Cold Fusion: It's Not Just a Dream

Hot Fusion

To understand cold fusion, we need to take a look first at "hot fusion" — the fusion of atomic nuclei at white-hot temperatures. Since the nuclei carry a positive charge, they normally repulse each other, just as the two positive ends of a magnet will fly apart. But under extremely high temperatures, the repulsion of the nuclei can be overcome to the extent that enough fusion occurs to liberate atomic energy.

Because of the tremendous heat required by this approach to atomic fusion, it is not practical for everyday use.

The Dream of Cold Fusion

Scientists long ago dreamed the dream of finding a method of atomic fusion that would work at normal temperatures. The dream was based upon the concept that some metals — palladium is the designated candidate — contain a lattice structure within which the probability of fusion could theoretically be much higher. So the idea behind cold fusion would be to "fill" the lattice of palladium with an element such as deuterium to create a low-temperature method of liberating energy from the fusion of those deuterium atoms.

The dream is called "cold fusion," and to most scientists it is just that — a fantasy, a chimera, something "too good to be true."

The Fleischmann and Pons Experiment

Then, in 1989, electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons decided to revisit room-temperature fusion. Their technique was to pass current through an electrolytic cell consisting of a palladium (Pd) cathode, platinum (Pt) anode, and LiOD electrolyte in heavy water. (LiOD is a compound of lithium, oxygen and deuterium or heavy hydrogen; heavy water is water containing deuterium in place of the ordinary hydrogen.)

The cathodic reaction liberates unbound atoms of deuterium (D), which enter palladium much more rapidly than do deuterium molecules. Under proper conditions, the concentration can build up to 0.9 or more deuterium atoms per palladium atom, at which point the loss of deuterium balances its rate of implantation.

Pons and Fleischmann's cells were part of a calorimeter (heat-measuring device), whose temperature rise on a few occasions indicated on the order of 10 percent excess power, that is, about 10 percent more power leaving the cell than electrical power used to run it. Thus, the experiment fit the requirements for "overunity" -- in other words, the energy output was greater than the energy input.

Pons and Fleischmann announced their results at a now-famous news conference on March 23, 1989, and also in an article titled "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium" (J. Electroanal. Chem., 261 [1989] 301).

Since then, following an initial surge of supposedly disappointing research, the establishment has poured cold water upon cold fusion technology, and most of the attention paid to it has focused on failed attempts to duplicate the Pons and Fleischman experiment.

The Cold Fusion Patents

Despite the much-publicized and readily available details of cold fusion's experimental failures, three processes that use it have quietly received United States patents — and the latest is for a home-use device!

According to Eugene F. Mallove, editor of the new-technology journal Infinite Energy, (Issue No. 41, 2002), US Patent #6,248,221 for "Electrolysis Apparatus and Electrodes and Electrode Material Therefor" was issued to Randolph R. Davis and Thomas F. McGraw. And although the details are not available (for proprietary reasons), this patent, Mallove says, definitely incorporates cold fusion technology. The Davis and McGraw patent itself, Mallove tells us, cites several cold fusion papers, including the Pons and Fleischmann 1989 article mentioned above.

Mallove, a Harvard Ph.D. with a master of science degree in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from MIT, called the issuance of this patent a "landmark" decision on the part of the US Patent Office. That's because the patent office has a long history of routinely rejecting patents solely on the premise that they were based upon cold fusion. In other words, it was not deemed necessary to test the device itself.

The reasoning went something like this: 1) cold fusion is a form of perpetual motion, 2) perpetual motion is impossible, 3) this device is based upon perpetual motion, therefore, 4) we don't have to test this device because we already know that it can't possibly work.

How the Davis and McGraw patent managed to bypass this reasoning is not known, Mallove says. And although Patent #6,248,221 represents a breakthrough, it is not the first time a cold fusion patent has fallen through the cracks at the US Patent Office.

A cold fusion device invented by physical chemist James Patterson is patented under U.S. Patents #4,943,355 and #5,036,031. According to Mallove, the most recent Patterson patent was granted by accident in 1994: "[This is the] first U.S. patent granted in the cold fusion field," he reports. "The DOE [Department of Energy] made a mistake and didn't squash [the patent] as they did to several hundred others. They tried to stop it many times but failed."

The Future of Cold Fusion

The existence of these patents insures that more are likely to slip by, gradually paving the way for commercialization of cold fusion technologies already shown to be viable in laboratories around the world.

In a paper presented at the American Nuclear Society's 33rd Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion ("Critical Factors in Transitioning from Fuel Cell to Cold Fusion Technology"), Davis and McGraw explain why more patents are likely to be issued, even by the perennially biased U.S. Patent Office:

Many scientists, engineers, and investors have given cold fusion serious attention since Pons and Fleischmann discovered it in the mid-to-late 1980s. The New Energy Partners venture capital firm, for example, has supported companies with working prototypes, and several prototypes are being tested to determine heat output levels and reaction rates. Approximately 1500 papers from technical journals and conferences have reported some degree of replication of the cold fusion effect (800 in U.S.); 300 related patent applications have been developed in the U.S.; and 100 patents have been granted in Japan.
Mallove estimates the ultimate cost of the electricity generated by the devices to be far less than one cent per kilowatt-hour. We can compare this to the 1999 national average of over six cents per kilowatt-hour (see ).

Davis and McGraw, according to Mallove, predict the advent of cold-fusion-based 10kW electricity generating home units in the foreseeable future. To the householder, this will mean an 80% reduction in energy costs.

The Spirit of Ma'at received some of the information underlying this article from , Vol. 4, No. 18.

Those interested in further information on Cold Fusion might wish to view the Conference on Future Energy CD ROM, which contains real-life demonstrations of cold fusion, available at Free Energy Audio/Video.