This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Share this

Free weekly newswire

Sign up to receive all our latest news direct to your inbox.

Physics on film

100 Second Science Your scientific questions answered simply by specialists in less than 100 seconds.

Watch now

Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today


Cold-fusion demonstration “a success”


On 23 March 1989 Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton, UK, and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah, US, announced that they had observed controlled nuclear fusion in a glass jar at room temperature, and — for around a month — the world was under the impression that the world’s energy woes had been remedied. But, even as other groups claimed to repeat the pair’s results, sceptical reports began trickle in. An editorial in Nature predicted cold fusion to be unfounded. And a US Department of Energy (DOE) report judged that the experiments did “not provide convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will result from cold fusion.”

This hasn’t prevented a handful of scientists persevering with cold-fusion research. They stand on the sidelines, diligently getting on with their experiments and, every so often, they wave their arms frantically when they think have made some progress.

Nobody notices, though. Why? These days the mainstream science media wouldn’t touch cold-fusion experiments with a barge pole. They have learnt their lesson from 1989, and now treat “cold fusion” as a byword for bad science. Most scientists* agree, and some even go so far as to brand cold fusion a “pathological science” — science that is plagued by falsehood but practiced nonetheless.

[*CORRECTION 29/05/08: It has been brought to my attention that part of this last sentence appears to be unsubstantiated. After searching through past articles I have to admit that, despite it being written frequently, I can find no factual basis that "most scientists" think cold fusion is bad science (although public scepticism is evidently rife). However, there have been surveys to suggest that scientific opinion is more likely divided. According to a 2004 report by the DOE, which you can read here, ten out of 18 scientists thought that the hitherto results of cold-fusion experiments warranted further investigation.]

There is a reasonable chance that the naysayers are (to some extent) right and that cold fusion experiments in their current form will not amount to anything. But it’s too easy to be drawn in by the crowd and overlook a genuine breakthrough, which is why I’d like to let you know that one of the handful of diligent cold-fusion practitioners has started waving his arms again. His name is Yoshiaki Arata, a retired (now emeritus) physics professor at Osaka University, Japan. Yesterday, Arata performed a demonstration at Osaka of one his cold-fusion experiments.

Although I couldn’t attend the demonstration (it was in Japanese, anyway), I know that it was based on reports published here and here. Essentially Arata, together with his co-researcher Yue-Chang Zhang, uses pressure to force deuterium (D) gas into an evacuated cell containing a sample of palladium dispersed in zirconium oxide (ZrO2–Pd). He claims the deuterium is absorbed by the sample in large amounts — producing what he calls dense or “pynco” deuterium — so that the deuterium nuclei become close enough together to fuse.

So, did this method work yesterday? Here’s an email I received from Akito Takahashi, a colleague of Arata’s, this morning:

“Arata’s demonstration…was successfully done. There came about 60 people from universities and companies in Japan and few foreign people. Six major newspapers and two TV [stations] (Asahi, Nikkei, Mainichi, NHK, et al.) were there…Demonstrated live data looked just similar to the data they reported in [the] papers…This showed the method highly reproducible. Arata’s lecture and Q&A were also attractive and active.”

I also received a detailed account from Jed Rothwell, who is editor of the US site LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) and who has long thought that cold-fusion research shows promise. He said that, after Arata had started the injection of gas, the temperature rose to about 70 °C, which according to Arata was due to both chemical and nuclear reactions. When the gas was shut off, the temperature in the centre of the cell remained significantly warmer than the cell wall for 50 hours. This, according to Arata, was due solely to nuclear fusion.

Rothwell also pointed out that Arata performed three other control experiments: hydrogen with the ZrO2–Pd sample (no lasting heat); deuterium with no ZrO2–Pd sample (no heating at all); and hydrogen with no ZrO2–Pd sample (again, no heating). Nevertheless, Rothwell added that Arata neglected to mention certain details, such as the method of calibration. “His lecture was very difficult to follow, even for native speakers, so I may have overlooked something,” he wrote.

It will be interesting to see what other scientists think of Arata’s demonstration. Last week I got in touch with Augustin McEvoy, a retired condensed-matter physicist who has studied Arata’s previous cold-fusion experiments in detail. He said that he has found “no conclusive evidence of excess heat” before, though he would like to know how this demonstration turned out.

I will update you if and when I get any more information about the demonstration (apparently there might be some videos circulating soon). For now, though, you can form your own opinions about the reliability of cold fusion.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile


  1. Cartwright say : “After searching through past articles I have to admit that, despite it being written frequently, I can find no factual basis that “most scientists” think cold fusion is bad science (although public scepticism is evidently rife).”
    Could PhysicsWorld organize a survey on this topic ? It would be very interesting to have some hard facts about the level of acceptance of cold fusion by scientists.

  2. David F Mayer

    “Cold Fusion” is another triumph of
    hope over experience,
    fantasy over reality,
    delusion over sanity,
    stupidity over reason.
    It will be laughed about for centuries.

  3. Morgan

    I am certain I have become more stupid for having read this. How many in the room have actually spent any time studying Physics? If fusion could work like this, it would almost certainly have happened by accident over the last 150 years or so. What blows my mind about cold fusion is that the people who promote it seem to accept the fact that it just magically happens.
    I haven’t seen a single credible, detailed explanation of how the energetics of cold fusion are even supposed to work. It’s like trying to get to the moon by jumping really high. There’s a reason why the sun burns at over a million kelvins and a hydrogen bomb has to be triggered by a fission bomb, people. Let’s not forget we’re trying to push two protons into intimate physical contact against their mutual electrostatic repulsion. This requires an extreme amount of energy to do on a macroscopic scale, and there is simply no getting around that, because the electromagnetic force is a fundamental force of nature that cannot be asked to look the other way. Electrostatic repulsion is a scalar potential, too, so this is a really straightforward question. Maybe we can fuse nuclei locally using high-powered lasers or something at a huge net energy loss, but we’re simply not going to replicate our sun on the kitchen table at room temperature by plugging a couple of beakers into a standard electrical outlet.
    Scientists are not engaging in Big-Brother suppression of new technology. They are electing not to waste their time, reputations and funding on something that obviously doesn’t make any sense. It’s a fool’s errand, people. Let it go.

  4. Dylan Brice

    I disagree with some of these comments, for one reason. Surely, if there was a way to overcome the Coulombic relpulsion and electrostatic repulsion, then this would be entirely credible, I also add, it would work

  5. ok. I like this site. don’t know if it’s the original one since there are loads of webpages that look svery similar and I’m not sure what’s the point of that.

  6. Well me personally if I really want to write something, if I seen some movies which are around the same genre and make me come up with a story line, I write. I have written for example (Blessings of Mars) Written that for a contest in which you could win some fake points for a medal on a forum.
    I lost but did [URL=],[/URL] some votes, anyway thanks to that event I wrote that great story, I also have written some other stories like a WWI story and WWII story I think, I could be wrong [URL=] that [/URL] I wrote both about WWII and WWI.

  7. If we’re not supposed to have late night snacks…why is there a light in the fridge?

  8. CentarusA

    “Chance favors the prepared mind”

  9. Joe

    Hi there, I discovered your site by means of Google at the same time as
    looking for a similar matter, your website got here up, it seems to be great.

    I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
    Hi there, simply became aware of your blog thru Google,
    and located that it’s truly informative. I’m gonna watch out for
    brussels. I will appreciate when you proceed this in future.
    Many people will likely be benefited out of your writing.


  10. Trackback: ¿La Fusión Fría ya fue inventada? | AGITANDO MENTES

Leave a comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="">IOP</blockquote>
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux