Cold Fusion Has Its Press Conference

Jeremy and I scored press passes to the recent Cold Fusion Press Conference at the ACS 2009 Spring Meeting. Unfortunately for them I’m a nuclear chemistry PhD student. Jeremy did a quick wrap-up of the press conference,[CB] but I thought it would be useful to have a critical chemist perspective of their recent announcement. The press conference did nothing to address the violation of the most elementary of chemistry and physics that I painstakingly explained in this old post titled “The difference between cold fusion and cold fusion“, but I’ll move on to address their statements.

As this was a press conference and not a scientific talk there wasn’t any data that I can point to as evidence for a cold fusion claim. However, we can tear some sanity from their own words. I asked why they haven’t observed any gamma rays from their cold fusion experiments. Pamela Mosier-Boss was quick to reply that they indeed did measure gamma rays, but they “came in bursts… and are averaged away [over the duration of the experiment]”. Dissect that statement and reflect on it as a scientist. Think to yourself: “Hmmm… clusters of peaks coming all of a sudden but randomly”, “Hmmm… as they run the experiment they see these peaks average out?”, “What does this mean?”. You don’t have to be a spectroscopy expert to figure this one out. The answer is simple, they measured background. Background is a random process, it will come in bursts, they may even cluster to make a peak for a short time, but when you run it over the course of the whole experiment it is “averaged out”; that my friend is background you measured.

At an other point of the conference Mahadeva Srinivasan claims to be able to measure tritium, neutrons, and other ionizing radiation not by actually measuring them, but indirectly from looking at his electrodes and observing craters and holes and trying to ascribe the radiation that caused it. Sounds sort of reasonable unless you’ve ever done any electrodeposition, which is what the process he described would yield if running current through a wire. Here is a picture of an electrodeposited layer of europium oxide my fellow colleagues made in the lab.


You can see craters and valleys in the image. I hope their electrodes didn’t look anything as awful as this, but you can see for yourself that electrodeposition can create ugly surfaces. Which was a major reason for the Thin Film community’s move away from electrodeposition and embrace of Sol-Gel techniques, because it causes less cratering and produces homogeneous and uniform films.

So should I believe the claims of a scientist who does not understand the difference between background and peaks? Should I believe a scientist who doesn’t understand the basic consequences of his own technique? You don’t even have to be a nuclear chemist to call bull-shit on this one.

I want to end this on a positive note, because I’ve spent a lot of time hammering these cold fusion people over the years. Honestly, if they are measuring more energy out of their systems than the energy they are putting in, then this is fantastic news. If they see excess heat, then they need to chase this line of inquiry down. But nuclear fusion is not the right path. I truly want to believe these people are capable of measuring the amount of energy in their system versus the energy out correctly. But the electrochemistry they are performing is non-reversible and that makes energy accounting, in their dynamic system, a very difficult mess. The simple act of having gas bubbles float from your electrodes will deposit more energy into your solution, due to friction, then you would expect. And frankly, after listening to these people talk for 45 minutes I don’t believe they are capable of correctly accounting for energy in a dynamic system.


P.S. Make up your own mind, a link to the press conference is here, Cold Fusion Press Conference. I ask my question around the 28 minute mark. Aaron Rowe from wired science blog is now my favorite science journalist, his question is asked at 34:50 minute mark.


  1. Thanks, I’ve been wondering about the re-emergence of cold fusion — an idea so attractive that it must be true.

  2. What troubles me is that the ACS has the appearance of endorsing it and giving it some validity. Most scientists will understand the relationship, but for the non-scientists out there that get their science from and FoxNews, they can be led to believe that this is true and real because it is endorsed by a big organization.

  3. I see what you are saying, and as fellow scientist I share your skepticism. However, your point about background is oversimplified in itself.

    That point is that not any signal that gets “averaged out” is truly random, noise or unrelated to the experiment. This is only true if the signal is rectified (i.e. there are no negative values in your measurements). Otherwise, you will “average out” any non-phase locked information, even if it was evoked in your experiment.

    Averaging (non-rectified) signals over many repetitions of an experiment will reveal phase-locked components only. In order to differentiate the stuff that gets averaged out from true background one needs to look at the rectified (power) signal, and see if that deviates from a baseline level representing the background radiation.

    This is just a general comment, and I am not sure it applies to experiment at hand, but her comment does not seem that offhand to anyone aware of the above distinction.

