What happened to cold fusion, the "miracle or mistake," announced at
the University of Utah by Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in
March 1989? It would not be surprising if you thought that cold
fusion were "dead," because, unfortunately, the scientific
establishment, the hot fusion community, and many in the news media
have ignored or maligned cold fusion research.

But cold fusion is far from dead. It is alive not only in dozens of
laboratories in the United States, but in numerous foreign research
centers, particularly in Japan.

Here are the basic facts about cold fusion as they stand in early
1994. For continuing monthly coverage of this rapidly expanding
field, consider subscribing to this magazine, which every month will
provide information unobtainable eslewhere, plus summaries of what is
being reported worldwide in the technical journals.

Hot fusion versus cold fusion

Hot fusion is the kind of nuclear reaction that powers the Sun and the
stars. At temperatures of millions of degrees, the nuclei of hydrogen
atoms can overcome their natural tendency to repel one another and
join or fuse to form helium nuclei. This releases enormous energy,
according to Einstein's famous E=mc^2 formula --- the mass being lost
in the reaction being converted to energy. Fusion is the opposite of
fission, which is the release of energy by splitting heavy uranium or
plutonium nuclei.

Scientists the world over have spent more than four decades and
billions of dollars (an estimated $15 billion in the U.S. alone) to
investigate the possibility of mimicking with devices here on Earth
the fusion reactions of the stars. These are complex and large
machines that rely on high magnetic fields or powerful lasers to
compress and heat fusion fuel --- typically the isotopes of hydrogen,
deuterium and tritium.

The controlled hot fusion program has made enormous strides, but all
agree that the earliest possible time when practical hot fusion
devices may be available is about three decades away. Hot fusion is a
very tough engineering problem. Many engineers --- even those
favorable to hot fusion --- suggest that the "tokamak" reactor
approach being followed by the U.S. Department of Energy will never
result in commercially viable technology.

The U.S. hot fusioneers and their international collaborators now want
to build a big, complex test reactor called ITER (International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), which might begin to operate in
2005. A commercial hot fusion power plant would not be on-line until
at least 2040. The annual budget for hot fusion research in the U.S.
regularly exceeds $500 million, and they now seek increased funding
for ITER.

Mind you, the hot fusion program has never produced a single
watt of power beyond the electric power that was put into each
experiment. Ocassionally, such as in December 1993 at the Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory, "breakthroughs" in hot fusion are announced
in which the power of hot fusion reaction reaches a record level, but
the level has always been below the electric power put in.

You can't pinch it, but it's real

"Cold fusion" is a real but still incompletely explained
energy-producing phenomenon, that occurs when ordinary hydrogen and
the special form of hydrogen called deuterium are brought together
with metals, such as palladium, titanium, and nickel. Usually, some
triggering mechanism, such as electricity or acoustic energy, is
required to provoke the "cold fusion" effects. Both ordinary hydrogen
and deuterim are abundant in ordinary water --- whether fresh water,
ocean water, ice, or snow --- so the process will likely end many of
the world's energy concerns, if it can be developed commerically.
Now, this seems all but certain. (the deuterium form of hydrogen is
present naturally as one out of every 7,000 hydrogen atoms and is easy
to separate.)

Cold fusion releases enormous quantities of energy in the form of
heat, not radiation, as in hot fusion. This heat energy is hundreds
to thousands of times what ordinary chemical reactions could possibly
yield. If "cold fusion" is a hertofore unknown form of benign nuclear
reaction --- as most researchers in the field believe --- there is
more potential cold fusion energy in a cubic mile of sea water than in
all of the oil reserves on earth. Whatever the explanation ---
nuclear reations, exotic "super-chemistry" perhaps requiring some
modifications to quantum mechanics --- or something even more bizarre
(such as tapping of the zero-point energy of space at the atomic
level), cold fusion seems destined to become a dominant source of

Cold fusion, in contrast to hot fusion, occurs in relatively simple
apparatus, albeit not yet without some difficulties. cold fusion
reactions are not at all like the conventional hot fusion reactions.
If they were ,cold fusion experimenters would have been killed by
massive flows of radiation --- neutrons and gamma rays. The
continuing wonder of cold fusion is that it is apparently a very clean
reaction that gives very little of the radiation common to fissio nand
fusion reactions. In cold fusion experiments, low-level neutrons,
tritium, helium-4, and isotope shifts of metal elements have been

Cold fusion researchers have attempted to find theoretical models to
explain the observed cold fusion effects --- the large thermal energy
releases, the low-level nuclear phenomena, and the absence of massive,
harmful radiation, and other conventional nuclear effects. There is
yet no single, generally accepted theory that epxlains all these
phenomena. There is no doubt, however, that the phenomena exist and
will eventually be explained --- most likely in the next few years.

The cold fusion evidence

The most important evidence for cold fusion is the excess heat energy
that comes from special electrochemical cells --- much more heat
coming out than electrical energy being fed in. Competent and careful
researchers have now confirmed that under the proper conditions it is
possible to obtain excess power output beyond input power anywhere
from 10% beyond input to many thousands of times the input
power! In fact, in experiments reported at the Fourth
International Conference on Cold fusion (December 1993), one
researcher, D. T. Mzuno of Hokkaido University, reported an
output/input ratio of 70,000! Sometimes this power comes out in
bursts, but it has also appeared continuously in some experiments for
hundreds of hours, and in some cases even for many months. When this
power is added up to give kilowatt-hours, the inescapable conclusion
is that much more energy is being released than any possible chemical
reaction (as we ordinarily understand such reactions) could yield.

And there is more. Neutrons, tritium, energetic charged particles,
and other ionizing radiations have been detected in a variety of cold
fusion experiments. In the past few years, there has also emerged a
startling body of experimental evidence that elements have been
transmuted in cold fusion experiments. Several laboratories
have found helium-4, for example, and low levels of radioactive metal
atoms. Isotopes of silver and rhodium have appeared in palladium
electrodes from cold fusion cells where no such atoms existed before
the experiments began. Moverover, many of these experiments differ
significantly from one another in their approach and conditions.

So, there is no chance that the various laboratories are all making
the same systematic errors in all these experiments. These nuclear
effects are clearly the hallmark of nuclear processes of hertofore
unknown character. By itself, this nuclear evidence points to an
entirely new realm of phenomena of staggering scient6ific importance.
The excess energy in some of these epxeriments is virtual proof that
something very extraordinary and of enormous potential technological
significance has been discovered.

In the early days of cold fusion research, when scientists were
struggling and learning how to replicate the effect, there were many
poorly done experiments, and many mistakes. In the weeks following
the 1989 announcement by Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at
the University of Utah, large numbers of scientists tried to replicate
the phenomenon, and failed --- or thought they had failed. They
actuallymight have obtained positive results, but for various reasons
falsely interpreted and improperly reported their data.

The experiment is considerably more complicated and difficult to
perform than originally reported in some scientific and popular news
journals. Many scientists became disillusioned with the filed after
the initial "boom and bust," but a smaller number of determined
scientists dug in and continued to work on the problem. some of them
continued, day in and day out, and finally achieved success. Soon
after the discovery was announced, in the National University system
of Japan, a low-key, long-term program was established, involving over
100 scientists in 40 institutions. The program was coordinated by Dr.
Hideo Ikegami of the National Institute of Fusion SCience in

Another long-term, well-financed program was sponsored by the U.S.
Electric Power Research Institute (described below). These programs
have gradually yielded a solid body of carefully replicated
experimental evidence. Many of the experiments performed during the
last five years produced so much heat, and used such accurate and
sensitive instruments, that the results from them are certain. It is
revealing that hte only people saying that these experiments must all
be inerror either have never done cold fusion experiments themselves
or have left the field of cold fusion experimentation, following their
early and hastily-drawn conculsion that "cold fusion" was

Major research organizations

Several hundred laboratories aroudn the world have obtained positive
cold fusion results. A partial list, which appeared in "Fire from
Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor," in 1991 is
already outdated. In the spring of 199, a conference in the former
Soviet Union revealed many more positive results; at the Second Annual
conference on cold Fusion held in Como, Italy, in July 1991, much more
positive evidence for cold fusion emerged. AT the Third International
conference on Cold Fusion in October 1992, the evidence became
overwhelming. At the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion
(Maui, December 1993), the field blossomed in many new directions: new
methods of generating excess power, and new observations ---
especially the apparent transmutation of heavy elements at
low-energy. Research facilities in the U.S. and elsewhere in the
world reporting important cold fusion results include:


Electric power Research Institute (EPRI)/SRI International
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Naval Weapons Center at CHina Lake
Naval Research Laboratory
Naval Ocean Systems Center
Texas A&M University
ENECO, Salt Lake City
Hokkaido National University
Osaka National University
National Institute for FUsion Science, Nagoya
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay, India
Technova Corporation
IMRA Corporation
NTT (Nippon Telephone and Telegraph company)
And many other private research laboratories in the U.S. and abroad.


Major financial support for cold fusion research comes from these sources:

The Ministry of Education, Government of Japan. Research is
coordinated through Japan's National Institute for Fusion Science, in
Nagoya, and conducted in National University Laboratories. The
Ministry of Education annually spends $15 to $20 million on cold
fusion. In the Autumn of 1991, the Ministry of International Trade
and Industry organized a research consortium of 10 major Japanese
corporations to advance research in cold fusion. Prior to this, only
the Ministry of Education was involved in this research. This
consortium is called "The New Hydrogen Energy Panel" (NHEP). In the
spring of 1992, as the activities of the Panel became widely known,
Japanese newspapers reported that five other major Japanese
corporations asked to be included.

In mid-1992, MITI announced a four-year, three billion yen
($24million) program to advance cold fusion research. This money was
to be spent on special expenses within the national laboratories, such
as travel and extra equipment purchases beyond the usual discretionary
levels. That sum didnot include the money, salaries and overhead,
which come out of separate budgets, and it did not count any research
in the private sector, which we know to be substantial. In fact, the
corporate members were expected to contribute at least $4 million more
to the fund, for a total of $28 million. Both MITIand NHEP members
emphasized that his fund is flexible, and could be explanded. The
estimated present annual expenditure in Japan on cold fusion probably
approaches $100 million.

The electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA., (the
$500 million/year research arm of the U.s. electric utility industry)
had spent as of the end of 1991 $6 million on cold fusion, and had
budgeted as of January, 1992 $12 million. The EPRI program continues
to spend several million dollars per year. EPRI's sponsorship of the
Fourth Internation Conference on Cold Fusion (December 1993) means
that this powerful research organization is in the field to stay.

The public announcement in December 1993 that ENECO, a Salt Lake
City-based corporation, had acquired worldwide licensing rights to the
University of Utah's cold fusion patents is further indication of the
increasing corporate interest in cold fusion R&D.

Recent Significant Developments

Here are some of the most extraordinary news happenings in cold
fusion in recent years:

The continuing research of Drs. Fleischmann and Pons is
impressive. They are now working at a laboratory near Nice, France
(in Sophia Antipolis) funded by Technova Corporation, an affiliate of
Toyota which is headquartered in Tokyo. At the Como, Italy, cold
fusion conference in July 1991, the cold fusion pioneers revealed that
with 10 or 11 silver-palladium alloy electrodes they were able to
bring their electrochemical solution to boiling. In fact, after a
gestation period to reach boiling, they were able to boil away the
entire liquid elctrolyte in less than an hour in each positive case.
In the May 3, 1993 issue of Physics Letters A, Drs. Pons and
Fleischmann document the calorimetry with which they are able to
verify the production of power at a level of 3.7 kilowatts per cubic
centimeter in tiny pieces of palladium. They can now repetitiely boil
away the liquid contents of their cells. This is approximately the
same power density of an operating nuclear fission breeder reactor.

The Japanese goverment announced in 1992 that Fleischmann and Pons
are senior scientific advisors for the five-year, multi-million dollar
MITI cold fusion research program. They continue their work ast the
Japanese facility, IMRA, near NICE.

Dr. Michael McKubre's group at SRI International has produced
definiteive proof of excess heat and energy production far beyond
chemical explanation (200 megajoules/mole). In his Electric Power
Research Institute-funded work, McKubre achieved reproducible excess
power with four different palladium electrodes. His group now
understands the conditions necessary to produce excess heat at will.
Dr. McKubre stated categorically that the excess energy produced in
his group's work cannot be explained by chemistry. Dr. McKubre's work
was interrupted by a tragic, unexplained explosion on Januar 2, 1992.
Dr. Andrew Riley, an electrochemist, died in the blast. Dr. McKubre
and Dr. Stuart Smedley were also hurt. In 1993, the SRI work resumed,
and will become more aggreessive in its effort to identify the
physical nature of the "cold fusion" process.

The work of Dr. Robert T. Bush and Robert Eagleton and their
colleagues at California Polytechnic Institute achieved one of the
highest recorded levels of power density production for cold fusion
--- similar to that of Drs. Fleischmann and Pons. It occurred in a
thin film of palladium that was deposited on a silver electrode:
almost three kilowatts per cubic centimeter came out. The is 30 times
the power density of the fuel rods in a typical contemporary fission
nuclear reactor. The cell produced several watts of excess power for
almost two months. On January 27, 1992 at the ISEM IEEE meeting
in Nagoya, Japan, Dr. Akito Takahashi of the Department of Nuclear
Engineering, Osaka National University, reported spectacular results.
Takahashi's device is a 1 mm thick x 35 mm x 35 mm plladium plate.
Over a one month period, the device put out, on average, 70 watts of
excess heat. About three times more heat energy came out of the
device than the amount of electrical energy put into it. The total
excess came to more than 200 megajoules of heat, or approximately
15,000 eV per atom. This is thousands of times more heat than any
chemical reaction could possibly produce. Dr. Edmun Storms of Los
alamost National Laboratory announced on August 15, 1992 that he had
successfully replicated the Tkahashi cold fusion experiment. His
experiments were conducted using a palladium cathode. Dr. STorms'
success was published in Fusion Technology/ Several other
groups are known to have replicated the Takahashi experiment with
varying degrees of success, including the group of Dr. Francesco
Celani in Italy.

The Subcommittee on Energy of the House Space, Science, and
Technology Committee met on May 5, 1993 to discuss the status and
funding of fusion energy. The hot fusion program was the focuse of
about two-thirds of the four-hour meeting, with the hot fusion ranks
again coming to ask for further hundreds of millions to continue their
work. After that, the hertofore outcasts --- cold fusion and
aneutronic hot fusion --- was the subject. So for the first time
since the House Science, Space, and Technology hearing of April 1989,
cold fusion received an abbreviated but an open airing before an
important congressional committee. After the very positive reception
at this meeting, it appears likely that eventual Congressional
exploration of cold fusion research will occur. The "ice has been

Dr. Randell Mills of Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation, of
Lancaster, PA, whose heat-producing experiments with ordinary
water-nickel-potassium carbonate cells are well regarded in the cold
fusion field (but still questioned by some), made a presentation at
the May 5, 1993 Congressional hearing. Mills's opening remarks
precisely summarized what the Lancaster, PA effort is all about:

"Hydrocatlysis Power Corporation (HPC) has an extensive theoretical
and experimental research program of producing energy from light-water
electrolytic cells. HPC and Thermacore, Inc., Lancaster, PA are
cooperating in developing a commercial product. (Thermacore is a
well-respected defense contractor and its expertise is in the field of
heat transfer.) Presently, all of the demonstration cells of HPC and
Thermacore produce excess power immediately and continuously. Cells
producing 50 watts of excess power and greater have been in operation
for more than one year. Some cells can produce 10 times more heat
power than the total electrical power input to the cell.

