseup tomore thanmelting point of Al from room temperature. The amount ofenergy evolved was typically 160 MeV for each transformedregion. The transformation was never observed in protonimplanted Al foils. Any kind of chemical reactions or theheating effects of the bombarding electronbeamwere provedto be not responsible for the melting. Therefore, the heatevolution was presumed to be a result of some kind of nuclearreaction in D2 molecular collections.

G. SHORT ARTICLES

CHALLENGE TO OLD PHYSICS

JohnE.Chappell, Jr. "ALandmarkChallenge toEstablishmentPhysics." Reprinted with slight revisions from Apeiron(4405St-Dominique, Montreal, QU H2W 2B2 Canada), no 20,October 1994, p 40-41.

The most important thing to report about the meeting ofdissident physicists and cosmologists in San Franciscoduring20-23 June 1994 - advance notice of which was printed inApeiron in October 1993 - is simply thatit did take place. Itwas notcanceled shortly before the scheduled time, as someworried might happen, since late cancellations of meeting of



this type have indeed occurred before, as a result of pressurefrom an intolerant establishment.

This meeting was a landmark in at least two senses: (1) It wasthe largest organized challengeto modern physics in NorthAmerica for several decades, although even larger dissidentmeetings have been held in Europe since the 1980s - the mostrecent was in St. Petersburg, Russia in May 1994, and wasattended by S.F. contributor Neil Munch. (2) It was part of aregional meeting of the world's largest general scienceorganization, theAmerican Association for theAdvancementof Science (AAAS), which for decades has not allowed sucha degree of dissidence at its nationalmeetings. It was alsomuch larger than originally anticipated, offering a programwith 57 papers by 53 different authors - the result of manyinviteessuggestingstill others,until thenumber of invitationstripled. But unfortunately no reporters attended, nor anyphysicists from major departments, although many wereinvited.

Wemight have had more visitors, but the Pacific Division ofthe AAAS, to whose regular yearly meeting our specialsessionswereattached,kept ourplansobscurebynot allowingussymposiumstatus,which wouldhavemeant advertisementmonths in advance; andeven in the finalprogram, it refused toprintour individual session titles,whichhadsucheye-catchingphrases as "Beyond SpecialRelativity." Even the general titleof our 14 sessions was distorted, when the AAAS added "..inan historical context" to the agreed-upon "Challenges toContemporaryViews in Physics and Astronomy;" onlythefirst of them was primarily historical. Hosting San FranciscoStateUniversitychipped in too,causingserious inconvenience- especiallyto a few ofus with hip, heart, etc. problems - bymoving our initial sessions on Monday to a smaller room farfrom the scheduled one, too late to notify most attendees (andthe forbidden room went unused all day).

Still, our group was verygrateful to be able to meet in someway, and this we owe mainly to Michele Aldrich, officialliaison person between the AAAS national office and thePacificDivision. She had already taken a tolerant interest inthe efforts of the late Lee Coe, of Berkeley, California, incriticizingspecial relativity and theBigBang theoryat severalprevious Pacific AAAS meetings, most often alone in singlepapers, but also in a very small 1992 group effort in SantaBarbara (see Apeiron, October 1993).

Sadly,Lee Coe passed away in February1994, at theage of86. To honour his efforts on behalf of our cause, this SanFrancisco meeting was dedicated to his memory, and also tothe memories of two other valiant workers on behalf of a newand more soundly-based physics who had died during theprevious year: Petr Beckmann of Boulder, Colorado, well-

known founder of the journalGalilean Electrodynamics (seehis obituary by Howard Hayden, who contributed to the S.F.meeting, in Apeiron February 1994 [1]); and WilliamCarnahan of Austin, Texas, for many years the leader of theAssociation for Pushing Gravity Research, whose memberspromotedLesage-type theory,whichclaims that space is filledwith a medium that transmits gravitational forces.

Although rather obscure, the APGR was probably the largestand best organized groupof dissident theoretical physicists inNorth America during the nadirof intolerance for sucheffortsfromthe late 1950s to recent years; and since about 20 of itsmembers gathered in 1981 in Huntington Beach, California,probablynoother meeting of this size and type has occurredon this side of the Atlantic until this year. Contributors to thatAPGR meeting who also read papers in S.F. included JohnFernandez, John Kizer and myself. The renowned pioneerradio astronomer Grote Reber of Tasmania, who contributedin S.F. in absentia, was also an active APGR member.

