LENR Researcher Biberian Has Limited Answers About Cold Fusion
March 22, 2013 – By Steven B. Krivit –
New Energy Times interviewed LENR (low-energy nuclear reaction) researcher Jean-Paul Biberian by e-mail between Jan. 13, 2013, and Feb. 1, 2013. He has written a new book, La Fusion Dans Tous ses États (Fusion in All Its Forms). Biberian is one of the most senior researchers in the field and has a long history with “cold fusion.” Biberian is reluctant to abandon the term, identity and concept of “cold fusion” and, in its place, recognize the research as LENR. In this candid scientific discussion, Biberian explains why.
Biberian blames the lack of progress in the field – 24 years old tomorrow – on the unwillingness of mainstream science to consider the claim of “cold fusion.” Yet when New Energy Times asked Biberian specific questions to support his claim of “cold fusion,” he gave conflicting answers.
He also wrote that Peter Hagelstein, an associate professor of electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had a theory that supported the claim of “cold fusion.” Biberian made several claims about the validity of Hagelstein’s theory. New Energy Times asked Biberian specific questions about the theory, but Biberian did not answer some important questions.
Biberian’s perception of credible support for Hagelstein’s theory is common among LENR experimentalists.
Last year, on Feb. 5, 2012, New Energy Times sent an e-mail to Hagelstein and asked to learn more about his theoretical ideas. We placed telephone calls, left messages on his voice mail and spoke with his administrative assistant Susan Davco. Hagelstein did not respond. What we know of his “cold fusion” theory work is on our Hagelstein Theory Portal Web page.
Even if a viable theory does not exist for the idea of “cold fusion,” that doesn’t mean “cold fusion” doesn’t exist. It’s not sufficient to look at the idea of “cold fusion” from only a theoretical perspective, because theories only guide and experiments decide; this is the scientific method. From an empirical perspective, however, the data are inconsistent with the idea of “cold fusion.” (See these articles: “Investigation of Michael McKubre’s M4 Experiment” and “Cold Fusion Is Neither.”)
Biberian is aware that LENR phenomena may also be explained by non-fusion mechanisms such as weak-interaction and neutron-capture processes.
[DAP errMsgTemplate=”” isLoggedIn=”N”]
_____ Article continues for subscribers. Click here to subscribe. _____
[/DAP] [DAP errMsgTemplate=”” isLoggedIn=”Y”]
Biberian is a retired professor of physics from the Faculté des Sciences de Luminy, Université d’Aix-Marseille, in France and has an engineering degree in electronics and nuclear science and a Ph.D. in materials science.
Biberian’s entrance into the field is an interesting story. Many years ago, he won a lawsuit against the French Atomic Energy Commission for infringement on his patent on field emission flat panel display technology. At the time, he knew that an electrochemist named Georges Lonchampt was working for the commission performing cold fusion research.
Biberian’s interest in “cold fusion” was just developing, though he had no funding of his own to perform the research. As a settlement for the lawsuit, he negotiated a hefty award with the director of the commission and, to top it off, agreed to a unique arrangement.
“Because I wanted more than the limit, they offered me a good amount of money plus a three-year contract to work for them on cold fusion in Grenoble,” Biberian wrote.
With the hard feelings aside and cash in pocket, he gladly accepted the opportunity to receive funding for his passion, cold fusion research.
Jean-Paul Biberian Receives Award at ICCF-11 in Marseilles, France, 2004. Photo: S.B. Krivit
Since 2006, Biberian has been the editor-in-chief of the online Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science: Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion.
On Jan. 21, 2013, he gave a talk, “Cold Fusion 2013 – A Review of Scientific Progress,” at the Technische Universiteit Eindhoven in the Netherlands.
In Biberian’s interview with New Energy Times in January, he said that Hagelstein’s theory provided the best explanation for “cold fusion.” However, New Energy Times is not aware that Hagelstein has any single theory that explains “cold fusion.” As we understand it, he has a collection of models that discuss distinct aspects of “cold fusion.” Biberian also said that Hagelstein’s theory is complete and that it explains many experimental observations.
Among other questions, New Energy Times asked Biberian the following:
Exactly which papers explain Hagelstein’s theory?
Do you know whether Hagelstein can explain Huizenga’s “three miracles”?
In general, how does Hagelstein’s theory explain excess heat from a D+D “cold fusion” process?
How does Hagelstein explain how a Ni+H–>Cu reaction would occur?
How do you know that Hagelstein’s theory is complete?
