Cold fusion/III/Phase 1

A recent post to a private mailing list, by a well-known researcher in the field, asked for "What experiments would people suggest to form a sufficient basis for proof of the existence* (first) and utility (second) of the phenomenon (or phenomena) that we call CMNS."

The researcher emphasized that this was not a theoretical question, that it was "actionable." He added: "Imagine that all the money we need is available in the very short term. In fact, only on the very short term."

There was general agreement and no argument against heat/helium study as being important. This page will examine all significant proposals. Other proposals may be added here. This is a discussion group, so contributions here should be signed.

Ideally, a Phase I project should be confirming, with increased rigor and accuracy, prior confirmed work. It should not be based simply on some unconfirmed interesting result, there are many such in the field. (Phase II may engage in that kind of study, and this kind of initial confirmation work has been going on, at a low level, since 1989.)

However, many researchers and interested persons did make proposals that don't meet the criteria I have proposed. They will all be listed here, and in some cases, investigations may be combined with a Phase 1 proposal, but the success of the basic proposal should not be risked.

Proposals here are not attributed to the proposer, because that is a private list and permission has not been obtained. I am responsible for all these proposals as if I made them, though I may not support some of them. If permission is given, names will be used. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Heat/helium ratio

This is described in the forthcoming Current Science paper. However, what specific protocol(s) for setting up the AHE should be used? I list four as having been confirmed or being confirmations. Any others? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

SRI M4

As a confirmation of Miles with increased accuracy. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Superwave

As confirmed by SRI and ENEA. Helium not yet measured. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Apicella Laser-3

As a confirmation of SRI M4 and Miles with possible increased accuracy. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Miles

As confirmed widely. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Case

Gas-loaded. As confirmed by SRI. Problem with catalyst. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Letts Dual Laser

While Letts is unconfirmed, Letts claims high reliability, and the investigation of dual laser stimulation may be combined with single laser (Apicella); however, Letts uses and probably requires a gold overplate. For Phase I, the Letts protocol should only be used as one protocol in a more extensive series of experiments. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Soft radiation

Investigate soft radiation.

A number of cold fusion theories suggest that the fusion energy is released as many low-energy photons that would not penetrate the apparatus to be detected externally. If this could be detected, it could possibly be an independent measure of the reaction, which would be highly useful. Detecting those X-rays would not, in themselves, be a strong "proof" of "nuclear." However, if this can be combined with heat/helium, it could be very useful. There is existing research at SKINR looking at an electrochemical cell with a thin membrane, designed to detect photons down to 1 kV. If SKINR takes on a Phase 1 project, this might be synergetic. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Codep/CR-39

The SPAWAR protocol (codeposition+calorimeter+CR39).

Kit for sale

Something that anyone can test.

Test many material samples

Test for AHE performance, and sustained effect. Combine with helium measurement.

Replicate Rossi/Parkhomov

Rossi cannot be "replicated" because there is no available device or published protocol adequate for replication. The most thorough "demonstration" was semi-independent, the Lugano test. Rossi will continue his work without Phase 1 funding, and if he is successful, there will be a commercial product that anyone may test. Phase 2 funding may wish to consider support for the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, which has done some work to calibrate the Lugano test (and, as well, to attempt replication of Parkhomov).

Parkhomov has not been formally published and is unconfirmed. In my opinion, Parkhomov's results are highly questionable: worth investigating, because the approach is of interest, and fairly simple, but Parkhomov is already under wide attempt to replicate, and the entire field of NiH reactions must be considered as not strongly confirmed. The ash is unknown, as to any solid, reproducible and confirmed work. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Look for helium in NiH work

Actually, mass spectrometry of the gas and material in NiH work, if serious XP has been confirmed, would be of high interest, with particular attention to very low-mass, i.e., looking for reduced-mass nuclear isomers of hydrogen and deuterium, as well as helium-3 and helium-4, though the latter two are very unlikely. The reduced-mass isomers are also unlikely, but have been proposed as part of an explanation for cold fusion and if this could be easily tested, it could be revolutionary if they are found.

If NiH reactions are producing deuterium, this would be difficult to detect, because of normal deuterium presence in light hydrogen, but in high-XE experiments, and using deuterium-depleted hydrogen, the product might be possible to detect. However, all NiH work may be too speculative for Phase I.

This is best combined with PdD heat/helium work, for if the mass spectrometer has sufficient low-mass resolution to distinguish 4He+ clearly from D2+, it may be able to detect low levels of reduced-mass isomers as a smear in the detection, Storms theory would predict a range of deuterium isomers from normal stable state down to a reduction of up to 23.8 MeV. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Confirm biological transmutation

To my knowledge, biological transmutation results are not well-confirmed, as to any specific finding. Vladimir Vysotskii has done work that, on the face, is highly interesting, but it has not been independently confirmed. There is a review by Jean-Paul Biberian of biological transmutation in the Current Science special section (forthcoming),

Skeptics often mock biological transmutation claims because it seems so impossible. However, cold nuclear fusion has the same problem. If cold nuclear fusion is possible, as appears from confirmed experimental evidence, then there is nothing inherently outrageous about the idea that some protein or biological structure might be able to catalyze reactions. However, none of the proposed or demonstrated reactions are the same as those found in the FPHE. This is, then, so far, unconfirmed work, even though of high interest. Once Phase I is complete, funding for such work should become much more available. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Dual laser stimulation

(uses two lasers to generate a beat frequency in the teraherz region, in a gold overcoat, combined with a magnetic field.)

This experiment is of very high interest as to theory: resonances in the THz region were predicted by Hagelstein and found by Letts. If this is done, it should be combined with helium measurement. It is possible that the gold overcoating will suppress release of helium in the gas, but the helium should then, we would expect, be released with anodic stripping, as we expect will be used with ordinary FPHE heat/helium study. That stripping would remove the gold and the outer layer of palladium. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)