CBS 60 Minutes on Cold Fusion

cold fusion is hot again, cbs 60 minutes, cbs 60 minutes lenr, cbs 60 minutes cold fusion,

CBS 60 Minutes did a reportage on Cold Fusion back in 2009 called: Cold Fusion Is Hot Again

The reportage features footage of Martin Fleischmann as well as Michael McKubre.

The reason I wanted to bring attention to this clip is because it also features Richard Garwin.

There is a fun segment in the show where Richard Garwin claims that McKubre, Martin Fleischmann and reputable laboratories all over the world have measured the input power of the devices wrong for over 20 years.

I think probably he measures the input power wrong.


martin fleischmann, stanley pons, cbs 60 minutes fusion, cold fusion, lenr,


The reporter confronts Richard Garwin with reports from The Pentagon and Darpa which claims that there is “no doubt anomalous excess heat is produced“. Richard Garwin answers:  “I require that you be able to make one of these things, replicate it, put it here. It heats up the cup of tea. I’ll drink the tea. Then you make me another cup of tea. And I’ll drink that too.”

Richard Garwin is looked upon as one of the most respected physicists in the world. I know that when Richard Garwin speaks, people listens. He is one of these people who sets the standards. I would like to know if Richard Garwin have changed his mind regarding Cold Fusion since 2009 and I would like to challenge him to answer me through my blog or through an email.



I have +1000 unique visitors on my blog every day and many of them have a scientific or business related background. I find it likely that someone within Richards circles would access this information and forward it to him.




Dear Richard, I have a present for you.

Its a Hawaii shirt I got from a magician during one of my adventures.

Its to big for me and I rather want you to have it!

If I send it to you, can you promise me to wear it during an awkward occasion?

Friendly Greetings,  / Doggy Dog
bob (@) drboblog dot com


cold fusion tea, douglas morrison, lenr tea, water boiler, jasmin tea, ni week 2013, ni week lenr, ni week cold fusion,


-We Got Your Tea Bro!


” You only give up if you find you are wrong” / Dr. Martin Fleischmann, 1994


  1. alain samoun

    Doubting is normal and right for a scientist like Richard Garwin, but he is wrong by not going to McKubre laboratory to see or make himself the experiment he is asking, for to erase or confirm his doubts. When he was young he probably had doubts that his H bomb would work but he did made the test – Unfortunately as he said – Now,maybe he can make the cold fusion or LENR test. Maybe to redeem himself?

    1. Bob Mihajlovski

      He hasn’t answered me yet, I guess he is busy watching episode 26, season 7 of Futurama.

      1. alain samoun

        Keep asking!

        1. (Post author)

          Its very hard to find any contact information but I know that he is a science advisor to President Obama so I guess Ill just send some presents to his office, that should get his attention (?)

    2. Barry Kort

      There is a rather fascinating reason for Garwin to doubt McKubre’s method of reckoning the electric power going into a cell.

      It has to do with the application of Ohms Law.

      It’s a curious exercise which is quite instructive.

      Who here remembers Ohm’s Law? Can someone supply it?

  2. Steve

    Cold Fusion: Relies on electrons being stripped from Deuterium leaving 2H with one proton and one neutron in free space. When two of isotopes are brought together 4H with two protons and two neutrons is created, which release energy. The easiest way to do this is to construct nanotubes of palladium laced carbon molecules, and then vibrate the tubes in such a way as to force the 2H isotopes to combine. I believe this vibration occurred in a rather haphazard manor in Fleischmann and Pons electrolysis cells as palladium molecules were ripped away from the cathode’s surface. Alternating the direction of the current would have increased the generation of heat in their original experiment and made it somewhat more reliable.

  3. Barry Kort

    About a year after CBS 60 Minutes aired their episode on Cold Fusion, I followed up with Rob Duncan to explore Richard Garwin’s thesis that McKubre was measuring the input electric power incorrectly.

    It turns out that McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his cells, and assuming (for arcane technical reasons) there could not be any AC power going in, and therefore he didn’t need to measure or include any AC power term in his energy budget model.

    Together with several other people, I helped work out a model for the omitted AC power term in McKubre’s experimental design. Our model showed that there was measurable and significant AC power, arising from the fluctuations in ohmic resistance as bubbles formed and sloughed off the surface of the palladium electrodes. Our model jibed with both the qualitative and quantitative evidence from McKubre’s reports:

    1) McKubre (and others) noted that the excess heat only appeared after the palladium lattice was fully loaded. And that’s precisely when the Faradaic current no longer charges up the lattice, but begins producing gas bubbles on the surfaces of the electrodes.

    2) The excess heat in McKubre’s cells was only apparent, significant, and sizable when the Faradaic drive current was elevated to dramatically high levels, thereby increasing the rate at which bubbles were forming and sloughing off the electrodes.

    3) The effect was enhanced if the surface of the electrodes was rough rather than polished smooth, so that larger bubbles could form and cling to the rough surface before sloughing off, thereby alternately occluding and exposing somewhat larger fractions of surface area for each bubble.

    The time-varying resistance arising from the bubbles forming and sloughing off the surface of the electrodes — after the cell was fully loaded, enhanced by elevated Faradaic drive currents and further enhanced by a rough electrode surface — produced measurable and significant AC noise power into the energy budget model that went as the square of the magnitude of the fluctuations in the cell resistance.

    To a first approximation, a 17% fluctuation in resistance would nominally produce a 3% increase in power, over and above the baseline DC power term. Garwin and Lewis had found that McKubre’s cells were producing about 3% more heat than could be accounted for with his energy measurements, where McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his cells, and (incorrectly) assuming there was no AC power that needed to be measured or included in his energy budget model.

    I suggest slapping an audio VU meter across McKubre’s cell to measure the AC burst noise from the fluctuating resistance. Alternatively use one of McKubre’s constant current power supplies to drive an old style desk telephone with a carbon button microphone. I predict the handset will still function: if you blow into the mouthpiece, you’ll hear it in the earpiece, thereby proving the reality of an AC audio signal riding on top of the DC current.

    1. AlainCo (@alain_co)

      I relayed the critic for review

      1. Barry Kort

        Thank you, Alain. I’m looking forward to obtaining reviews and responses from both Mike McKubre and Peter Hagestein.

        1. AlainCo (@alain_co)

          For you and the readers, I relay the answer of Jed Rothwell who know ell the results of McKubre

          “McKubre never reported a 3% gain. Even with his calorimeter that would be in the margin of error at the bottom of the scale, although he can detect the difference between, say, 40% and 43%. As I recall, McKubre reported gains ranging from 20% to 300% with input power, and infinity without input power, in heat after death. He once remarked that for the entire run, the gain was ~3%. I wish he had not said that. It is a meaningless number. It is like reporting the average speed of your car including the times it is parked, or waiting at a red light. The only meaningful number for “gain” or “COP” is when excess heat is clearly present.

          The effect of bubbles in electrochemical cells is well understood and it has been easy to observe at least since oscilloscopes were invented. It cannot possibly produce an error on this scale. Not even 1%. People who speculate about such things have read nothing and know nothing.

          This notion is somewhat similar to the claim that cells might be “storing” chemical energy and releasing it. Ignorant skeptics come up with this several times a year. You need only glance at the data to establish that: 1. Nothing is being stored; there are no endothermic phases, and 2. Continuous, uninterrupted bursts of heat far exceed the limits of chemistry. A calorimeter can detect an endothermic reaction as well as it can detect an exothermic reaction. If this was chemical storage, the endothermic phases would show up as clearly as the exothermic phases that follow them, and the two would balance. This is exactly what you see for the small amount of energy that is stored and release by palladium hydrides.”

          1. Barry Kort


            Oooouch – you sure pawned me on that on!

            Next time I will be sure to do a bit more of background research before making such irrelevant statements.

            1. (Post author)


              Barry – we have very low standards for what is considered acceptable to post on our webpage.

              You are not living up to those standards, please do not post information that you yourself know is irrelevant just in order to spread disinformation and doubt, or we will be forced to ban your IP address from entering in the future

              Other that than, pretty much everything goes


              1. Barry Kort

                Oh, you only want authentic baloney.

                Sorry, my mistake. I’m not that good at satire and parody.

  4. Pingback: Non è Babele – Ocasapiens - Blog -

What Do You Think?

Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Information is power
Powered By