Is “Cold Fusion” Fusion?

Hi There Friend!

I am having lots of interesting discussions about Cold Fusion and most of the time I am making friends.

From time to time however some humans gets irritated and annoyed – most of the time because of misunderstandings about my definition of  “Cold Fusion”.

Cold Fusion might not be the best most accurate name to describe the processes that creates the energy in these devices.

Different laboratories and companies all over the world seem to be doing their best to confuse us with complicated names, descriptions and abbreviations such as LENT, LENR, LANR, CANR, CMF, CECR, AEH, CIHT.

Sometimes Cold Fusion Scientists also speak in codes in order to prevent the wrong people from stealing valuable and sensitive information when we have to communicate over distance.



My definition of “Cold Fusion” is technologies that uses Hydrogen in combination with a Metal Alloy such as Nickel or Palladium to produce clean energy.  

LENR and Cold Fusion are the two most commonly names used.

Cold Fusion was the preferred term that journalists used in 1989-90 when Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced their findings of extreme energy production. Martin and Stanley however did not come up with that name – they did not know what process created the energy – something they where perfectly honest about.

I have never stated that an Apple Computer is made out of Apples!
Neither have I stated that Cold Fusion is a Fusion Process!

So what is Cold Fusion?

- It could be a Nuclear Process
- It could be a Fusion Process
- It could be a Unknown Process
- Blacklight Power claims it could be a Chemical Process

The experiments showing that Hydrogen can create energy within a metal have opened up a whole field of science and thus we should be careful to look for only one explanation when there could be several.
Theory is important but lets be honest – most people (99%)does not care about the underlying physics for how their fridge, oven or smartphone is working. If it works – Good!



cats, dogs, cat fights dog, dogfight,


Two other questions I often get:

(1) Did I really study at MIT, the best university in the world, and – (2) Am I really on the payroll for Planetary Resources. 

1: Yes I was the first time traveling Shi-Tzu ever to study at MIT
2: No – I personally have not made any money – all my work has been voluntarily and non profit


From time to time humans accuse me of trying to scam people on the Internet.
That is a very serious and hilarious accusation to make.

Feel free to contact the International Police and tell them all about it!



General Secretariat
200, quai Charles de Gaulle
69006 Lyon

Fax: +33 (0)4 72 44 71 63

* Stop assuming the same rules of physics applies within a metal as in the vacuum of space.
Obviously we have to adapt our thinking to the environment we study otherwise nothing makes sense.


11 Responses to “Is “Cold Fusion” Fusion?”

  1. Hi Bob

    How is the Bob Reactor going and why is that dog and cat fighting each other?

  2. You will observe this in star formation.
    Current understandings have magnetic fields playing a greater role in matter to energy conversion. I believe it’s possible that the Deuterium is in an environment where it can “slip” between fields of other matter. (Vague on purpose)
    Inside, the incoming particles can collide at accelerated speeds. They interact through the magnetic fields. (There are multiple interactions and influences) and basically “merge” for a moment. At this point, single points of reference cease and the energy becomes part of the shared processes. (vague again) Interactions demand conversion, which demand losses and gains.
    In energy / matter conversion, lesser structures like Helium can form stable structures, the energy loss is then released. (Picture the jets on a black hole)

    • I suppose that you are aware that devices are being built taking advantages of the processes that you bring forward – how do I explain – create magnetic vortexes – both on a a large scale when designing the device but also in the nickel catalysts on a nano scale.

  3. David Megarry says:

    The “cold fusion” might be a transmutation of the various stable isotopes of palladium to other metals (AG) or another isotope of palladium via neutron or proton “tunneling” which would produce heat in greater quantity than the helium production mentioned. Have any of these “looking for helium” experiments complain about AG contamination?

  4. David Megarry says:

    I direct your attention to the following: “Another Kind of Fusion” by David Wesely: for a further discussion on neutron and proton capture.

  5. David Megarry says:

    One of the major problems with the Pons and Fleischmann experiment was the inability for other researchers to reproduce the results. Some explanation as to why the verification results were inconclusive must be put forward if the validity of the results of the original experiment is to be restored.

    A possible explanation maybe the isotopic richness of Pd. It could be that only a couple of the isotopes produce the “cold fusion” effect. There were three major deposits working in the world in the late 1980′s: South Africa, Russia and the State of Montana, US. Pons and Fleischmann were in Utah and might have gotten their Pd from the Stillwater Mine in Montana. The East Coast labs more than likely were getting their Pd from South Africa and Europe more than likely were getting their Pd from Russia. If there is a particular isotopic variation between the samples from these mining areas, it could explain why the Pons and Fleischmann Experiment worked in Utah but not elsewhere (though I do recall that a lab in California had some marginal success which would point to the Stillwater Mine Pd as well…).

    Can someone get samples from these mining areas and do an isotopic ratio analysis on the samples to see if there is a variation in the mining regions?