  4. Agree with ChemGeek — doesn’t anyone vet these things before they appear? Could I present my handy-dandy perpetual motion machine at the next ACS meeting? You know, the one based on hydrinos?

  5. It’s definitely a one-sided story if your news source is non-academic.,2933,510589,00.html

    I think if you watch the press conference you can probably detect something fishy… but not from the summary, even an unbiased one.

    • I completely agree about the “fishy”-ness.

      For example, I’m not entirely sure why a group of chemists would need a scientific journalist (who admittedly mentioned that he did not have a scientific background) to act as their “lawyer.” This press conference did not strike me as being an opportunity to present ground breaking work; it resembled a PR stunt.

  6. oh, and lol @ 31min mark, anyone? “the German journal” 😀

  7. I’m torn.

    On the one hand, I want to believe that cold fusion is possible.

    On the other hand, I want to understand your skepticism of the scientists who presented the information. As you said, “Should I believe a scientist who doesn’t understand…?”

    How about, should I believe a nuclear chemistry PhD student who hasn’t yet grasped the concept of “then” vs. “than”?

  8. Pingback: Chemistry Blog » Blog Archive » ACS Front Page

  9. The energy barrier to fusion of nuclei of hydrogen isotopes is way beyond anything in the furthest-out energy tail of thermal atoms at laboratory temperatures… correct?

    But can anything analogous to catalysis occur in nuclear reactions? Is there some entity which could help move nuclear reactions to completion, as platinum and other catalysts do in ordinary chemistry? If there were such a nuclear catalyst, could it be used to help move fusion to completion?

    Well, there must not be anything like that, because we would already have cold fusion, or something like it, if such a nuclear catalyst existed. Nevertheless, is there still a possibility that someone might someday find such an entity?

  10. Their journalist-lawyer needs to be silenced so that these “scientists” have to answer their colleague’s questions from a scientific perspective. One of the people did try to explain away the absence of an observed gamma ray by saying that it could be some new, unforeseen condensed matter effects. He carefully avoided saying that the gamma was absorbed by the solution (a claim previously made by the assembled group). It was good he didn’t say that, or else everyone would have started laughing.

    Also, they claimed to detect neutrons. This would be around a 2.4MeV particle…seriously non-trivial to detect. After talking with a colleague of mine about it (he does neutron detection for a living at LLNL), track detection would be the WRONG way to detect a neutron of that energy. It sounds, although I don’t think they said it explicitly, as though they were using Cr39 detectors.

  11. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax says:

    Mitch, you really should read the paper in Naturwissenschaften, which is a major general natural science journal, like Nature, put out by the Max Planck Institut. Your blog shows that you understood practically nothing of what you heard. Mosier-Boss answered your question with a fact: they observed gammas, and they averaged out. Averaged out to what? Probably background. So? They weren’t reporting gammas, they were reporting energetic neutrons. Yes, they used CR-39 detectors, which don’t show neutrons, they show ionizing radiation. And yes, they controlled for background. However, proton recoil from neutrons shows a characteristic triple-track pattern, see That’s what they found, at very low levels, about 10 triplets per chip. The primary radiation produced from Pd-D, which has been reported for years by many investigators, is probably alpha; the chips are heavily pitted by it, and, again, this research has been published for years in peer-reviewed journals. The heavily pitted areas are physically associated with the cathode; it’s impossible to see the triple-track phenomenon there, the SPAWAR group looked *on the back* of the chip, where the alpha radiation can’t penetrate, and that’s where they found random pitting (from background) and the triple-tracks, as well as outside the other areas on the chip which weren’t close to the cathode. The most obvious possible sources for the neutrons have been ruled out, if you read the paper. Obviously, there might be some unanticipated artifact, but this isn’t really new research, they were reporting neutrons in 2007, and the radiation reports go back much further. Other investigators missed these energetic neutrons because they were looking for an explanation for the excess heat (which is *quite* well established by now), and the neutrons can’t do that, there are far too few of them. What is associated with the excess heat, from, again, many investigators, is He4 generation. So something is producing He4, and it happens with deuterium and not with hydrogen. I suppose you can put two and two together, but, note, there are other possibilities; nobody knows for sure what is happening in the Pd-D system, but it is very, very clear that *something* is happening there that isn’t explained by accepted theories. It’s quite possible that even if what is happening is D fusion, it will never be practical for energy production, the conditions under which it is known (within the field) to happen are very special. On the other hand … Arata in Japan is showing steady low-level heat production from fine-particle palladium alloy pressurized with deuterium. No electrolyis, essentially no energy input other than natural heat of the deuteride formation. Google it. It’s low-level but it is steady, and he’s measuring He4. There are about 150 papers published in peer-reviewed journals showing excess heat in the Pd-D system. “Cold fusion” was rejected in 1989 based on a handful of rushed and inadequate experiments, failures to confirm, by people who often had no clue as to how to demonstrate the effect, in spite of being experts in other ways. It took Fleischmann years to work out how to get the excess heat before 1989, it wasn’t a simple experiment at all; the required conditions to get reasonably reliable excess heat weren’t known until the mid-1990s, and it was only in recent years that reliability of excess heat approached 100%. Basically what happened with the ACS was that they started really paying attention, and issued a press release. The SPAWAR work has been going on for twenty years, it’s quite mature. *The neutrons do not explain the excess heat, they are at far too low a level.* However, they show that a neutron-generating process *is* happening in the palladium deuteride film; the general excess heat/helium effect is known to happen within the top 25 microns of the surface, so co-deposition is highly efficient, creating just as much reaction surface, fully loaded with deuterium, practically instantly, as if the whole electrode were palladium fully loaded; but a solid electrode loads far more slowly and with all kinds of difficult-to-control effects that vary with the batch of palladium and its history (for example, tiny voids in the metal cause cracking as these are pressurized with deuterium, then the cracks allow deuterium to escape, thus preventing high loading ratios). Good luck with your nuclear chemistry. It could turn out to be a quite valuable field.

