New proof that cold fusion works could fuel additional interest in generating power from low energy nuclear reactions. Cold fusion, the ability to generate nuclear power at room temperatures, has proven to be a highly elusive feat. In fact, it is considered by many experts to be a mere pipe dream -- a potentially unlimited source of clean energy that remains tantalizing, but so far unattainable.However, a recently published academic paper from the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego throws cold water on skeptics of cold fusion. Appearing in the respected journal Naturwissenschaften, which counts Albert Einstein among its distinguished authors, the article claims that Spawar scientists Stanislaw Szpak and Pamela Mosier-Boss have achieved a low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) that can be replicated and verified by the scientific community.

Cold fusion has gotten the cold shoulder from serious nuclear physicists since 1989, when Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann were unable to substantiate their sensational claims that deuterium nuclei could be forced to fuse and release excess energy at room temperature. Spawar researchers apparently kept the faith, however, and continued to refine the procedure by experimenting with new fusionable materials.

View: Full Article | Source: Daily Tech

Well, some progress on fusion might actually happen now.

I have no idea weather cold fusion is feasible, but after the first debacle, and associate hype the subject became, if you will pardon the pun, radioactive.
In a process known as the "Utah Effect" the scientists were able to generate Hypeonium (HUH) and Fundonium (FU), with results that, magically, could not be replicated in other laboratories.

On another fusion track, there is renewed interest in the He 3 cycle, and possibly mining deposits on the Moon. The He 3 cycle produces less neutrons than the deturium/tritium cycle, and neutrons cannot be constrained by magnetic fields. He 3, produced by the Sun, is embedded in lunar regolith as the Moon is not shielded from the solar wind by an atmosphere. As wild as this idea sounds, some big movers and shakers are considering it. After all, who would have thought sixty years ago that we would be exploiting oil from under the surface of the ocean?

Lets not forget pandemonium!

As for the article, it is a step in the right direction. We have to wait for more experiements.

And hopefully, no miscalculations while doing those experiments!

Bennett Daviss' article in New Scientist on May 3 is a follow-up piece to the in-depth article on the SPAWAR San Diego research by Steven Krivit and Daviss published in New Energy Times in November.

Apparently, New Scientist chose to neglect the term "low energy nuclear reactions," which those of us observing, and working in the field have now adopted.

The term "cold fusion" was never chosen by Fleischmann and Pons; it was wished on them by the press. It was and is a poor descriptor for the phenomenon. The concept of fusion remains highly speculative, a variety of phenomena are clearly not fusion, and then there is the Widom-Larsen not-fusion theory. (http://www.newenergytimes.com/wltheory)

Related New Energy Times stories:
Report on the 2006 Naval Science and Technology Partnership Conference (Sept. 10, 2006) (http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET18.htm#FROMED)
Extraordinary Evidence (Nov. 10, 2006) (http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm#ee)
Extraordinary Courage: Report on Some LENR Presentations at the 2007 American Physical Society Meeting (March 16, 2007) (http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#apsreport)
Charged Particles for Dummies: A Conversation With Lawrence P.G. Forsley (May 10, 2007) (http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET22.htm)

Lots more info on the subject at our site. Welcome!

Steven Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

Contrary to most of the existing “cold fusion” scientists, our company believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed below:

"Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces"
Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006)

"Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269

"Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472

"Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059

Importantly, no “new physics” is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model.

Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction “cold fusion” and never was!

More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune last Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi...hi-business-hed

L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University