Of the 53 authors, only 33 were scheduled to be there inperson, and four of these were unable to make the trip.Among the U.S.authors, several were absent co-authors, anda few of those present read two or more papers each. Elevenpapers from outside the U.S. were on the program; nine ofthese were read in absentia, one was not sent, and anotherwas read by philosopher Bernardo Gut of Switzerland, whowas one of the 29 attending authors.

TheAAASwasparticularly anxious forus to include asmanydiscussants representingestablishment physics as possible, soas to offer abalanced presentation. Anexhaustive searchwasundertaken, by mail and in person, whichmost likely reachedover250 academics in physics and related fields. Out of allthese, Edward Apgar, who teaches extension courses atHarvard University, was the only one who joined us; and hedid so as a fellow dissident.

At least, noneof theinvited physicists, some of whom werelater invited again as listeners, issued any complaint about usto theAAAS. Andyet acontroversial symposiumat thesameS.F. meeting, with speakers arguing that the medicalestablishment is incorrect inclaiming that the HIVvirus is themain cause of AIDS, elicited vigorous objections and muchpre-meeting debate in the press. Does the contrasting silenceamongthephysicists reflectgrowing tolerance fordissent? Ordo they think we are so ineffectual a threat that we don't seemworth acknowledging?

We did finally locate two discussants, mainly because each isa long-time friend of one of us: Ralph Vrana, retired fromCalPoly San Luis Obispo, and Lewis Epstein of San FranciscoCity College, who debated against Lee Coe at the 1992 mini-meeting.



Vrana and Epstein were both assigned to discuss specialrelativity(SR), which was the chief center ofinterest atourmeeting;about60%of thepapersdealtwith it primarily, eithertodiscuss its shortcomingsor toelaborateonalternative ideas.In my invitations, I had singled it out as the key topic ofconcern,with lesserattention toBig Bang theoryandquantummechanics. In one of our too-infrequent general discussionperiods, we tried to develop a statement on the "sense of themeeting," but could not reach unanimity about any scientifictopic. Yet wedid agree that at least 75%of attendingauthors-I would guess at least 80% - found at least some seriousshortcoming inSR,many ifnot mostof thesebeing convincedthat it is totally invalid.To mysurprise, threeauthors revealedtheywere not sure theBig Bang theory is wrong, leaving only90% opposed to it. The only issue on which all agreed is thatestablishment physics has for many years been far toodogmatic and intolerant towards challenges to currentorthodoxy.

Alternatives toSRsuggested in S.F. rangedfromvariousetherandfieldconceptsand theories,withorwithoutMaxwellianorLorentzian elements, to some variant of the Ampère-Gauss-Neumann-Weber line of electrodynamic field theory - whichin ourcentury has been developed by Ritz, Bush, O'Rahilly,Waldron and also by a few contributors to our meeting,including Peter GraneauofNortheastern University inBoston(whose paper was co-authored and read by Milo Wolff), andDomina Spencer of the Universityof Connecticut in Storrs(whose late husband and collaborator Parry Moon was astudent of Bush). I believe that it is vital to work for possiblesynthesesofsuchvaryingapproaches. Forexample,O'Rahillyand Spencerhavesuggested thatanelectromagnetic fieldandan ether might ultimately be just different conceptsrepresenting thesame reality. Also,oneof mypapers showedhow additive photon speeds and unvarying net velocity ofphotonsacross a gaseous ether of uniformdensity canboth beaccepted without real conflict, if the photons undergocollisions and move on indirect paths, variable in amplitudeand lengthdependingon the force they introduce into theether(as would follow from Newton's Third Law).

