The Case for Cold Fusion
Why Public Policy Toward on an Important Potential
Energy Source1 Needs to Be Changed
Note: This
webpage is in development.
The public interest appears not to be served by current negative public policies toward cold fusion (CF). CF may, or may not, be real. If it turns out to be real, CF holds the promise of being among the most important beneficial natural phenomena for humankind so far discovered.
The objective of this webpage is to make rational arguments – based on objective evidence of the reality of cold fusion (CF), and the strong public interest in its success – for changes in prevailing CF public policies.
Notes to Webpage Visitors
The case for more rational public policies toward CF is succinctly made on this page. The following is a list of the sections, with hyperlinks to each one.
The Public Interest in Cold Fusion
Cold Fusion Announcement and Rejection
The Public Interest and
Evidence-Based Public Policy Making
Level of Evidence of Cold Fusion Reality
Scientific Evidence of Cold Fusion
The Risks of Positive Cold Fusion Policies
Conclusion: Rational Public Policies Toward Cold Fusion
CF is a potential new method of achieving nuclear fusion, with release of large quantities of energy, at temperatures close to the surface of the earth. Nuclear fusion is known to occur at very high temperatures, such as in the interior of the sun and in hydrogen bombs. Hot fusion produces vast amounts of energy through the conversion of mass into energy according to Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2. CF holds the promise of accomplishing this conversion – and associated release of energy – on the earth’s surface without requiring the high temperatures of the sun or hydrogen bombs.
Because of the way in which it was first announced in 1989 and developments in the first year after that, CF was rejected by the scientific establishment as not being a real phenomenon. Despite this rejection, a number of capable researchers has continued to investigate CF reactions. These investigations have yielded a substantial – and growing – body of evidence that CF is real.
The demonstrated public interest in the success of CF indicates that the phenomenon should be given the best possible chance to be proven real and brought to beneficial fruition. With so much evidence of its potentially being real, and with its tremendous importance to the future of humanity, CF appears to warrant favorable policies and receive full public support for its development.
The Public
Interest in Nuclear Fusion
Primarily because of the promise of nuclear
fusion for providing unlimited quantities of very low cost energy, the public
interest in its success is well established and universally accepted. The human
benefit of constructive (non-bomb) generation of energy from fusion has led to
the expenditure of over $15 billion in the
Nuclear energy has become ever more attractive as the problems associated with fossil energy become more acute and better understood. The long-standing concerns of potential depletion and geopolitical factors of fossil energy have been expanded by the now generally accepted problems of global climate change. The release of large quantities of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) associated with consumption of fossil fuels is almost certainly a principal cause of global warming.
Clearly the public interest in the success of nuclear fusion, from both an energy resource and environmental protection perspective, is well established. CF represents a potential alternative or complementary avenue to hot fusion as a means of producing energy from nuclear fusion for the benefit of human welfare.
Announcement
and Rejection of Cold Fusion
CF was announced at a press conference held at
the
The reasons for the announcement by press conference, and the experimental and other relevant events in the following year, constitute a complex and dramatic story that challenges the very basis upon which modern science is conducted. The upshot of the events and decisions of this critical early period was the rejection of cold fusion as a legitimate field by the mainstream scientific community. Not only was CF rejected, but it was also held up as a premier example of how science should not be conducted – even ridiculed as “voodoo science” and a “scientific fiasco”. Little has changed in this view of CF by the scientific establishment in the nearly 20 years since.
During this same timeframe, however, a number of capable and qualified researchers in professional positions and “legitimate” scientific organizations has continued to perform CF research. The results of this research, which has been conducted under highly marginalized conditions (for example, denial of funding and refusal of research papers for publication), constitute a large, and growing, body of evidence for the reality of CF phenomena.
The Public
Interest and Evidence-Based Public Policy Making
Public policy is frequently not made on a rational basis. Instead, many other factors besides rationality come into play when policy decisions are made, such as political considerations, ideology of the policy makers, and private interests in public decisions and actions. Nearly all public office holders and policy makers, especially elected officials, invoke the public interest to explain or defend the policies they develop or support. In reality, individual understanding, interpretation, and application of the principle of “what’s best for the public interest” vary over a broad spectrum – and may require a considerable stretch of the imagination in some cases.
A recent trend, or reform movement, in policy making, referred to as “evidence-based policy”, has been to place rationality at the heart of policy decisions under the assertion that the public interest is best served by what “makes sense” or, especially, “what works”. In this framework, the best policy decisions are those based on the evidence for what has served the public well and what has not (or has served some private interest instead). This rational reform movement entered the policy making arena from the medical field, where evidence-based medicine was found to be very effective in setting the framework for deciding on the best medical procedures. Because it has been so successful, evidence-based medicine – and its basis in rationality – have been embraced in other fields, including social welfare programs, crime prevention and public policy making. To paraphrase Churchill on democracy: “Rational policy making is the worst possible method – except for all the other ones.”
