A recurrent, painful question characterized by lost patience and bearing shades of silent desperation is: “How to have CF accepted by the scientific community?” Recently one of our best men, wrote a very nice essay about it but got only one answer saying the situation is hopeless and salvation of the field can come only from outside. I was this unique respondent and my pessimism is based in part on the idea that in the still core system of cold fusion, PdD electrolysis cell, it is practically impossible to obtain decent reproducibility and there are no chances for real scale up.
Suppose I am erring here stupidly and tomorrow a perfectly reproducible classic LENR system will be worked out, 99 successful tests from 100 and a scientific explanation will be found for this great achievement. Unfortunately it will be extremely difficult to publish a paper in a high rank scientific journal. A recent discussion with a reputed, highly successful university professor who is a good friend i.e. absolutely sincere with me- has again shown that the orthodox science has given its verdict final and irreversible to cold fusion- no mercy! It is esoteric science and its adequate status is pariah science. Scientifically not understood, experimentally not reproducible, sooner or later it has to die.
As many of my readers I disagree with this, however I disagree on the basis of the ideas developed in this blog; I dare to think that now the PROBLEM part is complete and finished. I have explained in detail and repeatedly how due to unfortunate circumstances in self-enhancing and reinforcing combinations cold fusion could not find a good explanation (theory) and how and why the experimental part is faulty due to bad reproducibility. Being a professional technologist my repulsion toward that damned reproducibility problem is fiercer and deeply ingrained in my thinking than the arguments of the most skeptic enemy of cold fusion.
From now on, let’s start thinking on the SOLUTION.
I repeat It is time to completely re-think and re-write the history of the field and go to a radically and painfully new strategy, new modes of thinking- to a new Paradigm.
Actually this has already started even if we are not aware of it, just now it is deep silence, real “saison morte” on our forums but (I bet!) the coming year will bring a tsunami of new, creative ideas disseminated in the epidemic mode. You will see triumphant, absolutely convincing experimental high energy intensity facts
demonstrating that yes, what has started as Fleischmann and Pons’ cold fusion is now the finest energy source of the future.
History will judge me and the new Paradigm I am announcing here and now. Those who know my privileged way during the last 3 years, my revelations and ordeals know how privileged I was by
learning from Piantelli directly, how hard I have tried to understand
Rossi’s discovery (not his personality) and what a unique wonderful source of intellectual and technological discoveries was my friendship with the Defkalion heroes- will think: “it is easy for Peter, he was favorised by his professional destiny and now he plays the wise guy and dares to tell us about a New Paradigm- shameless self promotion!”
True, and not true in the same time the appended document shows actually I was preaching and prophesizing. about a New Paradigm already 19 years ago! Just I thought it was a paradigm too far and this was true- the distance was 20 cold fusion years (a unity of length similar to a light year but much shorter.
It is old stuff, but many of those who have read it illo tempore are not more with us (as my unforgettable dear friend Hal Fox who has published it) and I don’t think it is a popular paper.
You will discover that the last words of that paper are today still the key to the survival and future prosperity of the field: “Gain power by accepting reality." Not an easy job if your brain is poisoned with dominant memes (guess which ones?) Accepting reality as irreproducibility cannot be tolerated, CF must be metamorphosed in order to live etc. is an awfully difficult and slow process.
Further I have stated then that cold fusion is actually not science? Is it today with all the attributes of a science as a basic all accepted
theory understanding standards? Just developing science very very far from the initial ideas. New “truths, theories, totems and taboos” will populate the radically changed field, soon.
I see, with some pleasure that even 19 years ago I have supported the active sites idea with fervor and facts. And I knew even earlier that only technology will save Cold Fusion- perhaps.
In 1995 my own idea re “To be, or not to be “was too smart for me too. But now I see it clearly- if it wants to BE, cold fusion must boldly and entirely change its identity. Just a bit more subtlety,
my dear readers!
ADDENDUM FROM THE GOOD/BAD OLD TIMES
A PARADIGM TOO FAR?
By Peter Gluck
Fusion Facts, January 1995 p19
Is cold fusion a science? Not yet, because by definition: "A
science is any discipline in which the fool of the present generation can go beyond the point reached by the genius of
the last generation" (Max Gluckman).
We all, geniuses, bright scientists, common researchers, fools
and me belong to the first generation dedicated to battles and
sacrifices, we try to build the House of Cold Fusion in
perpetual stormy weather. The next generation will have the
decisive advantage to use the good paradigm and will take the
I dare to predict that finally everybody will be happy: the
Skeptics because cold fusion is not exactly genuine D-D fusion,
the believers because cold fusion is the inexhaustible source
of energy of the future, and, finally, Mankind because it will
use this energy.
To be a science, cold fusion needs its own paradigm, and this
isn't ready yet.
A paradigm for Cold Fusion.
A basic difference: Cold Fusion belongs to
is: Developing science/Developed technology.
Hot Fusion belongs to Plasma Physics which is: Developed
In both cases, as in politics or economics, `developing' is
merely an euphemism for underdeveloped; many essential
subfields of solid state e.g. high temperature
superconductivity, conductive polymers, porous silicone,
heterogeneous catalysis actually do not have a real,
quantitative, predictive theory but are prospering
technologically. Each of these fields is a technological
miracle grafted on a theoretical quagmire, and who
cares? This is always forgotten and a cold fusion theory is
ever more insistently requested, however both similarity and
synchronicity suggest that such a theory cannot be worked out
Two recent papers [1, 2] written by seven authors with a total
IQ of well over 1000 (is this really additive?) scan the entire
range of cold fusion theories and conclude, one explicitly 
and one implicitly : no theory possible.
For cold fusion a paradigm shift or a new paradigm is
necessary; this is a complex action comprising: transport,
transfer, and transformation of truths, theories, totems and
taboos of established fields for the use of the new one. The
paradigm of hot fusion was the first choice, however, the two
paradigms are so different, between them there is a conceptual
abyss, and the strategy adopted was, unfortunately, enough to
pass this abyss by small steps. The result is: many strange
hybrids with a very low life expectancy. Troubles with the replacement paradigm.
The central problem of hot fusion is the Coulomb barrier, an
obstacle which can be passed by high temperatures; for room
temperature fusion, we have to find something similar,
according to the replacement paradigm, it has to be high
pressure! A palladium lattice oversaturated with deuterium is
ideal for packing and squeezing the deuterons, therefore, the
great totem has to be the D/Pd ratio, and everything happens
inside the lattice, and only in the lattice. In the whole lattice,
cold fusion is a bulk phenomenon. Little was changed when
Mills and co-workers demonstrated that heat excess can also
be obtained with light water , that is: CF is not a privilege
of deuterium, and later new proofs of a kind of Isotopic
Democracy came to change the first naive image of the field:
the systems of Dufour  (gas sparking), Piantelli et al. 
(gas/solid, electromagnetic stimulation) are working with both
Hand D, however, democracy is not perfect equality. Two
systems using ultrasound to obtain excess heat have been
discovered. One is based on heavy water  and gives heat
plus helium. The other is a commercial patented apparatus for
heating fluids, extracting a lot of free Btu's from ordinary
Many other materials besides palladium proved to be `CF
active' that is CF is more general and less specific than we had
thought in 1989.
Actually a theory has to elucidate three aspects of the
phenomena locus, nature and mechanism. The first two of
these are correlated in part but not predetermined as it was
considered by extrapolating the paradigm of hot fusion well
beyond its limits of validity. Despite a plethora of
experimental facts, "the locus is the bulk" and "the nature of
the reactions is obviously D-D fusion" became axioms and
only a few heretics tried to discuss about possible alternatives.
Due to the domination of the hybrid paradigm, the problem of
understanding cold fusion was attacked in the reverse order
(the proper being: locus - nature - mechanism) or only in part
by treating the mechanism of reactions, admitting tacitly that
locus and nature are well known from the start. Invariably,
only depth-first approaches have been used, however, we now
need breadth-first approaches, so useful in cases of
interdisciplinary fields where a vision is essential. In these
circumstances, after over 5 years, cold fusion has existential
problems. In the same time, this situation is quite normal for a
brand new science, and a question "To be or not to be?" for CF
is actually stupid, a symptom of dualistic thinking. The answer
as almost always given by nature is of the "mu" type (see
please the books of Pirsig, Hofstadter, Capra which are
essential for understanding physics). Actually, the skeptics are
searching for genuine fusion and the believers for a
non-chemical, non-exhaustible source of energy. The answer,
any answer has different significance for the parties in
To some extent, both skeptics and believers are victims of
Groupthink, dualistic thinking and thinking small.
By an objective analysis of the facts, and by trying to use the
Methods of creative thinking, I started to build an alternative
paradigm [8,9]. The essential points are:
˝ cold fusion is an extreme case of catalysis;
˝positive and negative results are compatible in the frame of
our approach we can accommodate seemingly antithetical
˝ irreproducibility is not the karma of CF, it is a direct
consequence of the catalytic nature of the phenomena, it is a
great informational asset and can be eliminated by technology;
˝ to understand the field we need a global approach: all
systems, all results, all phenomena, and above all, all the
isotopes of hydrogen;
˝everything happens on the surface or very near to it, and
only in certain active sites of it, just as in case of catalysis; the
role of the bulk is to support the surface;
˝ the clue is not pressure but mobility.
Two papers published in 1994 demonstrate the creative
abilities of the very high surfaces; using titanium soot,
impregnated with tritium, Reifenschweiler  could change
the radioactivity of tritium; the double structured cathodes of
the Arata cell comprising palladium black, i.e. another
ultra-dispersed material with a huge surface resulted in a
reproducible, intense heat excess (200 MJ in 3000 hours).
Such particles guarantee the presence of many catalytic
The very high loading ratios attained by Celani, et al. ,
D/Pd= 1.2 who used very short pulses of current, didn't give
the expected great excess heat values, substantiating our idea
that global loading is nothing more than a prerequisite of high
Excess heat was obtained in a new system, ionic implant of
Deuterium in aluminum followed by electron bombardment,a
very important result, I think (Kamada, l994). The
micrographs clearly show that the metal is locally melted at the
deuterium molecular collections/Al interface. 
Temporarily, we have to give up hope (but not search!) for a
theory and have to accept that cold fusion will develop as a
technology and:" Technology is not a science, not a discipline,
not a tool and not engineering. It's know-how." (Alfred
This is very bad news for some of our friends. However, we
will soon be able to understand some basic facts and will have
a usable paradigm. Don't forget, even Confucius was advised
by his ancestors to "Gain power by accepting reality."
[l] V.A. Chechin, V.A. Tsarev, M.Rabinowitz, Y.E. Kim,
"Critical Review of Theoretical Models for Anomalous Effects
in Deuterated Metals, "International Journal of Theoretical
Physics, vol 33, no 3, 1994, pp 517-670
 M.Fleischmann, S.Pons, G.Preparata, "Possible Theories
of Cold Fusion, "Nuovo Cimento, vol 107A, no 1, Jan. 1994,
pp143-154 (these papers do not pass the barrier of the Pd/D2O
 R.L. Mills, S.P. Kneizis, "Excess Heat Production by the
Electrolysis of an Aqueous Potassium Carbonate Electrolyte
and the Implications for Cold Fusion, Fusion Technology,
20, Aug. 1991, p 65.
 J. Dufour, J. Foos, J.P. Millot, "Cold Fusion by Sparking
in Hydrogen Isotopes,"Cold Fusion Source Book, edited by
 S. Focardi, R. Habel, F. Piantelli, "Anomalous Heat
Production in Ni-H Systems,"Il NuovoCimento,vol 107A,
no 1, Jan. 1994, pp 163-157.
 R. Stringham, "Cavitation Induced Micro-fusion," 4th
International Conference on Cold Fusion,
, 6-9 Maui,
Dec. 1994, paper no 3.9.
J.L.Griggs, "Calorimetric Study of Excess Heat Production
within the Hydrosonic Pump System using Light Water,"
Cold Fusion Source Book, edited by Fusion Information
paper no 42.
 P. Gluck, "The Surfdyn Concept: An Attempt to Solve the
Puzzles of Cold Nuclear Fusion," Fusion Technology, 24
Aug. 1993, p 122.
 P. Gluck, "Cold Fusion - a Logical Network Approach,"
International Conference on Cold Fusion,
, May Minsk,
[10a] O.Reifenschweiler, "Reduced Radioactivity in Small
Titanium Particles," Physics Letters A, 184, 1994, pp
[10b]O. Reifenschweiler: II. More detailed description of our
experiments with proposals to improve the experimental
technique (provided by the author)
 Y. Arata, Y-C. Zhang, "A New Energy Caused by
`Spillover Deuterium', "Proc. Japanese Academy 70, ser.B
(1994), pp106-111, communication by Jed Rothwell.
 F. Celani, A. Spallone, P.Tripodi, A. Petrocchi, D. Di
Gioacchino, M. Boutet, "D/Pd Loading Ratio up to 1.2:1 by
High Power Microsecond Pulsed Electrolysis in Pd Plates,"
Cold Fusion Source Book, edited by Fusion Information
May 1994, paper no 25.
K. Kamada, H. Kinoshita, H. Takahashi A., "Anomalous
Heat Evolution of Deuteron Implanted Al on Electron
Bombardment," National Institute for Fusion Science, Report
NISF-281, May 1994.