    • The lack of replication is a myth.
      It was difficult, but many chemist succeeded.

      the problem was that among the first less competent where the most vocal, basically Ivy league physicists, first of all Caltech.

      page 35 is clear
      as McKubre paper

      the rest is a self realising story…

      Mutual assured Delusion (I call that consensus by terror)

      Reputation trap

      Vested interest

      the theory of skeptics is laughable when you study, but who dare to study?

      eg: Robert Duncan studied it by accident and have been convinced by evidences

      • David Megarry says:

        OK if this replication is not a problem (except to get someone to pay attention to the evidence) then my goal is more attainable: to restore the reputations of Pons and Fleischmann and get their discovery recognized as a significant find. Their discovery is not Hydrogen-Helium fusion but rather neutron capture in the Pd lattice and subsequent decay into other metals (mostly Ag isotopes) by beta emission. That process actually produces more energy than the H-He fusion route.

        What is your attitude towards having an alternative explanation for the results of the Pons and Fleischmann experiment? Will you have an open mind or must it be “everything” has to point to H-He fusion or bust?

        I am not a scientist by trade so please forgive any bizarre use of scientific terms. I do know unfairness when I see it and have always considered what happened to Pons and Fleischmann to be be appalling and short-sighted: we owe those persons who go down less fruitful paths in their career just as much honor as those who find rich deposits in the Frontier of Knowledge.

        Do you have access to test results in a more significant way than I? Has any experiment demonstrated any amount of Helium production?

        • I asked myself (and others) the question how come someone could mass produce a 100 dollar kit back in 1990 that would produce the anomaly, but not being able to do it today.

          If we listen to the oracles of Cold Fusion, such as Michael McKubre from SRI, he will typically refer back to some experiment he performed 20 years ago.

          The best evidence from Cold Fusion is not the most elaborate and expensive experiment from the most prestigious institution, but the cheapest setup that can be performed by a car mechanic or a farmer with a 20 dollar budget.

          Now, the technology have evolved.

          The Palladium tech is not really seen as something with commercial promise, because its typically expensive and only efficient working with small energy levels. So – the community are now working with the next gen Hydrogen – Nickel technology, struggling with the same problems as our predecessors did 25 years ago.

          • David Megarry says:

            What happened to pure science: something has to be commercially viable before it can be investigated? I am just floored by this…

            Could you read the entry I put on just before the replication entry and understand the analysis that David Wesely has done on Pd stable isotopes? This same analysis should be done on Ni and other isotopic rich metals. I am after Wesely to do this, but he is retired and is further away from his training. We’ll see…

            I would say the community has not understood the phenomenon in the Pd tech. There could be isotopic separation techniques that could enrich the Pd lattice with the isotopes that actually produce the output. The non-active isotopes would hinder the energy production so the efficiency is clouded.

            I have been a software/firmware tester in the last 20 years of my career and am not impressed how the tests have been framed. There is no checking of the isotopic nature of the Pd lattice before and after the experiment has been run. No spectrum analysis of the materials in the bath which has been most frustrating for me.

            Wesely promulgated his analysis in 1996 and then asked me to check to see if any of the predicted outputs were being detected. We would be looking for Ag and Pd isotopic ratio changes. Well one thing leads to another and I did not do this until 2005 when the Pons and Fleischmann story again made its rounds in the popular press.

            So the scenario runs like this: I read the popular periodicals in 2005 and say, “oh yeah, I was supposed to look to see what the experimenters were finding or complaining about.” I do a search and the very first entries were talking about silver contamination (up to 20%!) and one government lab in San Diego had found an unexplained Pd ratio change. I immediately get Wesely published in a local scholarly journal just to make sure we have a time stamp for his work. Well, time passes again and now I am retired myself and can devote more time to this effort.

            These experiments need to be run again but this time looking for transmutation products and energy output measurements that are checking for the results predicted by Wesely’s analysis.
            The H-Ni analysis should be done and understood as well. One of the outputs of a Ni neutron tunneling would be a Cu isotope but all the literature describing the test setups include Cu as part of the mix, thereby contaminating any output analysis.

            And they are insisting on an H-He fusion which I think is missing the point. Pons and Fleischmann appear to have discovered a way to generate neutron tunneling without a very elaborate setup and at mostly room temperature. I think this could be a tool for exploring the nature of a quantum physical idea at a much cheaper cost then a CERN setup. But I ramble…please share your thoughts.

            • I do not interfere much with the Pd community and their work.

              The closest I get now a days is following the work of Quantum Gravity Research. They now have 13 people working full time, both experimentally and theoretically.

              Much of what they do is based on Pd because that’s where there is most data to dig. They use reputable institutions for carrying out various tests.

              Who knows, maybe you should express your ideas on their Facebook page.

What Do You Think?