As a physics teacher who is uncertain how to answer students’ questions about cold fusion, I welcome the upcoming US Department of Energy investigation of recent claims in this controversial area. I agree with Toni Feder (Physics Today, Physics Today 0031-9228 57 4 2004 27 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1752414 April 2004, page 27 ) that “skepticism about the credibility and reproducibility of cold fusion remains widespread.”
I have some questions I’d like to see the DOE investigators answer. Is it true that unexpected emission of neutrons, protons, tritons, and alpha particles (at rates significantly above the background) has been observed in several cold fusion experiments? Has accumulation of helium-4, at the rate of about one atom per 24 MeV of excess heat, been confirmed by many scientists, as reported by electrochemist Michael McKubre in Feder’s story? Have highly abnormal isotopic ratios been found in some cold fusion setups? Is there any indication that leading cold fusion scientists are incompetent or that their data are fraudulent? Is the research methodology that cold fusion scientists use different from that used in other areas of physical science? Answers to these questions will help me decide what to think about cold fusion and what to tell students about it.
Speculations about practical applications of new findings should be de-emphasized at this time. They will emerge naturally when basic scientific claims are recognized as valid and when researchers in cold fusion are no longer treated as if they were con artists and charlatans. The “chilling effect” mentioned by Randall Hekman in the Physics Today story prevents young scientists from entering the area of cold fusion research. I also agree with chemist Allen Bard that being able to reproduce experimental results is not good enough; it is only a preliminary step. But wasn’t poor reproducibility the central point of criticism when cold fusion was first investigated 15 years ago? In my opinion, experimental claims should not be disqualified solely on reproducibility; validation should depend on credentials of researchers and, above all, on methodologies they used in particular experiments.