"A steam-producing prototype cell has been successfully tested ... The
[original] experiment has been scaled up by a factor of one thousand,
and the scaled-up heat cell results have been independently confirmed
by Thermacore, Inc. Patents covering the compositions of matter,
structures, and methods of the HydroCatlysis process have been filed
by HPC worldwide with a priority date of April 21, 1989. HPC and
Thermacore are presently fabricating a steam-producing demonstration

Dr. Mills and his colleagues believe that the energy source in their
ordinary water expermients is technologically extremely potent, but
they have adopted a very radical theory to explain the excess heat.
These ordinary water experiments were first reported in May 1991, and
have since been widely reproduced --- in Japan, India, and in the U.S.
Dr. Wills says that the source of excess energy is released in a
catlytic process whereby the electron of the hydrogen atom is induced
to undergo a transition to a lower electronic energy level than the
"ground state," as defined by the usual quantum-mechanical model of
the atom. Thus, stored energy in the atom is catalytically released.
Mills view many of the neuclear effects in "cold fusion" to be real
effects, which he thinks can be explained by his theory.



Balanced scientific evaluations and reference material

Several excellent scientific reviews of the cold fusion field are
highly recommended. Those who want to learn more about the remarkable
progress in this field should examine:

Dr. Edmund Storms (Los Alamos National Laboratory), "Review of
Experimental Observations About the Cold Fusion Effect," Fusion
Technology, 1991, Vol. 20, December 1991, pp. 433-477.

Dr. M. Srinivasan (Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay, India), "Nuclear Fusion in an Atomic Lattice: Update on the International Status of Cold Fusion Research," Current Science, April 25 1991.

"A Review of the Investigations of the Fleischmann-Pons Phenomena,"
John O'M. Bockris, Guang H. Lin, and Nigel J.C. Packham, Fusion
Technology, Vol. 18, August 1990, pp. 11-31.

BARC Studies in Cold Fusion (April-September 1989), Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre, BARC - 1500, December 1989, P.K. Iyengar and
M. Srinivasan; aslo in Fusion Technology Vol. 18, August 1990,
pp. 32-94.

First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion (March 28-31, 1990):
Conference Proceedings, by the National Cold Fusion Institute,
Salt Lake City.

Anamalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, American
Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 228, 1991, Steven E.
Jones, Francesco Scaramuzzi, and David Worledge (editors), Proceedings
of an International progress Review on Anomalous Nuclear Effects in
Deuterium/Solid Systems, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah,
October 22-24, 1990 (approx. 1000 pages).

Investigation of Cold Fusion Phenomena in Deuterated Metals
(four volumes), by the National Cold Fusion Institute (Salt Lake
City), June 1991, now available from NTIS.

The Science of Cold Fusion: Proceedings of the II Annual
ConferenceoOn Cold Fusion, June 29-July 4, 1991, Como, Italy,
published by the Italian Physical Soceity, Bologna, Italy, 1991,
edited by T. Bressani, E. Del Giudice, and G. Preparata (528

Frontiers of Cold Fusion, Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Cold Fusion (Nagoya, Japan 21-25 October 1992),
edited by Dr. Hideo Ikegami, National Institute for Fusion Science,
Nagoya 464-01, Japan.

"Summary of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion in
Nagoya," by Professor Peter L. Hagelstein, MIT (available from Cold
Fusion Research Advocates).

"The Third International Conference on Cold fusion: Scrutiny,
Invenctive, and Progress," By Drs. Victor Rehn and Iqbal Ahmad for the
U.S. Office of Naval Research, Japan (available from Cold Fusion
research Advocate).

"Anomalous Nulcear Reactions in Condensed Matter: A Report on the
Third International Meeting on Cold Fusion" by Dr. Iqbal Ahmad for the
U.S. Army Research Office (AMC) - Far East (available from Cold Fusion
Research Advocates).

The technical journal published by the American Nuclear Society,
Fusion Technology formerly was exclusively devoted to hot
fusion. Since September 1989, under the editorship of Professor
George Miley, this journal has regularly had an extensive section
devoted to cold fusion. Other journals that have continued to carry
cold fusion articles are the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics,
Physics Letters A, and The Journal of Electroanalytical
Chemistry, where the first cold fusion paper appeared.

Besides "Cold Fusion" Magazine, published monthly, which is the
world's first magazine devoted exclusively to cold fusion R&D and
investment, there are several nesletters, newspapers, and popular
magazines now covering cold fusion regularly, or from time-to-time,
including The Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Cold Fusion
Times newsletter, Fusion Facts newsletter, 21st Century
Science and Technolgoy.

Information is also available from "Cold Fusion" magazine
Contributing Editor, Jed Rothwell, who co-founded Cold Fusion Research Advocates:

Jed Rothwell
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court ---
Suite 313
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
Phone: 404-451-9890; Fax: 404-458-2404

The question of reproducibility

Cold fusion effects have not always been easy to reproduce, but that
does not make them any less real. The difficulties with
reproducibility, however, are rapidly disappearing as researchers
discover the conditions required to provoke the phenomena, such as
sufficient deuterium loading of metal lattices, specific metallurgical
requirements, and peculiar triggering mechanisms. Some experimenters
now report very regular appearances of cold fusion phenomena, suchas
tritium production and excess power as exhibited by heating, and even

Critics of cold fusion research have regularly dismissed positive
results simply because the effects have not always been repeatable.
Of course, there are many natural phenomena that are highly erratic,
not respeatable, and definitely not predictable, such as meteorite
falls, lightning strikes, earthquakes, and the elusive "ball
lightning." There are also a host of modern technical devices that
will not function if subtle, sometimes poorly understood composition
parameters are askew; semiconductor electronic devices are good
examples of this. It is not so surprising that the exotic cold fusion
phenomena are subject to smilar difficulties.

Negative results not necessarily negative

It is shocking but true. in the case of three major research groups
that had supposedly negative results in the spring and summer of 1989
--- Caltech, the Harwell Laboratory in England, and MIT --- there now
appear to be significant questions about their work which the
scientific community at-large has not addressed. Three scientists
have found simple algebraic errors in the Caltech work, which
invalidate the paper's negative conclusions. These scientists wrote
many times to Nature magazine, but Nature refused to
publish the corrections. A critique, however, was published in
Fusion Technology.

In the MIT Plasma Fusion Center case, serious questions have arisen
about the methods used to evaluate excess heat results. The
unpublished data appear to show indications of excess heat, but the
published version does not show these indications. Furthermore,
analysis of the methodology employed by this group revealed fatal
flaws --- even if the data had been properly handled. (A
technical discussion of the 1989 MIT Plasma Fusion Center cold fusion
calorimetry appeared in Fusion Factsm August, 1992.)

In each ase of the widely-touted and supposedly completely "negative"
Harwell Laboratory (U.K.) calormetry results, independent analysis of
that laboratory's raw data show evidence of excess heat production.
Details of the Harwell Laboratory problems have been published in both
the THird and Fourth International Conference on Cold fusion

Theories of cold fusion

When conventional (low temperature) superconductivity was discovered
accidentally in 1911, there was no physical theory that could explain
it, nor was there any such theory for about the next half century.
The much discussed high-temperature superconductivity, which appeared
in 1986-1987, still has no satisfactory theory to account for it, yet
industries and governments are bent on developing and commercializing

The same should be true for cold fusion. However, because cold fusion
seems to be an even more radical departure from conventional physics
wisdom than high temperature superconductivity, and because of the
past reproducibility problems of cold fusion, the latter has not been
accepted as readily as high-temperature superconductivity.

