Rossi Asks for Help: Cold Fusion Referred to in Manhattan Project?

I am passing on a request for help from Andrea Rossi that was posted on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today. Maybe there are readers who might be able to assist Rossi with this question:

To the Readers, request of help:
Today I have been informed from an Indian nuclear physicist that, during the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer and Teller expressed the opinion that cold fusion was a possibility. If true, this is important under a historical point of view, but I have not been able to find a reference of this. Is any of our Readers able to inform us about similar reference?
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Personally I have never heard of such a thing, but perhaps someone here may have some knowledge of what he is referring to. It’s the kind of thing that might not be published on the Internet since the Manhattan project took place during World War II.

And what would they have called cold fusion back then, anyway?

  • Kevin O

    Jay, an excellent utilitarian approach to looking at the difference between the 2 subjects.

    I’ve used the same approach when debating about people who have supposedly been abducted by aliens. If we really look into it, we’ll find at best a sleep disorder. But if we look into the technology of flying saucers we will at least find ways of generating 4500MPH traces on radar screens.

    • kdk

      This would be ignoring or ignorance of eye-witness accounts of UFOs doing the things that regular air craft cannot.

  • Kevin O

    Like the report says, “some nation has reached a stage of flight development in which the present ideas are entirely obsolete”. Flying saucers are NOT extraterrestrial in origin. The Combined Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee identified the development of this technology during world war 2, right here on planet earth. For the best treatment of this evidence, the book by Renato Vesco is the best one ever written:

    http://www.amazon.com/Intercept–But-Dont-Shoot-Flying-Saucers/dp/B002QOXCHQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1415486572&sr=8-2&keywords=intercept+ufo+renato+vesco

    It’s also first time I had seen electrogravitics mentioned. When all is said & done, there will be a strong connection between electrogravitics and cold fusion. That is the answer to Rossi’s question.

  • georgehants

    Where the corrupt and incompetent western science establishment still hides Cold Fusion, our Wonderful Russian friends are more honest and uncensored.
    How times change.
    ——–
    DTravchenko
    November 8th, 2014 at 10:07 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Did you see the article on Proatom written by Dr Vitaly Uzikov?
    http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5595
    This is a peer reviewed nuclear physics magazine and Dr Uzikov is a
    preminent figure of the Russian Nuclear Physics world. Congratulations
    to the Professors of the ITP, this is an important endorsement from the
    mainstream Russian scientific environment. If you come in Russia you
    will find friends of much higher level than you can even imagine.
    From Russia, with love and with the regular Warm Regards,
    D. Travchenko
    ——–
    Andrea Rossi
    November 8th, 2014 at 10:33 AM
    D. Travchenko:
    This paper is becoming viral and I am very honoured of what you say:
    yes, I agree totally with you in regard of the inportance of this
    publication.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I don’t know what Oppenheimer and Teller said but could it have something to do with heavy electron formation in the conduction band of metallic deuterium bringing deuterons closer together?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Tadahiko Mizuno is one of LENR’s real heroes. He (and John Dash) was one of the first to show that isotopic shifts of palladium were taking place in F&P type cells. This suggests to me that “stripping” reactions (Oppenheimer-Phillips reactions) are ONE of the things that are taking place in Pd-d setups.

  • georgehants

    You could be right but I am sure you agree that a scientists “guesses” are completely irrelevant regarding the Facts of a subject, only competent Research can ever move knowledge forward.
    The job of a scientist surly is, to only find Facts and if anybody attempts to stop them doing that then one I think, would expect them to correct that situation.

  • georgehants

    It I think needs to be plainly remembered that 99% of scientists are unaware, ignore or try to cover-up —
    Science knows nothing fundamental about any scientific subject, just a little knowledge gained from measurements etc that they then try to interpret, usual wrongly as time shows.
    I Challenge anybody on page to give an example of any fundamental knowledge that science has on any subject.

  • georgehants

    Great list Roger, certainly good to read on this Website the more important things that Cold Fusion should be helping to archive.
    The World I think needs to move away from excess materialism for the few and realise that once set free, Cold Fusion can give enough for ALL.
    This IS part of the Cold Fusion story, that is why I am on this page.
    Just seeing Cold Fusion turned into another source of fuel for the rich and powerful to maintain their immoral positions will make me very sad.
    You now perhaps will look at the faults of capitalism and help to head toward a new system combining the best of all systems, plus much more, to give every individual some of the things you list above
    You and GreenWin have started the ball rolling.

