WATCH: cold fusion, pathological science or suppressed miracle?

In this 1998 interview, MIT science writer Eugene Mallove discusses what he alleges was an intentional bid by vested interests to bury the genuine and revolutionary discovery of cold fusion. Far from being “pathological science”, as most mainstream physicists allege, Mallove claims cold fusion is a provable and reproducible reality that could potentially provide almost limitless and virtually free clean energy for the world.

Mallove was murdered during a house break-in in 2004.

Mallove’s 1999 book, Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor is available though Amazon and Amazon UK


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Thomas Prentice
Reader
Thomas Prentice

I don’t know anything about the physics of anything. But buying technology to repress it and maintain dominant corporate and banking profitability is a standard trope of industrial capitalism. Perfectly good street cars in cities across the nations were bought up by the concrete and auto industries to facilitate highway construction and long-term concrete profits as well as to jumpstart the auto industry into long-term profitability as well. The “mass transit” that exists in the US outside of, say, nyc, dc, sf/oakland are just tinker toys — which nevertheless push profits to the high tech industrial tinker toy, banking and… Read more »

vexarb
Reader

From my friend, Prof. emeritus Colman Altman, Physics Dept, Technion, Israel: “We sent a paper on Cold Fusion to Physics when the issue [of cold fusion] was very warm. It was accepted pending our answer to some specific question from one of the referees.. We answered, but meanwhile the issue of cold fusion had fallen into such disrepute, that the editors didn’t even acknowledge receipt of our comments. Let me describe briefly what we wrote. We considered muon fusion. A muon is a heavy electron (mass 200 times that of the normal electron, but lifetime of about a microsecond) produced… Read more »

PSJ
Reader
PSJ

I can’t disagree with most of that regarding muon-catalyzed fusion. There’s only small signs that muons can be produced reliably enough and continuously enough to make it a viable process. But the fact we have proved fusion at low temp is amazingly significant. Cold fusion as demonstrated at BYU in the 1980s is a different method, and again there is the anomalous heat discovered by Pons and Fleischmann at the same time at the University of Utah. Both of these, especially the Utah discovery, hold the prospect of abundant, CLEAN and essentially renewable energy, though of course Dr Altman is… Read more »

vexarb
Reader

@PSJ. I imagine Dr.Altman, having preached against Carbon fuel misuse for decades without avail, has grown pessimistic and now leans toward the opinion of the late Dr.Hawking — we ought to start building Noah’s Spacecraft because Human Life on Planet Earth is doomed. Personally I agree with you — we must be optimistic: hope that, while the present generation will reform somewhat, the next generation will breed competent Ecology Engineers.

Mathias Alexander
Reader
Mathias Alexander

Unlimited energy could only end up as unlimited heat in the atmosphere (conservation of energy) so it sounds like very bad news.

theroyalsecretinfo
Reader

Rather like the light bulb that never goes out it will never see the light of day.

wardropper
Reader
wardropper

Perhaps the answer there is to let everybody know how to make it, forget patenting laws and copyright, and just let people make their own…? You know, an actual service to humanity, instead of a narcissistic craving for professional recognition…?

Big B
Reader
Big B

Fundamentally, we do not have an energy crisis; we do not have a resource crisis; we do not have a debt or economy crisis …what we have is a psycho-cognitive perceptual crisis. The pan-historic story of Civilisation is one of increasing surplus energy requirements. With surplus energy requirements met: civilisations rose and prospered (by trade and conquest). When civilisations exceeded their agrarian/biofuel/resource requirements: they collapsed (or were out-competed or conquered). [Hall; Tainter; Diamond; et al] Each of the three Industrial Revolutions (so far) have allowed humanity to exponentially increase our primary energy input: to the detriment of the rest of… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