There is noway I cancome close here to characterizing theentire range ofideas presented in all the papers read in S.F.But let mementionat least the substantial contributions madeby Francisco Müller of Miami, Florida. Francisco presentedthree individual papers, one reporting on laboratoryexperiments contradicting SR, and also read a paper co-authored with Dale Means,discussing anambitious plan todetecta large-scale Sagnaceffect resulting fromthe earth'sorbitalmotion.[2] His great effort and dedication led to hisbeing provisionally elected,by the minority of attendees whomet on the last evening after all sessions had ended, asPresident of a new organization designed to promote thepurposes of this meeting. Its exact name is still being decided,

but itwillprobably include thewords"Natural Philosophy,"assuggested by Jorge Curé, who proposed that the organizationbe formed.

Curé also organized an extra informal session of about8 people to discuss cold fusion.

This new organization hopes to publish aProceedings of themeeting toplanmore meetings in the future, and to encourageadditional publicity. The only press coverage of our meetingso far was a supportive article, "Silenced by Science," in theOttawa Citizen in Canada, on 19 June. (Contributor PaulMarmet andPhysics Essays, editor Emilio Panarella [3] bothlive inOttawa,andprovided interviews and thedesired "localangle.")

Wewould likeeventually to break the decades-long barrier toNeo-Newtonian symposiaat AAASnationalmeetings;and ofcourse we could meet on our own. But as of September 1994,our best hope for a future meeting seems to be in conjunctionwith the Southwestern and Rocky Mountain (SWARM)Divisionof the AAAS, at Norman, Oklahoma in May 1995.Early inquiries suggest we may be allowedsymposiumstatusthere, andeven ifnot,wemay stillbeallowed extradiscussiontime in the midst of individual contributed papers - animportant element in any such program that for the most partwas not allowed to us in S.F. [4]

Probably the most valuable of our few general discussions inS.F.occurredon Wednesdayafternoon. WhenKizer,Müller,Apgar and others shared information on the reasons SR wasnotessential to theprimarily technologicaleffortofdevelopingatomic energy. This issue seems to be one of the most crucialof several special themes we need to focus on prominently infuture meetings, sinceassuming a necessary link betweenSRand atomicenergy is a very widespread and influential errorthat causes many to ignore our work.

I apologize to those many contributors, some of themespecially important to whatever success our meeting hasachieved, whose names I have not listed here because oflimited space.

[1] Address: c/o Howard Hayden, Dept. of Physics, Univ. ofConnecticut, Storrs, CT 06269.[2] Later published in GalileanElectrodynamics, vol 5, no5, 1994, p 90-97.[3] Address: c/o E. Panarella, National Research Council,Room 100, Bldg M-10, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6, Canada.[4] 1995 note: Symposium status and extra discussion timewere both generously allowed by SWARM organizers, muchenhancing the value of the Norman meeting (22-24 May).



Thenext major meeting of the Natural Philosophy Alliancewill be held in Flagstaff, Arizona on 2-6 June, 1996. Allpaper titles for intended contributions to it must bereceived by 10 December 1995 (abstracts due later).For information and to send titles, write to John E.Chappell, Jr., 1212 Drake Circle,San Luis Obispo, CA93405.

ENERGY PROBLEMS LOOMING?Courtesy of Gordon B. MoodyQuotes from World Energy Update

The Consumer Energy Council of America ResearchFoundation has issued an alert (Aug 21, 1995). Increases intransportation in the decades aheadwill cause a15 percentincrease in congestion; 30 percent in oil consumption; 70percent in oil imports; and a 30 percent increase in pollutionfromcarbon emissions. The International Energy Agency(IEA) forecasts that oil consumption will reach 71 millionbarrels per day during the fourth quarter of 1995 and 100million bpd by 2010.

TheChief IEAeconomist,SeanO'Dell, concludes thatoil willdominate all forms of energy well into the 21st Century. TheBritish weekly,The Economist, in its energy survey suggeststhat energydemand coulddouble by 2020; coal output willdouble; and more electrical generating capacity will be builtover the next 25 years than has been built during the past 100years.

Editor's Comments:Noneof the energyagencies are forecasting any energyproduction from new enhanced energy systems such ascoldfusion. Without discussing why there is such a lack ofinformation transfer, itwill be useful to examine the rate atwhicha fundamental newenergydevelopment can impact theworld'senergy supply. The key question to be addressed is,"Howfastwill enhancedenergysystems supplynewenergy?"