  • georgehants

    Roger you will notice that your list above has received just one like, from me.
    Now write something nice about science and it will get ten.
    No scientist it seems likes to read the Truth about their profession and themselves.
    Such a sad situation that they do not all jump at the chance to improve things.
    That is what establishment brain-washing does to people.

  • georgehants

    We do Roger and we have the Internet to make all these things happen, but there must be the will.
    People must be brave enough to demand that things change for the better.

  • bytestander

    quite articulate!

    • georgehants

      Great list Roger, certainly good to read on this Website the more important things that Cold Fusion should be helping to archive.
      The World I think needs to move away from excess materialism for the few and realise that once set free, Cold Fusion can give enough for ALL.
      This IS part of the Cold Fusion story, that is why I am on this page.
      Just seeing Cold Fusion turned into another source of fuel for the rich and powerful to maintain their immoral positions will make me very sad.
      You now perhaps will look at the faults of capitalism and help to head toward a new system combining the best of all systems, plus much more, to give every individual some of the things you list above
      You and GreenWin have started the ball rolling.

  • psi2u2

    Probably true, but I can think of scenarios where singular scientific events of other types might come from UFO study — if, for example, we were actually to have in our possession advanced saucer-type vehicles, which surely could be back-engineered.

    I’m not disagreeing with your comment about the immediate and unique importance of a new cheap, reliable, ecologically-sound e-cat, however. Let’s go folks! Let’s get it done.

  • psi2u2

    I agree. I liked the comment because it was full of nice weird things, but probably better to let these two issues evolve on their own without trying to link them. I do think there is a lot of interesting evidence for real UFOs, but there is also, clearly, a lot of hoaxing and hype that gives UFO study *ipso facto* a bad name.

  • Chris I

    Gosh it really depends on what they may have meant, way back in those days, by whatever they may have said.

    • psi2u2

      There are a lot of good examples in the comments below.

  • georgehants

    Grek, good reading and certainly somewhere to work away from.
    Thank you for taking the time to put it up and it would be Wonderful to see some positive changes that could lead to a better, fairer life for ALL.

  • GreenWin

    If feels a lot like some very heavy air is clearing. And that the goal of many good men and women to openly disclose to the human population, facts about “fringe” sciences, history, political chicanery, and good news is coming to fruition. It may be disturbing to discover the brutal, selfish behavior this has precipitated in some. However, IF we are to enter into the greater universe of people, we must first prove ourselves honest and capable enough to confront and clean up our failures. This involves facing corruption in all areas of public and private business and government. Establishing a open door policy between the “rational materialists” and those moved by spirit, faith and belief. The universe is large enough to accommodate both spheres.
    We will never be accepted in the greater community as long as we allow a dysfunctional hierarchy to leave billions of humans in abject poverty, while the few, self-preserved hoard resources and wealth. It is my firm belief there IS enough for everyone. We can raise standards of living AND preserve the planet, AND preserve free trade. The only impediment to these goals is human created fear that it cannot be done. LENR and the spectacular team behind its development are a disruptive, yet moral step to meet these goals. In this we are not alone.

    • DocForrest

      You keep posting here GreenWin, but you never make sense. Not sure if you are constant high or just crazy. Please, for once, make a clear point.

  • georgehants

    Roger, if I may say, a very important scientific analysis, containing much of value to be discussed.
    I am sure you will believe that nothing would please me more that to not have to be a “freaking nag”.
    If your ideas above are taken seriously by scientists then some things may change and I can just sit back with a glass of red and let those who’s responsibility it is (scientists) to correct their own errors.
    GOOD LUCK 🙂

  • georgehants

    Jay, I am sure you will agree that like Cold Fusion it does not matter ” if
    you “buy the existence of aliens or UFOs” one iota, it only matters if the Evidence is looked at fairly, scientifically, open-mindedly and competently.
    How can looking at any scientific subject be “counterproductive” what is your view of how science should handle the Cometa report I have put up above?