Level of Evidence of Cold Fusion Reality
How convincing is the evidence of the reality of cold fusion? What is the appropriate policy response to the level of evidence? Answers to these two questions are central to the future of CF and energy supply for human welfare. And they are the primary focus of this website. The approach here is to propose five categories of level of evidence and then seek to place the reality of CF in the most rational category. The evidence levels are derived primarily from the legal field and are summarized as follows with proposed associated probabilities.
|
Low Probability |
<20% |
|
Moderate Probability |
20-50% |
|
Preponderance of Evidence (PoE) |
50-70% |
|
Clear and Convincing Evidence (CCE) |
70-90% |
|
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (BRD) |
>90% |
“Preponderance of Evidence” (PoE) comes from
civil law in the U.S. and is the standard given to juries to find for the
plaintiff or defendant based on what the evidence indicates as being the truth,
no matter how miniscule the amount that the balance favors one side over the
other. “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” (BRD) is taken from
It is asserted here that the level of
evidence for the reality of CF is at least in the PoE category, and a strong
case can be made for the BRD category as well. This assertion is based on the
scientific evidence, as well as a probabilistic analysis of this evidence, as
described below.
Scientific
Evidence of Cold Fusion
Many experiments have been successfully performed indicating the existence of CF reactions, including generation of “excess” heat (beyond what can be accounted for by chemical processes and therefore considered to be the result of nuclear reactions), emission of nuclear radiation, and production of nuclear fusion products, such as helium. These experiments were performed both during the initial period before rejection and in the nearly 20 years since. This body of scientific evidence may be summarized for assessing the CF level of evidence in four ways: 1) initial confirmations; 2) successful experiments in the years since rejection; 3) particularly demonstrative experiments; and 4) probabilistic analysis of the scientific evidence.
Early Cold Fusion Confirmations
Charles Beaudette, in his booka “Excess Heat”, summarizes four papers published in 1990 (mostly reporting experiments performed in the preceding year) that he shows are early verifications of Pons and Fleischmann’s work announced in March 1989. He describes these four as the responsibility of Richard Oriani, Robert Huggins, Melvin Miles, and Michael McKubre. All of them focus on the production of excess heat (as Pons and Fleischmann had in their original experiments), although in different settings and using a variety of methods. For most scientific discoveries, such verification by independent investigators using significantly different methods and equipment in geographically dispersed laboratories would have warranted at least provisional acceptance, subject to further corroboration and better understanding of the underlying causes. This was not the case, unfortunately, for CF.
aBeaudette,
Charles G. Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed. 2nd
ed.
Cumulative Experimental Evidence
Edmund Storms, in a recently published (2007) bookb, “The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions”, found no fewer than 184 papers that reliably reported excess heat and 68 papers reporting anomalous radiation – both of which are signatures of CF nuclear reactions. The papers reported by Storms cover the period 1989 to 2004 and show the results of experiments by many researchers (over 100 senior authors of the papers listed for excess heat alone), using many techniques in laboratories all over the world. The overwhelming nature of these independent verifications is very important in assessing the level of evidence for the reality of CF phenomena.
bStorms, Edmund. Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A
Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion.
Particularly Demonstrative Experiments
Many of the dozens of verifying experiments referenced above could qualify as especially convincing of the reality of CF phenomena. Two have been selected as examples – one by Mizuno, which took place several years ago, and another by Arata, which is very recent.
Mizuno Experiment. [In preparation.]
Arata Demonstration. [In preparation.]
Probabilistic Analysis of Scientific Evidence
[In preparation.]
Conclusion: Level of Evidence of the Reality
of Cold Fusion
When examined in four different ways, or from varying perspectives, as set forth above, the scientific evidence seems clear that CF may have a basis in reality. But which of the four categories of level of evidence (low, moderate, PoE, CCE, BRD) is the most rational to select?
It is asserted here that the evidence is strong enough to reasonably select at least the PoE category (>50% probability). And a strong case could also be made to select the next higher category, CCE (>70% probability). As noted above, the probabilistic analysis shows that even the BRD category (>90%) may be reasonably selected, since a probability of 97% is indicated by the Bayesian analysis. For purposes of determining an appropriate (rational) policy for CF, at least a PoE level is adopted, with further contention that a CCE level may also apply.
Policy Responses to Cold Fusion Levels
of Evidence
Given the current negative public policies toward CF, there appear to be five possible policy responses to the various levels of evidence of its existence in reality.
1. Discontinue CF Research Entirely (DC) : Treat CF like other discredited claims of new
discoveries, such as those that violate the laws of thermodynamics (e.g.,
perpetual motion machines). This scenario appears unlikely because of the
continuing promise of CF.
2. Business as Usual (BU). Continue CF research under marginalized conditions
as is the case at present, with very little public support.
3. Reinstate CF Legitimacy (RI). Recognize that the problems observed with CF
(erratic reproducibility, lack of solid theory, etc.) are consistent with new
scientific discoveries. Provide public support at a modest but substantial
level consistent with other possible but unproven claims or discoveries.
4. Support on a Par with Hot Fusion (HF). Recognize the evidence for CF as a real phenomenon
is now sufficiently strong that, given the high public interest in its success,
it should be provided funding on a par with hot fusion research.
5.
Which of these policy responses should be selected for the various levels of evidence of CF reality? Responses are proposed for two scenarios – conservative (“go slow” in supporting CF) and moderate (assume a rational, forward-looking stance). The following matrix of possible levels of evidence and policy responses is proposed for CF under these two scenarios:
|
|
|
Policy Response |
|
|
Level of Evidence |
Probability |
Conservative |
Moderate |
|
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt |
>90% |
5: MP |
5: MP+ |
|
Clear and Convincing Evidence |
70-90% |
4: HF |
5: MP |
|
Preponderance of Evidence |
50-70% |
3: RI |
4: HF |
|
Moderate Probability |
10-50% |
2: BU |
3: RI |
|
Low Probability |
<20% |
1: DC |
2: BU |
If one accepts the previously stated
assertion that the reality of CF has been demonstrated at the PoE level of
evidence, then the appropriate policy response is to fully reinstate CF as a
legitimate scientific field even under a conservative policy scenario. Public
funding of CF research should be increased accordingly. Under a moderate policy
scenario, not only should CF be legitimized, but it should also be supported at
least at a similar level to support of hot fusion research.
If the evidence is accepted at the CCE
level, then CF should be treated similarly to hot fusion even under a
conservative policy scenario. Such a high level of evidence (70-90%) indicates
a
The Risks of Positive Cold Fusion
Policies
To complete the picture on how CF should be treated to best serve the public interest, the risks associated with changing the current negative public policies must be explored. What are the risks of a negative finding (what if CF proves not to be real)? And what are the risks of a positive outcome?
If CF is ultimately found not to be real, the primary risk would be the wasted expenditure of public funds on a “blind alley” of research. However, this has always been the case where publicly-supported research in the public interest (and research more generally) has been performed. The history of research is replete with examples of initially positive indications of valuable phenomena that did not come out positively with additional investigation. Given the very high potential public benefit of CF, the risk of loss of (wasted) research funds seems minimal in comparison.
The risk of a positive outcome of CF reality also seems minimal. Perhaps the greatest risk would be to the reputations of influential scientists who have taken strong anti-CF stances, especially those who have characterized it as fraudulent or voodoo science or as a scientific fiasco. Certainly those who have felt a strong, honest conviction against the potential of CF being real must receive charitable consideration (perhaps more than they were willing to confer on CF), as the case for CF has nothing to gain from any other response (and may, in fact, encounter unwarranted continued resistance). In any case such risk to reputations is certainly inconsequential in comparison to the potential benefit of CF to human welfare.
In conclusion, considering the balance
between the risk and potential benefits of CF being proven real, the benefit
must be found to greatly surpass any potential risks.
Conclusion: Rational Public Policies
Toward Cold Fusion
The best public policies toward CF – those that best serve the public interest – must be rational and based on evidence for the existence of CF. The evidence is strong that CF is a real phenomenon based on scientific and probabilistic considerations – at least at the “Preponderance of Evidence” level, and quite likely at the “Clear and Convincing Evidence” level. The risks of affirmative CF policies appear to be minimal in comparison to the potential human welfare benefits.
Given its high level of evidence and low
risk level, and the very high public interest in its successful development, it
appears that CF should be targeted for highly favorable public policies.
Current negative CF public policies appear
to be irrational and not in the public interest.
Cold Fusion Questions and Answers
More
About This Cold Fusion Policy Website
1Besides energy, CF may offer other beneficial
contributions to the welfare of humanity, such as elemental transmutation.
Website by:
Thomas W. Grimshaw, Ph.D., Master of
Public Affairs Candidate (Mid-Career Option)
Click here for a summary of credentials.
Click here for Master of Public Affairs program description.
Website Initiated November 2007. Last Update: June 2008.