University LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold Fusion
Robert Duncan No Longer Believes in Cold Fusion
May 1, 2013 – By Steven B. Krivit –
Robert Duncan, one of the scientists cited by CBS’s 2009 “60 Minutes” program “Cold Fusion Is Hot Again” no longer believes that cold fusion is real.
He now makes a crucial distinction between the real anomalous heat effect seen in LENRs (low-energy nuclear reactions) and the scientifically unsupported hypothesis of “cold fusion.”
Last week, New Energy Times reported that the retired Naval Research Laboratory expert cited by CBS also no longer believes in cold fusion.
Sometime between 2009 and 2012, Duncan changed his view. New Energy Times interviewed Duncan by e-mail a few months ago and asked about his views.
“I think that there is very little experimental evidence to support the d+d fusion hypothesis,” Duncan wrote.
On the CBS show, although Duncan was careful not to use the phrase “cold fusion,” he did not tell CBS that there was very little experimental evidence to support the cold fusion hypothesis.
In fact, in a Rome conference in 2009 after the CBS show aired, he proposed that “cold fusion” could be explained by a muon-catalyzed cold fusion process.
Duncan is the vice chancellor of research at the University of Missouri. He is also the organizer of the 18th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, to be held at the University of Missouri this summer. He renamed the conference in March. The name listed on the conference Web stie since 2012 had been the 18th International Conference on Cold Fusion.
[DAP errMsgTemplate=”” isLoggedIn=”N”]
Login or Subscribe to remove this notice
Professional Journalism – LENR Facts
Original online content only at New Energy Times
[/DAP]
[DAP errMsgTemplate=”” isLoggedIn=”N”]
_____ Article continues for subscribers. Click here to subscribe. _____
[/DAP]
[DAP errMsgTemplate=”” isLoggedIn=”Y”]
In 2008, Duncan had been referred to CBS by the head of the condensed matter physics division of the American Physical Society. He was between jobs at the time and was about to begin working for the University of Missouri.
He had no prior experience in the LENR field, and after CBS asked him to appear on the show, he spent several weeks visiting laboratories and talking with LENR researchers. CBS had asked dozens of scientists to look at “cold fusion” and appear on the show, but Duncan was the only one who was willing.
Here is the 2012 e-mail discussion between Steven B. Krivit and Duncan.
Steven B. Krivit: In your view, how likely is it that a deuterium-deuterium cold fusion process, such as D+D –> 4He (24 MeV heat to lattice), explains the anomalous heat and nuclear products seen in LENRs? In your view, how likely is it that any kind of fusion process explains the anomalous heat and nuclear products seen in LENRs?
Robert Duncan: I think that there is very little experimental evidence to support the d+d fusion hypothesis. Even if there is a mechanism that can impart the energy of this reaction to the lattice to avoid particle radiation, as has been posited, there are still many other concerns. … But Michael McKubre’s data on 4He production does appear to support the d+d hypothesis. So it is too early to rule the d+d hypothesis off the table, especially since McKubre’s data seem quite compelling.
SK: Can you tell me which of McKubre’s experiments appears to support the d+d hypothesis? I am aware of only two possible sets of his work that relate to your statement: the Les Case replication performed in 1998 and first reported in 2000, and the EPRI-sponsored M-Series experiments performed in 1994 and reported to EPRI in 1998.
RD: I was referring to the data that McKubre shows that suggest that one 4He atom is produced for every 30 MeV of excess heat. He attributes the difference from 24 MeV to be due to helium retention in the metal.
SK: That would be the 1998 Case replication reported in 2000. In that work, McKubre reported 31 MeV (Gradient Q) or 32 MeV (Differential Q). Here is the reference: Michael McKubre, Francis Tanzella, Paolo Tripodi and Peter Hagelstein, “The Emergence of a Coherent Explanation for Anomalies Observed in D/Pd and H/Pd Systems; Evidence for 4He and 3He Production,” 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Lerici (La Spezia), Italy. Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society, 2000.
Note that there was no bulk metal in this experiment, nor was it performed in an electrolytic environment. This was a D2 gas experiment with a Pd-on-carbon catalyst.
I suppose there is a remote chance that some missing helium might have been retained in the Pd coating on the carbon, if helium was soluble in metals, but it isn’t. I direct your attention to an analysis I performed on the topic of helium/hydrogen permeability and solubility in metals.
RD: I leave it to the authors to discuss their work in detail. I was just acknowledging its existence, and clearly you located the proper reference. Our initial data suggest something unknown, other than fusion, is going on. We still have to do much more work before we can be definitive, but we will certainly publish once we can be definitive on this question.
Questions? Comments? Submit a Letter to the Editor.
To the Editor:
The discussion whether there is a reaction of D+D to He4 and that this cannot be accepted, is reasonable as expressed by Duncan. The alternative that DD reactions are to produce neutrons in huge numbers (more than million within few minutes) as reported by Mark A. Prelas (ICCF 17 conference 2012) is another point to be considered. It is important that Duncan is considering a difference and it will be interesting how these results will be taken into account for an interpretation of the developments of the field of LENR.
Thank you,
Heinrich Hora
Sydney, Australia
Dear Dr. Hora,
You may be interested in Dr. Prelas’ perspective, as he told New Energy Times on Oct. 25, 2012.
“I don’t think the thermal shock method is ‘cold fusion’, Prelas wrote. “The classical mark of [LENR] is excess heat but very little radiation. The thermal shock method has lots of radiation. I think it is actually inertial confinement fusion.”
Best regards,
Steven B. Krivit