How do you know that Hagelstein’s theory explains many experimental observations?
Can you show how data from experiments compare with the data predicted by Hagelstein’s theory?
Biberian had no answers for any of these questions. On Feb. 1, he said he would get back to New Energy Times within a few days with some answers. He didn’t.
Steven B. Krivit: The announcement for your Jan. 21, 2013, lecture at Eindhoven implies that the lack of progress in the field is the result of certain attitudes from mainstream science, a philosophical conflict with the claim of cold fusion.
The announcement says, “Since the announcement by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, the field of cold fusion research has been loaded with controversy. Twenty-four years later, many [people] in the scientific community still consider cold fusion an impossible dream.”
Is there anything else you want to say about why there hasn’t been better progress? Or why mainstream science thinks it is impossible?
Jean-Paul Biberian: Cold fusion is in a Catch-22 situation. On one hand, in order to be recognized by the scientific community, it is necessary to publish papers in mainstream scientific journals; on the other hand, these journals reject any paper regarding cold fusion, because the field is not recognized by the scientific community.
Is there a way out of this situation? Yes, first of all, slowly, slowly, the science is developing; more and more experiments confirm the reality of the phenomenon. It takes time, but time is on our side. The younger generation of cold fusion is a lot more open to this field, and sooner or later things will change, and the field will become accepted. Also, as the research continues, engineers are now working on devices and not just on basic research, so products will soon be on the market that will put an end to the controversy.
The reason mainstream science rejects cold fusion is that it is against the known laws of nuclear physics. But this argument is worthless, because the models used in high-energy physics are two-body interactions, whereas in cold fusion, the reactions occur in a solid; therefore, it is a multi-body situation. You cannot use a model that is not adapted to the actual experiments.
When cold fusion enters mainstream science and technology, then a lot more progress will happen. This will be a new era of physics, and I am very optimistic that young scientists will step in and bring great discoveries.
Science is a continuous process of discoveries. It will never end.
SBK: Do I understand you correctly? Mainstream scientists reject “cold fusion” because it is inconsistent with their prevailing knowledge/belief/understanding of physics and, secondarily, because they are unwilling to consider new ideas/phenomena that conflict with their prevailing perspective?
JPB: Yes, this is exactly that.
SBK: OK, but why do you continue to call it “fusion” when nearly all the experimental results are inconsistent with nuclear fusion and are consistent with neutron creation and neutron-capture processes?
JPB: Actually, nobody knows for sure what the theory behind the phenomenon is. Therefore, I prefer to use the term that everybody understands. An absorption of a neutron by an atom is also fusion.
SBK: I did not know that an absorption of a neutron by an atom is also fusion. Is this just your opinion, or is this stated in textbooks?
JPB: Textbooks do not mention neutron absorption as fusion, because this is not a usual reaction for light elements. But in general terms, if you fuse two light elements into a heavier one, this is a fusion. This is a semantic issue. That is why many people prefer the term LENR and the science is named CMNS. However, for non-specialists, it is better to call the phenomenon “cold fusion,” because this is what is better known to the general public. In my opinion, changing the term will look like hiding the well-known subject known worldwide as cold fusion. I prefer to be direct so that there is no confusion. My book relates to cold fusion, even though I know that the phenomenon is more complex and not well understood yet.
SBK: OK, thanks for the explanation on neutron absorption. When you say “nobody knows for sure what the theory behind the phenomenon is,” do you assume that it is some kind of “cold fusion” process but nobody knows exactly how that fusion process works? Or do you mean that nobody has any idea what kind of process it is: fusion, fission, neutron formation and capture, Erzion, etc?
JPB: I do not know whether it is cold fusion or something else. We have to wait until more experimental work brings more information about the possible mechanism and see how they fit with the various theories.
SBK: Let me see whether I understand.
1. You don’t know if it is “cold fusion.”
2. You know that the claim of “cold fusion” makes mainstream science react adversely.
3. You have two other “non-fusion” terms available to you: LENR (since 1995) and CMNS (since 2002).
4. You prefer the name “cold fusion” because that’s the name that everybody knows.
5. You think that calling “cold fusion” LENR or CMNS is hiding.
6. You don’t have enough experimental data to suggest a possible mechanism.
Is this right?
JPB: That’s absolutely right.
SBK: You said that one of the main problems is that you want to see “cold fusion” recognized by the scientific community by getting papers published in mainstream scientific journals. However, you said, these journals reject any paper regarding “cold fusion.”
Can you clarify what you mean about journals rejecting any LENR papers?
JPB: In fact, for the scientists, all journals are not equal. There are three major journals: Nature, Science and Physical Review Letters.
These are the physics journals that are considered peer-reviewed by mainstream science. The other journals, even peer-reviewed ones, have very little value. I should probably modify what I said before to limit it to these three journals.
SBK: Because you think that some kind of “cold fusion” process is responsible for the phenomena, what, in your opinion, is the best experimental evidence for “cold fusion”?
JPB: The best evidence for cold fusion is Arata’s work with his double-structure cathode, which produces excess heat and He-4 with heavy water but not with light water. This experiment has been duplicated by McKubre.
SBK: You also said that engineers are now working on devices and not on basic research, so products will be on the market soon that will put an end to the controversy.
In Gene Mallove’s 1999 video, in which you appeared, Mallove said the same thing. Can you point me to any credible evidence that LENR products will be on the market soon?
JPB: Jesus said that he will come back soon …
“Soon” means to me that we are much closer than ever to a device, but I don’t know whether it will be one, three or five years. Don’t forget that I am an optimist!
I think that both Andrea Rossi and Defkalion are after something that works, but I do not have direct proof of it.
SBK: Is this the best reference for the Arata work to which you refer? Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Anomalous production of gaseous 4He at the inside of ‘DS cathode’ during D2O-electrolysis. Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. B, 1999. 75: p. 281.
Is this the best reference for the McKubre replication to which you refer? McKubre, M.C.H. Review of experimental measurements involving dd reactions, PowerPoint slides. In Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, Mass.
JPB: The best paper by Arata is from 1998. I am attaching it. I am not sure about the McKubre paper. I will check tomorrow in the conference proceedings.
SBK: I can see the excess-heat effect that Arata reported in the paper. But what specifically about this paper leads you to think this is evidence of a fusion process, rather than some other nuclear process?
Do you have any evidence that Arata calibrated his temperature-measuring system against an absolute reference? In other words, did he use a reference electrode to calibrate it, or did he assume that the H20 curve was zero, and therefore use the H20 curve as a relative reference?
JPB: This Arata paper does not show that it is fusion. It only shows anomalous heat. In other papers, he shows the production of helium. However, this is not the proof that this is fusion. It is the proof that it is anomalous, probably nuclear, but maybe something unknown.
I do not know the details of the calibration, but seeing his data, it seems that he calibrates the system with zero excess at the beginning of the runs. If he operates at constant power, then this is a valid assumption. What is interesting is that the H2O cell does not produce excess heat.
The mixed H2O-D2O seems to work but less than the D2O one.
SBK: Assuming the citation I sent you is the same as what you had in mind, the primary finding that McKubre reported from this replication was that of tritium or helium-3 [The decay factor causes the uncertainty]. How do you propose that tritium or helium-3 would be the result of some kind of “cold fusion” process?
JPB: McKubre showed production of He-4 and of He-3 and tritium. I believe that these last two reactions are coming from secondary reactions, the main reaction producing He-4 and tritium.
SBK: You wrote that tritium is coming from secondary reactions as well as primary reactions. Could you clarify?
JPB: He-4 is coming from primary reactions, and He-3 and tritium are coming from a secondary reaction. It is also possible that He-3 is coming from the decay of tritium.
SBK: How would you write out the reaction chains?
JPB: This is only a guess:
Primary reaction: D+D –> He-4 + heat
Secondary reaction: D+H –> He-3 + heat
At this point, I don’t know how to produce tritium. However, rethinking the work by McKubre, maybe there was no tritium but only He-3?
SBK: Are you suggesting that the people who measured McKubre’s tritium were mistaken?
JPB: No, I just need to read the paper again, to see exactly what he measured. [Thomas] Claytor [of Los Alamos National Laboratory] has also measured tritium.
SBK: Do you have any idea why it is more likely that these nuclear products (4He, 3He, tritium) would come from a fusion process rather than weak-interaction and neutron-capture processes?
JPB: I do not know. Maybe the mechanism is something totally different. I am not a theoretician, and I cannot answer that question.
SBK: You wrote your guesses for reaction chains:
Primary reaction: D+D –> He-4 + heat
Secondary reaction: D+H –> He-3 + heat
Do you have any idea which reaction chains explain the production of a) energetic alphas (for example: Lipson & Roussetski, SPAWAR) b) low-flux neutron burst emissions (for example: BARC) c) isotopic shifts (for example: Bush & Lagowski, Passell) d) heavy-element transmutations (for example: Iwamura) or e) excess heat with normal hydrogen?
JPB: This is an interesting question, but I don’t know. I believe that they are secondary reactions. Excess heat with normal hydrogen is either absorption of a heavy metal by a proton or a reaction H+H–>D.
SBK: How would you write out the equation of “absorption of a heavy metal by a proton”?
JPB: For example: Ni+H–> Cu
SBK: When you write D+D –> He-4 + heat or Ni+H–> Cu, you are assuming that deuterons or protons overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temperature at rates that are inexplicable by known physics.
In your opinion, what is the best theory or, if you can’t suggest one, best concept that explains how this apparent violation of known physics occurs?
When you write D+D –> He-4 + heat, you are suggesting that the reactions that produce 4He are emulating the third branch of thermonuclear fusion.
Therefore, in your opinion, what is the best theory or, if you can’t suggest one, best concept that explains how this occurs without the deadly gamma emission that occurs in the third branch?
JPB: The best theory is Hagelstein’s theory.
SBK: Can you suggest any other possible reaction equations, or chain of equations, besides D+D –> He-4 + heat and Ni+H–> Cu that could produce these products?
JPB: This is the simplest but not necessarily correct. I do not have any other idea.
SBK: What is the best paper that explains Hagelstein’s theory? And do you know whether it explains Huizenga’s “three miracles”?
JPB: It is a series of several papers that explains all the three miracles and more. But as far as I know, there’s not a single paper. I will ask him to write one.
SBK: What are the citations for those papers, please?
JPB: There are a number of papers in the JCMNS in Vols. 5-7-9 and soon 11.
SBK: Could you please tell me exactly which papers explain Hagelstein’s theory and how he overcomes the “three miracles”?
SBK: Do you know whether Hagelstein’s theory explains this reaction Ni+H–> Cu?
JPB: Yes, he explains Ni+H–>Cu.
SBK: How does he explain how Ni+H–>Cu occurs?
SBK: Can you explain, in general terms, how Hagelstein’s theory explains excess heat from a D+D “cold fusion” process?
JPB: I do not want to give you wrong answers about Hagelstein’s theory. I know that his theory is complete and explains many experimental observations.
SBK: Do you have a rough idea of how it works?
[Delay of several days]
SBK: I hope you had a great colloquium. I sent this to you before the colloquium. I’m not sure if you ever got it. Do you have a rough idea of how it works?
JPB: Yes, the colloquium was very good. 60+ people attended. I received your last e-mail, but I was too busy too look for the information regarding the mechanism.
SBK: Good to hear. Now, back to my question: Can you give me a rough idea of how Hagelstein’s theory works?
JPB: Give me a few days.
SBK: How do you know that Hagelstein’s theory is complete? How do you know that Hagelstein’s theory explains many experimental observations?
JPB: The theory is complete because it explains many different experimental facts. A good theory must explain all or almost all the experimental facts. Hagelstein is a top scientist, he has a deep knowledge of nuclear and solid state physics, and he is capable of making the connection between the two.
Hopefully, this weekend I will come up with a description of the theory.
SBK: Can you show me any data from the many different experimental facts and how that data compare with the data predicted by Hagelstein’s theory?
JPB: That is what I will tell you in a couple of days.
SBK: To be clear, it’s two different requests:
– a simple description of Hagelstein’s theory.
– examples of data from the many different experimental facts and how that data compare with the data predicted by Hagelstein’s theory.
[End of interview. Biberian never responded to the outstanding questions.]
Postscript:
In 2004, Biberian wrote a paper in which he reviewed the status of the research. Here is an excerpt:
“At present, a lot has been demonstrated. We know now that the proposed reaction D+D –> ?He-4 + 23 MeV is not the only possible reaction. Under other conditions, not only fusion but also transmutation is occurring. People have measured X-rays, gamma rays, neutrons, protons, He-4, He-3, anomalous isotopic distributions. This is why the name of the field has been changed to ‘Condensed Matter Nuclear Science,’ which fits better the reality of the observations.”
In 2008, Biberian wrote another paper in which he reviewed the status of the research. Here is an excerpt:
“Even though helium-4 has been measured along with excess heat by different experimentalists, it is not certain that the reaction responsible for the excess heat is the deuterium-deuterium reaction described above. There are other possibilities to produce alpha particles (helium-4 nuclei).”
Questions? Comments? Submit a Letter to the Editor.