    • I don’t think it’s fair to equate Naturwissenschaften with Nature.

      Naturwissenschaften has an impact factor of ~2.0 (as of 2007). By comparison, Nature’s impact factor is slightly higher than 32 (as of 2007); they’re in two completely different leagues.

    • I don’t think any points you made are in disagreement with what I posted about from the press conference. Although, I still doubt that nuclear fusion is occurring I can’t spend my time dismantling the ever increasing volume of papers the cold fusion people publish. What I can promise is that when the next cold-fusion ACS is held in SF I will make sure I’m well versed on the speakers published research and ask the probing questions that everyone seems to expect of me.


  12. Mitch:

    The comment by Abd ul-Rahman Lomax deserves a response from you. As semi-cognoscenti, we’re waiting (breathlessly).

  13. Mitch,

    you are right on target. I work at this the Navy Lab in question, and these people will apparently die trying to prove that Cold Fusion is a real effect before they will admit that they were wrong 20 years ago. They are not objective. Verification by objective observers is necessary before anyone takes this seriously. As you point out there should be other things, such as gamma rays, that can be measured more reliably.


  14. Wladimir Guglinski says:

    Theoretically cold fusion is impossible according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics, the reason why the physicists refuse to accept the occurrence of the phenomenon.
    The nuclear chemist Mitch Andre Garcia showed by very easy calculations that cold fusion occurrence is theoretically impossible, from the laws of Quantum Mechanics, in a Chemistry Blog where he is the administrator.

    However cold fusion is theoretically impossible because Quantum Mechanics does not consider the zitterbewegung (zbw) as a helical trajectory of the electron (the zitterbewegung appears in the Dirac equation of the electron, but the quantum physicists did not interpret the zbw as a helical trajectory).

    By interpreting the zitterbewegung from a new viewpoint, by considering it as a helical trajectory of the electron, cold fusion becomes theoreticall possible, as Guglinski has shown to Mitch Andre Garcia, along a discussion in the topic “THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COLD FUSION AND COLD FUSION”, which can be seen in the link:

    Look at the Guglinski’s « Reply #8 on: September 24, 2007 ».

    So the chemists are now getting knowledge that cold fusion is theoretically possible thanks to the adoption of the new interpretation for the zitterbewegung, and they are undertaking the performance of cold fusion experiments, because it seems that they dont trust in the viewpoint of the physicists.

    Clearly, there is a dispute “CHEMISTS vs PHYSICISTS”, and it seems that the controversy on cold fusion will be finally resolved, but not by the physicists.