Cold fusion does not operate like hot fusion. That has been clear
from the start. It must have some other explanation.

Happily, several scientists have proposed theories to explain cold
fusion. Each of these theories might explain all or aspects of this
astounding new physical phenomenon. Cold fusion theorists include
physics Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger, Peter Hagelstein of MIT,
Robert Bush of California Polytechnic Institute (Pomona), Scott and
Talbott Chubb of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Akito Takahashi
of Osaka National University, Giuliano Preparata of the University of
Milano hot fusion expert Frederick Mayer, Randell Mills of
Hydrocatalysis power Corporation (Lancaster, Pennsylvania), and many

Notable cold fusion conferences

First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Salt Lake City, March

Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo, Utah,
October 1990.

Conference on Cold Fusion under the auspices of the Soviet Academy
of Sciences, March 1991.

Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy, June-July 199

Japan Nuclear Energy Conference, cold fusion seminar, october
15-18, 1991, at Kyushu National University, Engineering Department,
Fukuoka city, Japan. Part of an annual conference sponsored by the
Atomic Energy Society of Japan.

The ISEM conference on January 27, 1992. Principal sponsers were
Nagoya University, the JSME, and the IEEE.

The Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, October 21-25,
1992, in nagoya, Japan. Principal sponsors were the Physical Society
of Japan, the Japan Society of Apllied Physics, Atomic Energy Society
of Japan, the Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan, the Chemical
Society of Japan, The Electrochemical Society of Japan, and the Japan
Society of Plasma Science and Nuclear Fusion Research.

The Fourth Internation Conference on Cold Fusion, December 6-9,
1993, Maui, Hawaii, sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute
(Palo Alto, CA).

The Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion will be held in
Nice, France in April 1995.

The Sixth Internation Conference on Cold Fusion will be in
Beijing, China in mid-1996.


The Future: Too good to be true?

Cold fusion research is not "Big Science." It does not need massive
installations, just relatively small-scale dedicated work at national
laboratories, universities, and in private industries, which are
already beginning to enter the field in the U.S.

Cold fusion does, however, required the talents of top scientists and
engineers, combined with sophisticated analytical instrumentation.
Federal laboratories, floudnering in search of a new misison, are
well-equipped to support cold fusion research. Cold fusion research
could well become a major mission for scientists at these
laboratories. Cold fusion energy development, however, will domnantly
be the territory for private industry. There is no need for massive
government invetsment. But government must smooth the path for
private efforts.

Is it really possible that a revolutionary energy technology has been
inappropriately cast aside in the U.S.? That is exactly what has
happened, as scientific and egnieering developments will show. This
need not be true any longer. For the economic and environmental
well-being of the nation and the world, every citizen must become
aware of the facts about cold fusion, and help encourage funding for
American research.

Probably the most difficult hurdle in trying to come to terms with
cold fusion is that is seems too fantastic scientifically, and "too
good to be true" economically and socially. But the same could have
been and was said about many other technological revolutions as they
began to happen.

Cold fusion will likely revolutionaize the world in ways we can barely
begin to imagine. We believe that before the year 2000 there will be
cold fusion powered autmobiles, home heating systems, small compact
electrical generating units, and aerospace applications. These
technologies will revolutionaize the world as they speed the end of
the Fossil Fuel Age.

The stakes have never been higher. We should remember the sentiment
of the famous scientist, Michael Faraday, in the last century, to whom
we owe our revolutionary electrically pwoered civilization. He wrote,
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true."


Cold Fusion

Science & Mathematics

The Uncle Taz Library

Site search Web search

powered by FreeFind