    • psi2u2

      Well said.

  • georgehants
  • georgehants

    It must be my birthday, Wonderful page of real science, history, discovery, open-minded authors.
    Many thanks, it warms the cockles of my heart.

    • psi2u2

      I agree. This page is to me a good example of what the internet is *supposed* to be – a new pathway to human knowledge that results from simple collaboration by those who want to see a better world.

      I hope Dr. Rossi got what he needs from some of these excellent answers.

      • georgehants

        Pages and pages of people arguing about how many megawatts it takes to boil a kettle is all very well, but some real comments about how Cold Fusion could help to improve all of society must surly be worthwhile.

  • georgehants

    Jay, you are putting up Evidence for all scientists to fairly discuss, well done.
    It will be interesting how many are able look at the comparison between Cold Fusion and your comment.
    ——–
    The COMETA Report
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7KC-1wj3Hg

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I would indeed expect a quarrel about the ‚correct’ terminology. Each side would claim that they have been right from the start in order to keep up appearances.

  • Jay

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54964-2004Nov16_2.html

    A protege of Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb,
    Hagelstein by 1989, at age 35, had a prestigious position at MIT and had
    been selected as a member of the Jasons, an elite group of scientific
    advisers to the Defense Department. He was on his way to great things.

    He was flying out to visit the Lawrence Livermore National
    Laboratory in California when the news of cold fusion hit in 1989, and
    he met with Teller and Lowell Wood, another prominent Livermore
    scientist, the next day. Both men encouraged him to work on cold fusion.
    (Teller died last year, but Wood continues to support cold fusion and
    attends the conferences.) Hagelstein did what his mentors suggested, and
    his career has suffered.

    • GreenWin

      Dr. Hagelstein followed orders… and got screwed for doing so? SOB.

      • towerofbabel

        Hagelstein will be with the winners.

        • Freethinker

          That he will. And well deserved.

  • Jay

    http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/sakharov.htm


    The difference is straightforward: “cold fusion”
    withered in the light of “public scientific validation” — i.e., the
    failure of others to replicate the experiment. Teller’s weapons
    research demands, and receives, the cloak of secrecy, and “national
    security” is the Dracula’s coffin that keeps Teller’s fantasies alive.
    For with vital information withheld, it becomes impossible to confront
    the schemes with “crucial experiments.” Lacking these, Teller and his
    colleagues trot out their
    ad ignorantum defense: “Well, nobody’s proven this wrong, so there must be something to it.”

    • psi2u2

      Great work, Jay. Thanks for finding these impressive resources.

    • GreenWin

      Thanks Jay!

  • georgehants

    This page reads like an obituary of just some of the Wonderful work carried out by great scientists in the past.
    The current situation with Cold Fusion shows that nothing has improved, but has clearly become even worse.
    Missed opportunities, cover-ups, corruption, incompetence, the list goes on.
    Worst of all and I think can fairly be described as criminal, Nothing is being done to openly improve a profession that is professionally inept to a degree that seems, if not so serious “comical”
    Perhaps a topic page on what needs to be done to bring this clown-like community into some kind of order, would be appropriate and helpful.

    • Grek

      You are blaming the wrong people. The problem is the society as a whole. Science should not be done by huge institutions that are funded with taxpayers money. It will simply never work. It should be done by individuals who are in it for the fame, glory and money. Rossi is case in point. If huge amounts of taxpayers money were not wasted on the so called goverment “scientists”, more individuals that could do real science would materialize. I am sure of it. So blame big goverment instead of science. Those you call scientists are not scientists. They are just gatekeepers of the current paradigm.

      • georgehants

        Grek, allowing that what you say is true, what do you think needs to happen so that science can save itself from the terrible mess that it is in, shown by the Cold Fusion denial and debunking etc that has been happening for 25 years and still today?
        How will you change government to stop scientists acting in this idiotic fashion?

        • GreenWin

          At least in the USA, we might remind every government employee of the oath they swear as a part of their government employment:
          “To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This includes e.g. the First Amendment guarantee to free speech and press. Had a free press been functioning as it did uncovering the Watergate scandal, or Gulf of Tonkin fiasco – we might have commercial CF today. IMO

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, when you say “we” do you mean scientists, if so are you saying that the scientific press should be using it’s influence to help correct the things you mention?