    The new duel chemists vs physicists has ideological origin. The physicits keep their loyalty to Quantum Mechanics, because they dont accept to change their interpretation on the zitterbewegung, since such a changing requires a very deep modification in the foundations of Modern Physics (the zbw cannot be considered as a helical trajetory in Quantum Field Theory, which is the successor of Quantum Mechanics).

    Unlike, the chemists keep their loyalty to the scientific method, according to which any experiment cannot be neglected only because it defies the principles of a theory, as happens now in this duel between Quantum Mechanics and cold fusion.

    Such new participation of chemists is healthy to science’s develolpment. Because as the physicists have some dogmas which they consider unsourmantable (as for instance their interpretation of the zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory), the development of cold fusion requires scientists free of dogmas of Physics, as the chemists.

    In few words, we have to consider the following situation:

    1- as cold fusion is impossible by considering the interpretation of zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory…

    2- … but as the experiments prove that cold fusion really occurs, as confirmed now by the experiments made in the US Navy…

    3- … then there is need to change the interpretation on the zitterbewegung (a new alternative that chemists probably will take in consideration starting from now)…

    4- … instead of neglecting the cold fusion experiments (as the physicists insist to do).

  15. As a non-scientist, I’m impressed by these discussions. My only observation is that 100-120 years ago, many of the things we take for granted today were deemed “impossible” by many of the most respected scientific minds of the era.

    Cold fusion as it stands today may be close to what a new energy source in the future will look like. To snuff it out as absurd, IMO is dangerous thinking. Perhaps some new scientific thinking along the lines of a German patent clerk from the early 1900’s may come along. I’m rooting for “Mr. Fusion”.

  16. Wladimir Guglinski says:

    I would like to comment those words by Mitch:

    “The answer is simple, they measured background. Background is a random process, it will come in bursts, they may even cluster to make a peak for a short time, but when you run it over the course of the whole experiment it is “averaged out”; that my friend is background you measured”

    Such question of neutron’s background was under control in the Don Borghi’s experiment:
    C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993

    Along my discussion with Mith in the topic THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COLD FUSION AND COLD FUSION, in the link
    he said the following:
    “A major reoccurring theme with cold fusion research has been the failure of other researchers to replicate the work. I will be more than willing to collaborate with any researcher on their cold fusion experiments. I have ready access to alpha, beta, gamma and neutron counters and am eager to put this issue to rest.”
    (See reply # 14)

    Then I suggested to Mitch to repeat the Conte-Pieralice experiment, and later I asked him if he made it.
    (See reply # 44)

    Mitch answered:
    “No it was not done. I have no problem verifying if someone else’s apparatus works, but I do not have the time to construct my own from scratch.”
    (See reply # 45)

    Then I sent an email to Dr. Santilli, saying:
    “Dear Dr. Santilli
    There is chance the Don Borghi experiment can be repeated by the nuclear chemist Mitch Andre Garcia.
    Along a discussion in a forum, after asking him if he did perform your experiment, he said:
    “No it was not done. I have no problem verifying if someone else’s apparatus works, but I do not have the time to construct my own from scratch”
    Would you have interest to supply him the apparatus ? “

    (See reply # 46)

    Dr. Santilli sent me the following answer:
    “Thanks for the info., yes, I would gladly support him. My klystron is currently on loan top another department of physics and the colleagues there have already confirmed everything. They are now obtaining fine info I did not have the equipment for. I shall keep you posted.
    Please tell me how to help
    Thanks and regards

    (See reply # 47)

    And I invited Mitch to repeat Don Borghi’s experiment:
    Dr. Santilli can supply everything you need to perform the Don Borghi experiment.
    Do you accept to make it ?

    (See reply # 48)

    But Mitch never give any answer.

    And now he claims that the emission of neutrons in cold fusion experiments is due to the background.

    Look at what Don Borghi writes in his article:

    “Here are examples of activation curves for some samples. Figure 3 shows the increasing beta activity of a 20 g sample of metallic Sb (Merck). Its starting background before any irradiation was 60 counts per hour, and its beginning activity of about 180 cph in Fig. 3 is due to the preceding activation. ”

    And also:

    “The same results have been repeatedly observed with other series of samples of Th. Thus, from a qualitative standpoint, all the samples, after a conveniently long exposure near the external wall of the klystron (for hours, several days, or months), show an activity clearly many times above many reasonable fluctuation of the background, as well as evident decays with short periods, whose origin cannot be other than a recent activation. All this strongly suggests the existence of a small flux of neutrons outgoing from the device.”