Background:Soon after the end of World War II, an extensive study wasmade of the projected use of computers. The conclusion wasthat the totalworldcomputermarket in theyear2000wouldbe1,000computers. By 1975 there were an estimated 150,000computers installedand operating. In 1995 it isestimated thatthe number of computers exceeds 80 million.

It took about100 years for the telephone topenetrate intomostof the homes in the U.S. Radio took about 50 years.Television about 25. The first personal computers weremarketed in numbers in the early1980s. In1995, in ColoradoandUtah,overhalf thehouseholdshavepersonalcomputers intheir homes.

At this stage it is wise to remember that this editor believed, in1989, that it would take about two years before a commercialprototypeof acold fusion devicecould bedemonstrated. Itwas notuntil1994 or 1995 (depending onwhose inputs youuse) that the first cold fusion prototype was available.

Here are the basic forecasting assumptions:

1. The year 1996 will be the year for major licensing tomanufacturers and manufacturing prototypes will abound byDecember 31, 1996.

2. The first volume production of cold fusion systems will bespace heaters, many targeted at home and office use, and willoccur in 1997. 500,000 space heaters will be sold in 1997.

3. The average installation will be a 10 kilowatt unit(approximately the heat output of a 35,000 b.t.u. smallfurnace).

4. The growth rate will be 30 percent per year, an exponentialgrowth rate.

The following graph depicts the results of these assumptions.

As shown in the figure, by the year 2010, there will be anannual world sales volume of space heaters of 64 million peryear. Assuming that all units sold are operational, there willbe 8.38 million units in service. At the conservative heat-producing output of 10 kilowatts per unit, there will be a totalpotentialheat productionofover650megawatts of equivalentelectrical power.

Asimilar projection could be devised for the impact that theuse of enhanced energy systems will have on the automotiveindustry. The forecast for automobile sales in the U.S. is 17million peryear in 1996. The number of cars running is about145 million. This is the market to be penetrated, in the U.S.,



By zero-emissionvehicles. For example, acold fusiondevicecould be designed to run a generator to charge the batteries inanelectric (zero-emission)vehicle. Usingsomewhat thesameassumptions and growthrates, and assuming that500,000 on-board battery chargers would be sold in 1997, by 2010 therewould be an annual sales volume of about nine million units.The total number of electric automobiles, counting somedestroyed or worn out, would be about 30 million electricautomobiles. The current number in the United States isapproaching 150 million autos. Therefore, that wouldrepresent a market penetration of about 20 percent -- analtogether reasonable or conservative figure. However, thatnumber of electric vehicleswouldhave aconsiderable impacton the amount of oil consumed. Assuming the savings of 5gallons per week of gasoline per vehicle, then there would be250 gallons of gasoline per year for each of 30 millionvehicles. If you assume that one barrel of oil supplies 30gallons of gasoline, then there would be a reduction in oilconsumption of 250 million barrels per year or roughly 1million bblsof oil per day. The current U.S. oil production(not consumption) is about 6 million bbl per day. At $20 perbbl, theU.S. couldsave $ 5 billion per year on its balance ofpayments.

In conclusion,by theyear2010, the useof cold fusiondevicesin a variety of systems ranging from space heaters to batterychargers would make a substantial difference in thedemand foroil. As a rough estimate, we should see aboutone-fifth of the energy requirements of the U.S. beingprovided by new enhanced energy systems by the year 2010.This supply will have sufficient impact on energyfutures to help moderate the impending energy crisisthat is being predicted by various agencies and expertsaround the world.

References:

Albert H. Teich, Editor,Technology andMan's Future,ThirdEdition, St. Martin's Press, New York, c1981.

Gordon B. Moody, Publisher/Editor, World Energy Update,Arlington, Texas, various issues including October 1995.

1995 Book of the Year, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago,c1995.

H. LETTERS FROM OUR READERS

A CHALLENGE FROM MILLENIUM TWAIN

F u s i o n F a c t s ,

Re: Your lead editorial of September, "Nuclear ScientistsWanted". You madeno mention of theory or theorists! It'strue that many many more experimenters and engineers will

and must come -- but what of the total dearth of theorists? Todate, I know of only one theorist in the world who hasadvanceda physical modelofnuclear structurewithany detailat all. (What a very sad statement about our world.) Thattheorist is Chris IllertofAustralia. Unfortunately, even Illert'sgreat work is a static (nondynamic) caricature of the truenucleus! [1]

My paper in progressdevelops the world's firstdynamic physical model ofnuclear structure. Itexpands upon the conceptpreviewed in my paper onSuperluminal-Velocitytheory [2], illustrated here.At right I show one of thespinning lateral slices(shells), several slices ofwhichplacedside-to-sidemakeupawholenucleus. This sliceby itself is the Neon nucleus.

Belowis illustrated twoadjacentplasmaionswhosenucleiareshownto be football-shaped [3], formed by axially-aligningseveral spinning shell slices:

My pioneering work on nuclear structure will be released indraft form in the next few months. If any of your readers feelthey have anything on the ball, I challenge them to come upwithanunderstandable and detailedphysicalmodelofnuclearstructure!

/s/ Millenium Twain

[1] Chris Illert, "Alchemy Today, Volume 2", c1993, (2/3Birch Crescent, East Corrimal, NSW 2518 Australia).[2] "Life Without Spacetime," April 1995[3] M.H. MacGregor, "Evidence for Two-Dimensional IsingStructure inAtomicNuclei," Il NuovoCimentovol36A,no 2,21 Nov 1976, p 113-168



I. FOR YOUR INFORMATION

WHO AND WHAT IS FIC?Over six years of growth and development.

Hal Fox was the director of the first research laboratory at theUniversity of Utah's Research Park. Shortly after achievingretirement age,Hal heard the announcement of the discoveryof cold fusion. Knowing that the University of Utah had littleor no systems engineering programs, Fox decided that hisexperience could help in thedevelopmentofcold fusion. Theresultwas the formation of Fusion Information Center, Inc.(FIC) asa Utah corporation in April 1989. The first step wasto begin collecting information and sharing this informationwithothers bypublishing a newsletter. Thus,Fusion Factswas begunwith its first issue inJuly1989. Thefirst subscriberwasUtahPowerandLightCo., the local intermountainelectricpower utility.

FIC is best known around the scientific world for itspublications, the distribution of Fusion Facts at cold fusionconferences, and FIC's extensive (world's best) database oncold fusion. Withover 2500 papers collected, read, reviewed,and reviews published, FIC's database hasbecome a valuableresource to many corporations, scientists, engineers, andinventors. FIC is the publisher ofFusion Facts; New EnergyNews, amonthlynewsletter for members of the Institute forNew Energy; Cold FusionSource Book; Cold Fusion Impactin theEnhancedEnergyAge, thisbook includesadiskettewithover 2500 references; and in press is Proceedings of theConference on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions.

Since its incorporation as a Utah company in April, 1989, theFusion Information Center, Inc. (FIC) has been dedicated tothe commercialization of cold fusion. Most of its visiblebusiness activities has been the publishing of technicalinformation. Behind thepublishing, FIChasmade significant

strides in building an organization that can take advantage ofthe latest developments in the new science of cold fusion.

The block diagram depicts the formalized activities of FIC.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CORPORATEORGANIZATION

FUSION INFORMATION CENTER

The six-year old Fusion Information Center, Inc., a Utahcorporation,will continue todevelop itsworldwide leadershipposition as the premier center of information on cold fusionand other enhanced energy systems. The two monthlynewsletters (Fusion Facts & New Energy News) will becontinued. The publishing of books and conferenceproceedingswillbe continued and expanded with an addedemphasis on marketing all newsletters and publications. Thepublication ofanew peer-reviewed professional journal forcold fusion and enhanced energy papers is planned. Inaddition, theextensivecomputerizeddatabase whichhasbeenformedover thepast six years will bemade available on theWorld-Wide Web and also planned for release on CD-ROM.Thecombination of these information publishing activities isexpected to provide a modest positive cash flow for FIC.More importantly, this publishing activity providesFIC with an expanding contact with some of theworld's best scientists, engineers, and inventorsworking on these new technologies.

UTAHKOMETA & CBM TECHNOLOGY, Inc.