            • GreenWin

              The “scientific press” is part of the problem. Their overseers use it to protect their knowledge monopoly. I am talking about tough-minded investigative journalists who should be free to critique and expose damaging public and private policy. Just as they did when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New York Times and Washington Post exposing the Pentagon Papers.
              However, scientists who see corruption and refuse to call it out are responsible for compounding the problem. Hagelstein, McKubre, Storms, Mallove, Beaudet, Miley – pretty much the whole of the ICCF have modeled the honest behavior of real scientists. IMO

      • mytakeis

        Would be a dream come true if the just elected republican legislative should defund research, to save money, and let; “individuals who are in it for the fame, glory and money” do the discovering.

    • psi2u2

      This is a stunning page, with impressive and remarkable contributions to the history of the science.

      • georgehants

        psi2u2, agreed so much Wonderful science from the past delayed or lost because there is not a good system to hold the important Evidence and thoughts in a accessible place for further work.
        Happens so often that such work is hidden or suppressed.
        How can this fault be rectified?

  • GreenWin

    Thanks Dave. What a privilege to work with this man. Franklin has a distinguished career. Had only the “consensus” physics community not believed nucleon fusion required the heat and gravitation of our Sun – we might have avoided the mistakes of fission. Hopefully the lesson LENR is teaching today, will enable better thinking in the future.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    You mean Paneth & Peters (1926), “Über die Verwandlung von Wasserstoff in Helium”. Naturwissenschaften 14 (43): 956–962.

    Kurt Peters was an Austrian (not Australian), Friedrich Paneth a British chemist who had been born in Austria.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Paneth
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Peters

  • Ged

    Apparently such a discussion begins on page 192 of this book of Oppenheimer’s letters: “Robert Oppenheimer: Letters and Recollections” published in 1935. builditnow linked the relevant Wikipedia page.

    Also, I found a paper that may be of interest that references the Oppenheimer material, as well as calculates kinetics of cold fusion in palladium and titanium by deuterium and references other successful cold fusion materials it seems: http://www.pnas.org/content/87/8/3177.full.pdf, R.H. Parmenter and W.E Lamb Jr (Arizona Research Laboratories, and University of Arizona, respectively), 1990, “More cold fusion in metals: corrected calculations and other considerations”, PNAS.

    • bachcole

      Perhaps it is necessary for muons to be happening for the LENR reaction to start, and then the reaction keeps itself going. Testing this theory that would require shielding heavy enough to block muons, but I don’t know what that would require.

      An interesting side note: I saw a segment on TV about how they have developed sensors for these big shipping containers to look for radioactive material using muons (for protect us from getting nuked by terrorists). Only really dense material can block muons, so instead of looking for the radioactivity of the material, they look for the absence of muons.

      Apparently they got so many false positives the old way that it greatly interfered with their searching and results in about only about 5% of the containers being searched. So many things are radioactive enough that they would have to stop the container trucks and search, usually finding nothing. Now, the trucks can just drive through and dense material like uranium can easily be sensed. The technique also requires some clever software because the muons don’t always come from the same direction.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Not groundless what you say about muons. Muons can be created by the decay of pions. According to a paper that has been mentioned here recently, pions are possibly related to Casimir forces. If the Casimir effect could generate charged pions which would subsequently decay into muons (and a neutrino), cold fusion would be easy to achieve. And nobody could say it is impossible, since muon-catalyzed fusion is recognized by mainstream science.

  • GreenWin

    There is an (unpublished) paper by famous Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov 1948 speculating on muon-catalyzed or “cold fusion.” And later work by Luis Alvarez 1956. Good discussion by John David Jackson here: http://bit.ly/13OMQw2
    Two pertinent citations:

    3) A. D. Sakharov, ‘‘Passive Mesons [in Russian],’’ Report, Academy of Sciences USSR, P.N.Lebedev Physics Institute (April 1948, unpublished); translated into English in Muon Catalyzed Fusion 4 (1989), 235-239; see also S.S. Gerstein and L.I. Ponomarev, ‘‘Forty Years Later: Comment on the A.D.S. Report,’’ ibid., 241-245.