    Perhaps Pamela Mosier-Boss did not take care to measure the excess of neutrons above the background, as Don Borghi did.

    But if Mitch (or somebody else) has any doubt on the question of neutron’s background in the cold fusion experiments, he can eliminate his doubts by taking in account the Don Borghi experiment.

    However it is clear that the opposers to cold fusion are not interest to eliminate the controversy.
    After all, by keeping the controversy the opposers can keep their critiques against cold fusion, and to claim it cannot exist, and the experiments have not accuracy, etc…

    Such strategy continues working well.

  17. Wladimir Guglinski says:

    let me comment your questions:

    “But can anything analogous to catalysis occur in nuclear reactions? Is there some entity which could help move nuclear reactions to completion, as platinum and other catalysts do in ordinary chemistry? If there were such a nuclear catalyst, could it be used to help move fusion to completion?”

    Yes, there are two phenomena.
    A new nuclear model is proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.
    It’s proposed in the theory two fundamental phenomena:
    1- Cold fusion can be due to a resonance phenomenon. But there are some special conditions under which it must occur. These are the conditions tha occur in the cold fusion experiments. In order a nucleon be captured by a nucleus (for instance Pd), such nucleon must resonate with the nucleus
    2- The structure of the nuclei is formed by floors, similar to the belows of an accordion, and a nucleus like Pd is submitted to an expansion-contraction (such phenomenon is named Accordion-Effect). If the oscillation of a nucleon like a deuteron (due to its zero point energy) resonates with the Accordion Effect, the nucleon can be captured by the Pd nucleus.

    “Well, there must not be anything like that, because we would already have cold fusion, or something like it, if such a nuclear catalyst existed. Nevertheless, is there still a possibility that someone might someday find such an entity?”

    As explained above, cold fusion occurs under special conditions. For example, in order to increase the resonance, Letts and Cravens used a laser, and by this way they stimulated the resonance.
    Also, they used a magnet, in order to align the magnetic field of the deuterons with the magnetic field of Pd nuclei.

    Letts and Cravens exhibited their experiment in 2003, in the ICCF-10.
    In 2002 the magazine Infinte Energy has published my paper “What is Missing in Les Case’s Catalytic Fusion”, in which I had proposed some suggestions, in order to stimulate the resonance and to align the magnetic fields.
    Lets and Cravens experiment used the suggestions of my paper.

  18. Wladimir Guglinski says:

    I would like to comment your words:

    “One of the people did try to explain away the absence of an observed gamma ray by saying that it could be some new, unforeseen condensed matter effects”

    First of all, as we infer from my discussion with Mitch in 2007, it’s impossible to explain cold fusion from the current model of neutron of Modern Physics.

    Cold fusion must be explained from a model of neutron formed by proton+electron, because only by considering the zitterbewegung energy of the electron it is possible to explain that question pointed out by Mitch, which he said in the beginning of this present topic:
    “The press conference did nothing to address the violation of the most elementary of chemistry and physics that I painstakingly explained in this old post titled “The difference between cold fusion and cold fusion” .

    So, only from the neutron with structure n=p+e it is possible to explain cold fusion.

    Then let’s analyse what this means.

    In the neutron’s decay n->p+e+v there is not emission of gamma-rays, except in a special case (see: Article:Quantum Ring Theory corroborated by radiative decay mode of the neutron , ).

    In a cold fusion process in which a proton captures an electron and they form a neutron (as happens in the Conte-Pieralice experiment), perhaps there is not emission of gamma-rays.
    After all, as the neutron’s decay occurs often without gamma emission, then why does the synthesis of the neutron from p+e cannot occur without gamma emission too?

    So, the gamma emission, or its absence, depends on the process under which cold fusion occurs.

  19. Wladimir Guglinski says:

    let me comment your words:
    The energy barrier to fusion of nuclei of hydrogen isotopes is way beyond anything in the furthest-out energy tail of thermal atoms at laboratory temperatures… correct?

    The nucleus 92U238 emits alpha particles with energy 4,2MeV, while the Coulombic barrier is 8,8MeV.
    It’s certainly a paradox, because a particle with 4,2MeV crosses a barrier with 8,8MeV.
    The physicists believe that Gamow’s theory explains the paradox, but it is not true. Because Gamow tried to explain a paradox by introducing a new paradox, as shown in my book Quantum Ring Theory.