This Canadian company has been established by FIC. Themain purpose is tohave ameans for the raising of funds for thefurtherdevelopmentofDr.Kulak'snewbattery technologyandfor the development of Dr. Michalev's brushless motortechnology for the electric vehicle industry. A full businessplan is completed. With an investment by founders of$100,000, at least $500,000 is expected to be raised in theCanadian stock market. This amount is needed to support themanufacturing, importing, and marketing of currentlydevelopedproductsand thedevelopmentof furthermarketableproducts. The Utahkometa factory will help to developprototypes and will thenmanufacture themotorsandbatteries.These products will then be imported for distribut ionthroughout North America by CBM Technology, Inc.

FIC & IMSC JOINT VENTURE COMMODITY SALES

FIC has joined with International Management SystemsCompany to pursue the selling of some internationalcommodities that were made available to FIC. This programisabout six months old and a great deal of progress has beenmade. Sales opportunities now in progress are expected to



Commercial Column

bringover $2million in revenuesto FIC during the next sixmonths. More important is the FIC/IMSC jointdevelopmentof theGlobalTrading Communications System(GTCS). The concepts involved in this system have beenpresented to major commodity companies, including oilcompanies, and have been acclaimed as solving the majorproblems(involvingmany typesofscamsandfraud)currentlybothering international commodity trading. About $500,000of the FIC earnings from commodity trading willbeallocatedfor thedevelopmentandmarketingof the GTCS. This systemis also proposed to be used to interconnect a world-widenetwork of affiliated new energy companies. This system isexpected to be a major source of early revenue for FIC.

The planned development of profit centers affiliated with theFusion Information Center (FIC) is important to the financialwell-being of the corporation. A series of planned andpartiallycompleted international corporateactivities arebeingnegotiated by FIC. The basic concept is the mutual financingof new-energy systems and themanufacturing andmarketingof such systems. A mutually agreeable distribution ofdevelopment tasks and the cross-licensing of intellectualproperties is planned as a part of these joint ventures.

For further informationabout theworld-wideactivities ofFIC,pleasecontact Hal Foxat theaddress orphonenumberson thelast page of this newsletter.

The following companies (listed alphabetically) arecommercializingcoldfusionorotherenhancedenergydevices:

COMPANY: PRODUCT

American Cold Fusion Engineering and Supply: Informationand troubleshooting for the fusion research and developmentindustry. Sacramento, California. The president, WarrenCooley, can be reached at 916-736-0104.

CETI (Clean Energy Technologies, Inc.): Developers of thePatterson Power CellTM. Dallas, Texas. Voice (214) 458-7620, FAX (214) 458-7690.

ENECO: Portfolio of intellectual property including overthirty patents issued or pending in cold nuclear fusion andother enhanced energydevices. SaltLakeCity,Utah. ContactFred Jaeger, Voice 801/583-2000, Fax 801/583-6245.

E-Quest Sciences: ExploringThe Micro-FusionTM process.Seekingqualified researchpartners for their sonoluminesenceprogram. Contact Russ George, FAX (415) 851-8489.

Hydro Dynamics, Inc.: Hydrosonic Pump, heat-producingsystems using electrical input with thermal efficiencies of110to125percent. Rome,Georgia. Contact James Griggs,Voice706/234-4111 Fax 706/234-0702.

Nova Resources Group, Inc.: Design and manufactureETC (Electrolytic Thermal Cell); EG (commercial powercogeneration module);andIE(integratedelectrolytic system).Denver, Colorado. Call Chip Ransford, Phone (303) 433-5582.

UV Enhanced Ultrasound: Cold Fusion Principle beingused foran ultrasonic waterpurifier. Hong Kong. FAX (852)2338-3057.

Note: The Fusion Information Center has been acting as aninformation source tomany of thesecompanies. Weexpect toaugment our international service to provide contacts,information, and business opportunities to companiesconsidering an entry into the enhanced energy market.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Fusion Facts monthly newsletter: Salt Lake City, UT801/583-6232, also publishes Cold Fusion Impactand ColdFusionSourceBook. Plans on-linedatabase access for later in1995.

