LYCOS RETRIEVER 
Cold Fusion: Stanley Pons
built 619 days ago
NEW ENERGY FOUNDATION - The U.S. Department of Energy has agreed to perform a review of the entire "cold fusion" (LENR) question. . . Just as after the original announcements by chemists Drs. Martin Fleischmann and B. Stanley Pons at the University of Utah on March 23, 1989 and by physicist Steven E. Jones at Brigham Young University subsequently, this disclosure by the U.S. DOE is certain to prompt intense controversy and expectation. The great difference this time... is that a much larger body of excellent published experimental work now exists from researchers around the globe, which the DOE should be compelled to examine in its review. . . Another difference between now and 1989: there are now operational experimental electrolytic and other excess energy cells in various laboratories in the U.S. and abroad; these are producing repeatable, verifiable excess energy that cannot possibly be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. In some cases, for example, one watt of electrical input power goes into a closed cell and an output power of 3 to 4 watts of heat occurs for a prolonged time.
Source:
In early 1989, they inform the president of Univ. of Utah, Chase Peterson, that they had successfully implemented fusion reaction in a system at room temperature (hence the name “cold”). On Mar. 22, 1989, the News Director at the Univ. of Utah, Pam Fogle, begins informing her media contacts about the finding. She notifies a science reporter of The Wall Street Journal. On Mar. 23, 1989, a press conference was held at the University. Along with Pons, Fleischmann, and Peterson, at the front table were seated the vice president for research at the university and a physicist, Jim Brophy, and by a dean in the Faculty of Science at the Univ. of Southampton (England), Robert Nesbitt. Peterson referred to the experiment as an “international cooperation in scientific exploration.” Brophy claimed that the two had reproduced their experimental results many times.
Source:
Infinite Energy reported on the astonishing weaknesses of the NHE program in Vol. 2, No. 10, published after the Sixth International Conference on Cold fusion (ICCF6), which was held in October 1996 in Hokkaido, Japan. Contributing Editor Jed Rothwell pointed out several major technical problems with the research in his ICCF6 review and in An Open Letter to Japan's NHE Lab Directorate, written in Japanese and English, on page 28 of Issue #10=2E The letter includes 17 references to the literature, and it lists concrete problems with the protocols and materials used at the NHE lab, including low cell temperatures, improper cell and cathode materials, inadequate preparation and pre-testing of cathodes, and so on. These technical criticisms did not originate with Infinite Energy. They were suggested by Drs. Stanley Pons, Martin Fleischmann, John Bockris, Edmund Storms, T. Mizuno, Hideo Ikegami and the others cited in the footnotes. We pointed out that the French Atomic Energy Commission has successfully replicated the Pons-Fleischmann IMRA boil-off experiments (originally reported in Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129), because they were more careful about replicating every detail of the experiment, without making any changes.
Source:
Since the initial excitement over Fleishman and Pons, the reality of the existence of cold fusion has been supported by a few researchers who have tried to reproduce excess energy production in electrolytic cells. Most scientists are dismissive of these efforts, but the researchers have managed to gain some attention in recent years and in 2006 sessions of both the American Chemical Society and the American Physical Society were devoted to low-energy nuclear reactions. Still, skepticism about the existence of cold fusion is the default position of most scientists. Two issues are cited as being problematic: the lack of consistently reproduceable results and the lack of a theoretical mechanism.
Source:
In 1989 the chemistry professors Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishman reported that they had achieved cold fusion in a palladium anode emerged in a solution of sodium deuteroxide in heavy water D2O. Due to a bad exactness of their report, only few other scientists managed to replicate their findings in the first place. The findings were then dismissed as due to misunderstandings and bad scientific practice, and the matter of cold fusion has since been regarded as a taboo area.
Source:
Take, for starters, the Energy Resources Advisory Board panel appointed during the [first] Bush administration to look into the cold fusion claims made by Pons and Fleischmann. That panel leaned heavily on an experiment done at MIT that found the field unworthy of financial support. Since then... Dr. Eugene Mallove, the chief science writer at MIT at the time, has come forward to denounce the MIT study, citing irregularities in the way MIT's results were presented.
Source:
MORE ABOUT
Stanley Pons