    Think about such fact: a particle with 4,2MeV can leave out a nucleus crossing a barrier with 8,8MeV.
    Well, then isn’t possible that a particle with less energy than 8,8MeV can be captured by a nucleus, and enter within it by crossing a barrier 8,8MeV ?
    For instance, the process of capture can be due to a resonance phenomenon.
    Don’t you think it’s reasonable to consider such hipothesis ?

    Besides, QRT shows that there is a point in the barrier of the U238 where its potential is lower than 8,8MeV, and this is the reason why the 2He4 can cross the barrier. In other words: there is a “hole” in the barrier, and the 2He4 can leave out the nucleus passing by that hole.

    In the process of capture, the particle must pass by that “hole” in the Coulombic barrier. And of course it is very much difficult to enter within the nucleus by crossing the hole than to enter into it by crossing the hole in the inverse way. That’s why cold fusion requires very special conditions, otherwise it cannot occur.

    The capture, when the particle crosses the “hole” in the barrier, depends on the alignment of the particle’s magnetic moment with that of the nucleus, and also it depends on the resonance between the accordion-effect and the oscillation of the particle due to its zero-point energy.
    By this way some particles can be captured by some nuclei and enter into them.
    It occurs in cold fusion.

  20. Wladimir Guglinski says:


    look at what L. Larsen (CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University)
    wrote in the link:

    “Contrary to most of the existing “cold fusion” scientists, Lattice 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:”

    However, I suppose you would like to know how Larsen explains the violation of the most elementary of chemistry and physics that you painstakingly explained in this old post titled “The difference between cold fusion and cold fusion“.

    Would you?

  21. Wladimir Guglinski says:

    From: Wladimir Guglinski []
    Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:13 PM
    To: Boss, Pamela A CIV SPAWAR SSC PAC, 71730
    Subject: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron’s background

    Dear Pamela

    Some questions, as for instance concerning absence of gamma emission and the background of neutron in your experiment, were discussed in the link:

    I proposed some explanations there, where I told to people that the question of neutron’s background was controlled in the Don Borghi’s experiment


    RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron’s background‏
    From: Boss, Pamela A CIV SPAWAR SSC PAC, 71730 (
    Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:19:57 PM
    To: Wladimir Guglinski (
    1 attachment
    radiation…pdf (443.8 KB)

    Dear Wladimir,

    Thank you for your comments. Attached is our paper on gamma emissions that discusses what happens when signals occur in bursts.

    Mitch did not attend any of the presentations nor has he read any of the papers that have been published in the journals. In my opinion, since he has not done his homework, he has no right to make any comments on the field.


  22. Wladimir Guglinski says:

    In the paper On the behavior of the cathodically polarized Pd/D system: Search for emanating radiation, by S. Szpak’, P.A. Mosier-Boss , J.J. Smithb ,
    it is written:

    2.1. Background radiation-shielding
    Background radiation was monitored continuously
    by a NaI(TI) detector placed in a lead-shielded cave
    and intermittently by Ge and Si(Li) detectors in a separate
    lead-shielded cave when the electrolytic cell was
    not in operation. The two caves, located approximately
    2.0 m from each other, were shielded by ca. 5 cm thick
    lead bricks. The Pb shielding reduced the background
    radiation, defined here as the spectrum recorded with
    the electrolytic cell in place but with no cell current,
    by a factor of twenty. Both detectors showed constant
    background over a period of several months. The yand
    X-ray detectors and the electrolytic cell remained
    in a fixed position during experimental runs. Examples
    of the background spectrum, recorded in the cave
    and covering regions from 7 to 40 keV and 15 to 300
    keV are illustrated in Figs. Ia and lb, respectively. It
    is seen that the region from 7 to 40 keV is featureless;
    in contrast, the region between 15 and 300 keV
    exhibits well defined peaks.