New Energy News monthly newsletter, edited byHal Fox,Salt Lake City, UT 801/583-6232

Cold Fusion Times, quarterly newsletter published by Dr.MitchellSwartz,P.O.Box81135,WellesleyHillsMA 02181.

Infinite Energy, new bi-monthly newsletter edited by Dr.EugeneMallove (author of Firefrom Ice),P.O. Box2816,Concord, NH 03302-2816. 603-228-4516.

Fusion Technology,Journal of the AmericanNuclear Societypublishes journal articles on cold nuclear fusion. 555 N.Kensington Ave., La Grange Park, IL 60525.

21st Century Science & Technology, P.O. Box 16285,Washington,D.C.,20041. Includescoldfusiondevelopments.

Planetary Association for Clean Energy Newsletter,quarterly, edited by Dr. Andrew Michrowski. 100 BronsonAve, # 1001, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6G8, Canada.

ElectricSpacecraft Journal, quarterly, edited by Charles A.Yost, 73 Sunlight Drive, Leicester, NC 28748.



New Energy NewsNew Energy News is the monthly newsletter of theInstitute of New Energy, an internationalorganization promoting research and developmentof clean energy of all kinds. Individual yearlymemberships are $35 per year in the U.S., $40 toCanada and Mexico, $50 worldwide. Yearly rate tocorporations, libraries, and universities is $60.

For membership, information or submissionsinformation contact New Energy News, P.O. Box58639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158-8639. Phone801-583-6232, Fax 801-583-2963.

COLD FUSION IMPACTin the Enhanced Energy Age

By Hal Fox

The book is sold with an updated diskette filled with over 2000listings of scientific references covering research papers, articlesand books primarily on cold fusion, with some other energyresearch also. The bibliography sells separately for $25. Youcan buy both for only $25, through this publication. Directinquiries to Fusion Facts Subscription office.

Space EnergyJournal, edited byJim Kettner & Don Kelly,P.O. Box 11422, Clearwater, FL 34616.

"Cold Fusion", monthly newsletter, edited by Wayne Green,70 b Route 202N, Petersborough, NH 03458.

The above list of commercial and informationsources will be growing. New listings will beadded as information is received. Sendinformation to FF, P.O. Box 58639, Salt Lake City,UT, 84158.

FUSION FACTS STAFF & CORRESPONDENTS

Hal Fox............ Editor-in-ChiefRobyn Harris........... CirculationDineh Torres........ Publication

Technical Correspondents:Dr. Robert W. Bass, Registered Patent Agent,

Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaDr. Dennis Cravens, Vernon, TexasDr. Samuel P. Faile, Cincinnati, OhioAvard F. Fairbanks, Resident Sr. EngineerV.A. Filimonov, Minsk, BelarusDr. Peter Glück, Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaMarje Hecht, Washington, D.C.Prof. Xing Zhong Li, Beijing, ChinaDr. Takaaki Matsumoto, Hokkaido U., JapanJed Rothwell (Japanese Translations), Chamblee,GeorgiaDr. Bruno Stella, Rome, Italy

Fusion Facts Subscription OfficeP.O. Box 58639Salt Lake City, UT 84158P h o n e :

(801) 583-6232 NEW FAX: (801) 583-2963

Street Address: 540 Arapeen Drive, Suite 209University of Utah Research ParkSalt Lake City, UT 84108

FUSION FACTS Each Issue Mailed First Class.12 ISSUES.......(University or Corporate)........................ $ 30036 ISSUES.......(University or Corporate)........................ $ 800

FUSION FACTS SINGLE ISSUESCURRENT ISSUES EACH................................. $ 303 MONTHS OR OLDER ISSUES EACH................... $ 10

All back issues available.

SUBSCRIPTION REQUESTFor your convenience you can order by phoning (801)583-6232, or FAX (801) 583-2963, or use the Mail.

Send Fusion Facts to:

NAME:

COMPANY:

PO BOX, DEPT:

CITY:

STATE ZIP

Please paywith a check in U.S. dollars drawn on a banklocated in the U.S. or with a Postal Money Order.Send check ormoneyorder withorder andreceive oneextra issue free. Make checks payable to Fusion Facts.

october 1995 - new energy times

Documents