I wonder who the five down-voters are? The Free Market capitalist system is not just neoplastic in action, unambiguously and almost parodically so, but also is human psychopathy in action. It guarantees, indeed is predicated on, the rule of the worst in society, that kakistocracy that you mentioned (although I now prefer ‘kakastocracy’-rule by shits). I’ve watched every sane, humane, even human, individual in Austfailian society, in the power structures of politics, business, the brainwashing systems etc, purged from public life or replaced by opportunists or raving psychopaths (the current Federal regime resembles those that the SA might have rejected… Read more »

vexarb
Reader

Basically I agree with BigB. Energy slaves are wealth (Alexander Findlay, Chemist). Love of wealth is the root of many evils (The Good Book). Therefore, Limitless energy would bear fruit as Limitless Evil.
“Nothing is Enough for the man to whom Enough is not Enough”. — Epikouros

rilme
Reader
rilme

Yo, vexarb: “Nothing is bananas for someone to whom bananas are not bananas”. — Epicurious

vexarb
Reader

Oops! Lapse of memory, it was not Findlay the chemist but Soddy the physicist. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt is a 1926 book by the Nobel prize-winning chemist Frederick Soddy on monetary policy and society and the role of energy in economic systems. Soddy criticized the focus on monetary flows in economics, arguing that real wealth was derived from the use of energy to transform materials into physical goods and services. Soddy’s economic writings were largely ignored in his time, but would be applied to the development of ecological economics… Read more »

PSJ
Reader
PSJ

Vexarb, I believe you are constrained by the existing model of supply and control. Of course that model could persist, but freedom energy has the potential to move the world into a new model in which energy monopolies, and therefore many other monopolies are broken.

Jim Porter
Reader
Jim Porter

And don’t forget that most people who want to dismiss ‘free energy’ assume that we live in a closed system when even our own ‘laws of physics’ (written by people no more knowledgeable than anyone else) allow for an open system where the energy may be tapped from a dimension we don’t inhabit (mathematically at least 11 in total) or from a fundamental law in our own set of dimensions that we have not fully understood yet. Examples of this being resonance, precession, Lenz’s Law, the hydrogen bond, Heisengerg’s uncertainty principle………… and so many more things yet to nail down.

PSJ
Reader
PSJ

Free, limitless and clean energy would do more than any other single thing to liberate human beings and end the prevailing power structure. Why else do you think it has been so ruthlessly suppressed, to the point of murdering its proponents?

BigB
Reader
BigB

Ergo: 150 years of “cheap” oil would have liberated us? It didn’t: the wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires and more and more of humanity was excluded from wealth acquisition and valorisation. This is the empirical observable conclusion of historic trends toward monopoly capitalism. The bottom half of humanity are not increasing their net value at all: it was all lies about the “rising tide that raises all boats” …as is every other economic fallacy we have been told. There is not a perpetual motion machine driving the global economy: there are bio-energetic limits and planetary… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

The inevitable consequence of the deliberate process of neo-feudalistation that you describe, is a world where the 1% control all the wealth, more or less, and the 99% of ‘useless eaters’ represent only a threat to the ‘Gods Upon the Earth’. With computerisation, robotisation, automation, AI etc, the serfs are not even required for production, or their consumption any longer. The obvious next step is undoubtedly, in my opinion, being prepared in the archipelago of bio-warfare laboratories that the Pentagon has established world-wide, where they are furiously involved in collecting the DNA, blood and tissue, including neoplasms. of all identifiable… Read more »

PSJ
Reader
PSJ

Please note I said free energy, not cheap oil. Very, very different things. But to answer your question “Will [free] energy encourage a radical re-envisioning of the future” – potentially, yes! LENR and, even more so the various over unity “freedom energy” studies currently being conducted (without funding) show that Tesla’s dream of wireless energy could be a reality. Such a resource would be very difficult to contain or control, which is why JP Morgan buried it (successfully). It’s mere existence would constitute a massive challenge to the current system of monopoly and control. Try to understand this wouldn’t be… Read more »

vexarb
Reader

@PSJ: “I said free energy”.
As the old song goes, “Nothing is for nothing, nothing is for free”.
First Law: Energy does not come free.
Second Law: We don’t even get all the energy that we pay for.
Third Law: The more energy we dissipate, the harder it becomes to extract the remainder.