    5. Conclusions
    Accepting the conclusion that weak electromagnetic
    radiation is responsible for the observed results, we
    make the following statements:
    (i) While attempting to monitor the emanation of
    X-rays from the cathodically polarized Pd/D system,
    an adequate shielding must be provided and the working
    electrode must be placed close to the detector window.
    (ii) The cathodically polarized Pd/D system emits
    X-rays with a broad energy distribution and with an
    occasional emergence of recognizable peaks. Because
    of the low intensity of the electromagnetic flux, its detection
    requires that cells be constructed accordingly.
    (iii) The emission of X-rays appears to be sporadic
    and of limited duration.
    (iv) Surface morphology influences radiation emissions
    – codeposited Pd/D electrodes exhibit shorter
    initiation times prior to the observation of radiation
    emissions. In the cases when either Be>t ions or
    thiourea were added to the electrolyte, similar positive
    effects were observed.

  23. Wladimir Guglinski says:

    Based on the new nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory, a new theory is proposed to explain the results obtained by Pamela Mosier-Boss cold fusion experiment, published in last March.

    See the article in Peswiki:
    How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment:

  24. Wladimir Guglinski says:

    An email was sent to Pamela Mosier-Boss in 11 April 2009, suggesting to use an oscillator in her experiment.

    The email is ahead.

    From: Wladimir Guglinski (

    Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:46:25 PM


    Cc:; David Hestenes (; EDEL PONS (

    Dear Pamela

    My theory can be tested by your experiment.

    My idea is to use an oscillator capable to increase the oscillatory motion of the molecules D-D within the Pd lattice, by stimulating the resonance D-D.

    If you succeed to stimulate the resonance D-D , we have to expect a growth in the rate of fusion D-D and also in the rate of neutrons emission by unity of time.

    The oscillator I suggest is the following:

    1- A glass buble is fulfilled by heavy hydrogen (D-D molecules).

    The buble must be placed close to the Pd lattice deposited in the cathode.

    2- Two electrodes are connected inside the buble.

    3- A high voltage is applied to the electrodes, producing an electric discharge that crosses the gas of molecules D-D.

    4- The molecules D-D into the buble are excited, and they emit photons in a frequency which is a sub-multiple of the frequency oscillation of the molecules D-D that fulfill the Pd lattice.

    5- The molecules D-D within the Pd lattice get resonance with the frequency of emission by the D-D molecules into the buble, and the oscillation of D-D within Pd is stimulated to increase its amplitude.

    6- I suppose such stimulation of resonance may increase the velocity of D-D fusion within the Pd lattice.


    You can use a laser that hits the molecules D-D within the glass buble, instead of using an electrical discharge.


    The best would be to build a laser which emission is produced by D-D molecules. In such case there is no need to have a glass buble, because the laser would be applied directly to the region of Pd lattice.

    Perhaps you have to try the three alternatives.

    It’s my opinion you should have to try it.

    After all, we are in front to a new Physics, and we have to try any new idea if it makes sense.

    Good luck in your attempt, if you decide to do it.


    Wladimir Guglinski

  25. Wladimir Guglinski says:


    Subject: RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron’s background
    Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:29:47 -0700
    Dear Wladimir,
    Like many, we have very few funds and resources. But we will consider your suggestions and see what we can do as time and money permits.

    RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron’s background‏
    From: Wladimir Guglinski (
    Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:35:59 PM
    Hi, Pamela
    Be careful, and take cary.
    If all the deuteriuns of the Pd lattice alligned in the same direction get resonance and have fusion at the same time, perhaps it can occur a small explosion in your electrolytic cell.
    Also, I recomend you to put a loadstone externally in the cell (like in the Letts-Cravens experiment), in order to help to keep a lot of deuteriuns alligned toward the same direction (that of the external magnetic field applied)
    Good luck

  26. Wladimir Guglinski says:

    Researchers from the Helmholtz Centre Berlin , in cooperation with colleagues from Dresden, St. Andrews, La Plata and Oxford, have for the first time observed magnetic monopoles and how they emerge in a real material. They published their results in the journal Science within the Science Express web site on Sept. 3, 2009.

    The existence of magnetic monopoles is also predicted in the paper “Ether” published in the book Quantum Ring Theory by W. Guglinski, who also provided the following review.

    See the article in the website of Peswiki:

    Article:Magnetic monopole – new experiment corroborates Quantum Ring Theory

  27. Hello Pamela,

    I hope you and your colleagues will actively pursue this request from the Idaho National laboratory in Idaho Falls, and NASA for a “nuclear reactor on the moon”. Cold fusion is the answer. The proposal requests are for an initial system design and must be submitted by Feb. 19, 2022.

    Read more at:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *