Nuclear Transmutation--The Reality of Cold Fusion

978-1892925008

Tadahiko Mizuno has had a long career with research that he had to pay for from his own pocket. The reason he had to pay for this research from his own pocket is typically blamed on scientific form. What is scientific form? The ability to replicate results, in this instance. Mizuno then publishes his book with a different kind of branding than the typical “Cold Fusion”. He tries to shift the conversation into a different linguistic domain. Why? Because EVERYONE knows cold fusion is a scientific fraud, right? No. Not exactly.Indeed, what everyone seems to agree on is that something can happen with the right conditions and the right elements. What is not certain is what those elements are, or the scale and outputs of the reaction. What can happen, when conditions are right, is that an excess of heat is generated by significant amounts. Sometimes, other elements or isotopes of elements are formed. At other times, nothing whatsoever happens.

The original discoverers of this interaction between heavy water and the metal Palladium rushed to publish probably for recognition and patents. The essential idea was to bombard Palladium with Deuterium so that the lattice of the Palladium would allow two molecules of Deuterium to bond and produce energy. This was attempted through electrolysis. The initial result was a ton of excess heat and possibly some neutrinos which are tell-tale signs that the interaction might be used instead of the kind of nuclear fission process which requires high temperatures and generates reactive, deadly waste. The excitement of the find created a panic to publish. In doing this, the operational definitions, which are to say in this case, the experimental definitions of amounts and substances along with procedure were not rigorously noted. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons then spoke about their findings prematurely. Replication was difficult in part due to the above lack of documentation, so other scientists were not observing the same outcomes. Then, the press got involved and ran with the story and splashed it all over the place before science had really had a chance to do science. What follows are scientists that get some of the same results, some that get none, and a general consensus, weirdly, that the whole thing is made up. It is obvious, though, that SOMETHING is happening, and Mizuno devotes his life and his own money trying to figure out the conditions of what this is. He states that his held scientific bias kept him from understanding things along the way and making certain kinds of measurements and observations. When he did have verifiable outcomes the data was not documented in a way that the scientific community would accept. He could, for instance, document the evaporation of water in a bucket over a period of time required to cool off a cell used in a experiment that was generating, in his words, “heat after death” meaning that there was no longer any electrolysis being applied but heat was still occurring. This was not, however, a spreadsheet of data through something like spectral analysis. No one wanted to pay him any attention, and especially not after the press got done with it.

In our current era of fake news and fake publications, we have a different perspective than we did in 1989. It is easy to imagine, for instance, a world in which cold fusion is a verifiable, replicable phenomenon. The implication would be that nuclear fission plants would not need to be built and steel drums to store waste would be irrelevant. All the industry around those facilities and money spent toward them would be gone in an instant. Furthermore, the petroleum industry might die overnight. How many research grants come from developing these established technologies? What would true energy independence mean for society and the world at large?

From a scientific perspective, if we imagine that this boundary case does indeed happen as Mizuno and many other qualified scientists have observed, then should not the inquiry become under what conditions the effect does occur and not that it is not a real thing because of lack of understanding what is doing it and how? With the claims advanced in Mizuno’s book, that’s not what happens. Instead career suicide and professional ridicule and ostracism are the results. That strikes this reviewer as singularly odd.

It is little wonder that Mizuno tries to pivot the conversation into a more Alchemical avenue. Alchemy, “the previous to science, science”, that inspired and captivated minds like Newton, was often also sometimes difficult to understand. Not everyone would receive the same results since, in Alchemy, not everyone is at the same place with the same understanding. Location and intention matter to the experiment within Alchemy, as well as timing.

It is amusing, then, toward the end of the book when Mizuno gives us the more modern science explanation for what he thinks is happening in the reactions. For this, he relies on the wave function equation which is the scientific way of saying, according to some anyway, that intention and observation MIGHT indeed matter to experimental outcomes. Mizuno succeeds then in showing where modern physics is more like Alchemy than it might care to admit. The potential outcomes of the reaction can be statistically linked to the waveform which offers explanation through probability with no commentary as to mechanism as the wave function eschews the idea that a person can know why an outcome is doing what it is. One can only be “probably certain” about results.

The rest of the book tells of Mizuno’s experimental refinements and struggles with understanding what is happening. To be sure, he is rigorous and precise and ultimately he is undefeated or undeterred by the response from his academic community. He instead doubles down and tries to find a way to continue doing the research that he has observed himself and understands perhaps better than many. He may well be, in the field of research, one of the few, true, remaining scientists. He proceeds not out of recognition or reward, but to understand and document. It is a shame that he happened on the field at an inauspicious moment. Had things worked out a trifle differently, everyone in the world might have known his name along with Pons and Fleischmann. That world also might not know what nuclear waste or meltdowns are–except as a historical footnote. Maybe the world will anyway. If it does, it will have Mizuno, and others like him, to thank.