BigB
Reader
BigB

OK, humour me …we are close to running out of everything: not just resources, but fresh air, clean water, fertile topsoil, biodiversity (particularly large fauna), fish, even sand, etc etc …having freedom energy changes none of this without a fundamental shift in consciousness away from the materialistic: toward the regenerative. With freedom energy, we are still restrained bio-energtically (on non-sustainable non-energy resources); and by planetary boundaries (land management usage, species extinction, collapsing water tables, ocean acidification and depletion, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, climate change, etc). There might still be demand: but how are you going to supply it without creating… Read more »

candideschmyles
Reader

BigB, usually I find myself riding a metaphoric surfboard on the wave of your thoughts. On this occasion though the half pipe collapsed on me and pushed me under. What cynicism! I cannot see how genuinely “free energy” would accelerate all the dismal consequences we see in the carbon economy. I feel you ignore, or at least underplay the pivotal role of geography in the chaos our reliance on fossil fuels has created. The exploitation of hydrocarbons has always proceded on the basis of developing the easiest to access and largest by volume sites first. It has been this more… Read more »

Big B
Reader
Big B

Candi: I’m not sure why everyone is getting their knickers in a twist about hypothetical ‘free’ energy? Or rounding on those, like me, who say it is not that simple? Energy, is a single parameter. How it would impact human ecology and economy would have to take in many other factors. In the absence of any input other than “freedom energy saves the world”; I assume that means pretty much carrying on with the global economy as it is? Currently, we are consuming renewable and non-renewable resources at exponential rates: thus even ‘renewable’ resources are being depleted, by being harvested… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

B-do you know Norman Lindsay’s ‘The Magic Pudding’? One hundred years old this year, it tells the tale, for children, of a magic pudding that grows whole again whenever a segment is devoured. There’s your cornutopian mindset. Just how the growth fetishists still continue obeisance to their neoplastic cult when every day brings new reports of the rapidly accelerating ecological collapse on the planet, really bemuses me. The attitude of the psychopathic Right, what with their innate stupidity, ignorance, avarice and viciousness is no surprise, but all the Meanswells, with their tender concern for every panda, porpoise and potoroo, still… Read more »

Big B
Reader
Big B

MM: me too! The problem with “techno hopium” is that the problems of the world are happening in the here and now: and demand here and now applications and solutions. What use is hypothetical ‘freedom’ energy in twenty, thirty, or fifty years, if we have irrevocably corrupted the biosphere in the meantime? Humanities quest for greater and greater energy resources have been disastrous thus far. It’s axiomatic to me that we need to use less, now. That means being less materialistically inclined: particularly in the developed world. We need less energy: more equally redistributed between the Global North and South.… Read more »

Big B
Reader
Big B

When the bees go: we follow. So simple: but too hard to understand! Would love to continue, but it’s time to go and work for the Man! Or is that the Moloch!!

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

I got the dread today when I read the latest in the current rush of horror stories re. the extermination of insects. This, of course, is the death knell for much life on Earth, (the birds already)perhaps even ourselves, arriving so very suddenly, but unexpected only by fools. The answer, apart from utter disinterest by the plebs, was short and pithy from the omnicidists responsible-the chemical industry assassins of Life. Why, without their poisons, poisons that MUST be peddled in ever greater numbers and quantities according to the Death-cult of capitalism because profit maximisation and constant growth are ‘goods’, humanity… Read more »

PSJ
Reader
PSJ

I’m not sure what you think “materialism” means in reference to this. We are living things that need “material” in order to survive. Short of an ascetic disapproval is there anything wrong with that? If we can provide “material” things with no cost to the planet, then why not? And Tesla-type free energy has that potential. I didn’t say, by the way, that it would cure all the other ills of the world. Of course we need to curb pollutants and sustain the biosphere, but the threats to these things aren’t “materialism”, they’re exploitation by the vested interests. It is… Read more »

BigB
Reader
BigB

Let’s define “materialism” then: as anything above the sustainable …the false wants, needs, and desires, created by the system to sustain the system. So I understand the demand side: what about the supply side? So is your hypothesis is that we can have iPads, iPhones, and Tesla cars for 7.5bn people …and this can all be achieved sustainably (and freely, presumably?)…and grow exponentially to accomodate the increased demands …because “materialism” does not have a word for “sufficient”? Materialism requires vast inputs of raw material resources: sustainable and unsustainable ones …OTHER than the freedom energy you are fixated on. Catering for… Read more »

PSJ
Reader
PSJ

We can certainly have ipads, iphones etc for as many as need them, provided we focus on sustainable production. If we made phones to last fifty years (and we could if we wanted to), with easy and Green upgradability then we could provide technology to most of the world and be less destructive than we are now!
Being sustainable doesn’t mean turning our backs on technology per se, that’s simply Ludditism

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

The problem with greed, as Aristotle noted, and I rather bet he wasn’t the first to see it, is that it is insatiable. Any ‘growth’ in the planetary human economy will be grabbed by the insatiably avaricious parasites. Removing them from power, and sending them off to some sanatorium for treatment is one unavoidable first priority.

Jim Porter
Reader
Jim Porter

I remember reading a chemistry book published in the 1950s in which a chapter was set aside describing a kind of cold fusion, but nothing was expanded on the subject as if it had been known for decades. I’m 61 now and read it about 30 years ago and have never been able to find that book again. PS I’m a conspiracy theorist.

PSJ
Reader
PSJ

@Jim – that would be muon-catalyzed fusion, discovered by accident by Luis Alvarez in the 1950s. Muon-catalyzed fusion is now a proven reality, and it does produce some excess heat, but not currently enough for it to be viable, though there are some interesting new developments.

Jim Porter
Reader
Jim Porter

Often ideas come before technology or material science can cope. With Nano technology, a lot of the material science can be designed to work but at huge cost at the moment. Eventually things will catch up with the original idea and make it profitable.

vexarb
Reader

@PSJ. Thank you for that info; it ties in with Prof.Altman’s conclusion which I posted above.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Not so much of a conspiracy theorist, I hope, that you believe in the Mandela Effect…
But this is interesting… can you remember anything at all? Was thee book in English? American or British? Elementary or advanced? Academic or popular? Old books are the way in to “things we’ve forgotten to remember.”

Jim Porter
Reader
Jim Porter

The book was required reading for a degree course in Environmental Science in Kent. I knew someone on the course and they pointed me to it. I was a physicist at the time and obviously looked down on chemistry but every now and then we found common ground. The book was by British scientists and the research seemed to have been done pre WW2. Science research these days would not get funding for this as the profit margins are not large enough.

candideschmyles
Reader

I remember this controversy well and remember being exited by the initial announcement that room temparature cold fusion had been achieved. The logic of the claims made by free energy enthusiasts is tempered in me by the reality that such cheap options would by now have been seized upon by natural resource poor nations like China that could easilly afford to develop such technologies. I am not a nuclear physicist so I must rely on such base logic and thus I remain sceptical.

Dave Lawton
Reader

Your logic is flawed.The Chinese have been researching and have been developing Lenr.

rilme
Reader
rilme

There is nothing wrong with the logic. Obviously.

candideschmyles
Reader

No need to be rude. My logic can only be informed by that which I am aware. This obscure bit of research you link to has, unless we live in different dimensions, led to no revolution in power generation? I read several science digests daily and there is regularly a paper published which hints that cold fusion may have been achieved. Nothing I have seen has panned out to a usable technology. While I agree with Mallove in his assertion that there are flaws in the status orthodoxy has over the novel I would assert there is sufficient competition for… Read more »

vexarb
Reader

Candide is using a practical, down-to-earth argument from ‘The Sceptical Chemist’ by Robert Boyle, against get-rich-quick schemes in science. “Those who published about using the Law of Mass Action to turn water into wine should by now be recognizable by limitless wealth, because…”

vexarb
Reader

From the link which Dave Lawton supplied to sceptical Candide, it seems that Robert Boyle’s “Skeptical Chymist” argument is ripe for testing: “Chinese government researcher Songsheng Jiang reports achieving a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) in a hydrogen-loaded nickel wire. In an email to Frank Acland Jiang reported that the reaction lasted for around 80 minutes and generated around 240 watts of heat. The Institute is China’s top atomic research organization the People’s Republic’s equivalent of Los Alamos National Laboratory in the United States. The Institute has close connections with the top levels of the Communist Party and the Chinese… Read more »

PSJ
Reader
PSJ

PS The LENR result from a hydrogen-loaded nickel wire is potentially cold fusion or possible the same anomalous heat demonstrated by Pons and Fleischmann back in 89, which may be closer to Tesla’s unknown energy source.

PSJ
Reader
PSJ

Harwell was principally involved in researching “hot fusion”, as were all the major centers such as MIT and Los Alamos. Hot fusion is a very different entity from “cold fusion.” Don’t confuse them. Hot fusion received billions of dollars from the DOE in the US, because of its potential in the weapons industry, but never produced any viable source of energy. Cold fusion is a lonely orphan that received almost no funding, and after the Pons and Fleischmann debacle even that tiny trickle all but dried up. No weapons potential, you see, and considerable potential threat to energy monopolies if… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

The usage’…has connections with the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese military’, is standard Sinophobic fear-mongering. The Chinese possess a military, like EVERY country, more or less, and they havn’t attacked anyone since the stupid war with Vietnam, forty years ago. They possess ONE overseas base in contrast with the USA which has one thousand or so, and the US military has attacked many countries, some quite illegally, and killed millions, since WW2. Similarly the Chinese Communist Party ruins China, along with a huge bureaucracy, and do not bother with sham ‘democracy’ behind which facade the rich make all the… Read more »

vexarb
Reader

Mulga, I am not knocking the Chinese. Far from it; nobody has expressed more reverence than I have, for the constructive achievements of Mao and Stalin during WW2, the fruits of which we see today: Russia and China are literally all that protects the remains of the free world from the depredations of Anglo Zionazi Capitalism. Nevertheless, Lysenkoism is a fact — it destroyed Russian progress in genetics for a generation; and the stupidity of Political Parties voting on questions of science is a fact. It is dangerous to brush these facts aside: they serve as warning examples. If the… Read more »

candideschmyles
Reader

Additionally it has to be noted that in 2016 Chinese scientists published 426,000 papers to the US’s 409,000 making it the worlds most prolific research nation. Indeed a scan of papers published everywhere in any given week would reveal that a large proportion of all papers published anywhere will involve some collabaration with Chinese scientists and there are many 1000s of them in respected universities the world over. Prudently they manage this on less than half the budget allocation of the US, though that gap is closing. I would also note that there is no nation on Earth I respect… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

If you have read Needham’s ‘Science and Civilization in China’, you must be old and rich, because it consists of, Googling frantically, seven ‘volumes’, many sub-divided into numerous sub-sections, and thousands of pages. The return of China to global scientific and technological dominance is sending the ‘Gods Upon the Earth’, in Thanatopolis DC, and their crawling, boot-licking, minions in failed states like Austfailure, into paroxysms of rage at the insubordination of it all. A bunch of ‘mere Asiatics’, the ‘Yellow Peril’ as once was the favourite usage in Austfailure, and is rapidly returning to favour, daring to create more science… Read more »

manfromatlan
Reader

That is rather a sceptical (and cynical) POV. Whatever happened to research and the joy of discovery instead of ‘someone’s always trying to make buck’ ?

Nat
Reader
Nat

Evidence?

Helmut Taylor
Reader
Helmut Taylor

Ho Ho Ho……which way tae jump?