    4) Ya. B. Zel’dovich, ‘‘Reactions Caused by l-Mesons in Hydrogen [in Russian],’’Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 95 (1954), 493–496

  • builditnow

    This might be a lead for someone to follow:

    Oppenheimer–Phillips process
    “The process allows a nuclear interaction to take place at lower energies
    than would be expected from a simple calculation of the Coulomb barrier between a deuteron and a target nucleus.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer%E2%80%93Phillips_process
    I have very little nuclear physics in my background, however, it’s possible that Oppenheimer’s writing around this time might reference something like cold fusion or lower temperature fusion.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The Oppenheimer-Phillips process belongs to the same class of “stripping reactions” as the processes which have been described in the paper by Carl-Oscar Gullström. It is a question of faith if one calls these reactions “fusion”. I would personally not use this term, since the nuclei actually do not fuse completely. Instead of that, a neutron transfer from one nucleus to another takes place.

      • Mike Henderson

        I think the usage of the term fusion encompasses any addition to nuclear mass, whether P (transmutation) or N. The key is that the mass deficit increases in the transfer, released as energy.
        Mass of Li7 < LI6 + N.
        Mass of Ni62< Ni60 + 2N.
        The net increase in mass deficit is in the ballpark for the observed anomalous thermal energy.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Of course one could speak of „fusion“ in a broader sense. But IMO it would be misleading to describe neutron capture as “nuclear fusion”, since neutrons are not nuclei. Terminology is surely not the most important thing, and in any case it has its limitations, but it complicates understanding if it is not reasonably well organized.

    • Bob Greenyer

      So Neutron stripping could be going on – but the OP process sounds a little like the new additions to the awarded Piantelli patent, only the electrons on H- ions “shield” the Proton to allow it closer to the neucleus – other protons get ejected and transmute Lithium and Boron.

      http://www.google.com/patents/US20140098917

      “In particular, in the clusters of the primary material the H− ions are subjected to nuclear orbital capture reactions by the cluster crystalline structure of the primary material that form the core, i.e. the active core. Then, the H− ions are subjected to a capture by the atoms of the cluster, and lose their own couple of electrons thus creating protons 1H.

      Subsequently, more in detail,

      a first portion of protons 1H is subjected to nuclear reactions of direct capture by the nuclei of the atoms of the clusters. Such reactions are indicated hereinafter as internal primary nuclear reactions;

      a second portion of protons 1H is subjected to a Coulomb repulsion by the nuclei of the atoms of the primary material that have caused the orbital capture. Such second portion of protons 1H gives origin to:

      protons that are expelled by the nuclei, which have a determinable and characterizable energy. For example, in case of Nickel, the expelled protons have an energy of about to 6.7 MeV. Such expelled protons can interact with other nuclei of the primary material that belong to a same cluster, or that belong to proximate clusters, and can cause delayed reactions. These delayed reactions are indicated hereinafter as external primary nuclear reactions;

      protons that are expelled and emitted by the primary material, hereinafter simply indicated as emitted protons, which also have a determinable and characterizable energy, as described above. The emitted protons can interact with nuclei of secondary material causing the proton-dependent reactions, which are also reactions delayed with respect to the internal primary nuclear reactions. It is relevant that the secondary material faces the primary material, since, if a further material is present between the primary material and the secondary material, the protons would not go beyond this further material and would not reach the secondary material.”

      The emitted protons go on to react with Lithium and Boron.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Piantelli uses light hydrogen, therefore an OP process is not possible (no neutron in the nucleus).

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes,

          I said similar in that a proton is ejected from the nucleus…

          There is some proton capture in this described process.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          But the (analogous) Gullström model might work, especially since lithium appears to be present. It would have to be checked if these reactions could produce enough energy to explain the observations.

  • SiriusMan

    I’m not sure about the Manhattan-project era but there is a story about McKubre meeting Dr. Teller at Stanford (after 1989). Teller reportedly said ““You haven’t convinced me yet. But if what you say is true, it would take a very small change of the laws of nuclear physics as I understand them to explain this effect.”

    See:

    http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeek2012.pdf