I have been thinking about a YouTube video 3 to 6 minutes long to introduce
cold fusion. The goal would be to increase interest in the field. Ideally,
it would be great to provoke a viral reaction attracting thousands of
viewers. Possibly even millions. I personally am not capable of making
something like this. It should be done by a professional producer. Here is
what I think it should be like.

Three ideas are presented:

Cold fusion has been widely replicated.

It remains difficult to replicate because control parameters are difficult
to achieve.

If researchers learn to control cold fusion, it might become a valuable
source of energy.

In more detail, the script would be something like this:

Cold fusion was announced by professors Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. It is
a nuclear reaction that produces heat without burning chemical fuel. It
produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does. It
sometimes produces tritium. Helium and tritium are unmistakable signs of a
nuclear reaction.

[Display for the above paragraph: A few words perhaps: “Cold fusion was
announced in 1989. It is a nuclear reaction producing heat, helium and
tritium.” No graph of heat and helium because that is too complicated.]

Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of major
laboratories. This graph shows results from several tests performed at two
different laboratories. When loading exceeds 0.92, the effect turns on.

[Display: McKubre graph 1, Maximum loading,
Under graph it says “Combined results from SRI and ENEA (Italian National
Agency for New Technologies, Energy)”]

Cold fusion remains difficult to replicate because it occurs under rare
conditions that are difficult to achieve, but when these conditions are
achieved, the reaction always turns on. The strength of the reaction varies
with current density, loading and other control parameters. [1] Again, high
loading and high current density can be difficult to reach, but when
researchers manage to reach them, the reaction always turns on. This graph
also shows that high loading correlates with high heat; each dot represents
one test. [2] Here are similar results from Toyota. [3]

[Display: 1.
under graph it says "SRI" The graphs on this screen are animated. 2.
McKubre graph of loading. 3. Kunimatsu graph overlays SRI, label on screen
"IMRA (Toyota research lab),"

Cold fusion has reached temperatures and power density roughly as high as
the core of a nuclear fission reactor. If researchers can learn to control
cold fusion and make it occur on demand, it might become a practical source
of energy. It would provide inexhaustible energy for billions of years.
Because it consumes hydrogen in a nuclear process, rather than a chemical
process, the hydrogen generates millions of times more energy than any
chemical fuel such as oil. It would also eliminate the threat of global
warming because it does not produce carbon dioxide.

Hydrogen fuel is virtually free, and cold fusion devices are small,
relatively simple, and inexpensive. They resemble NiCad batteries. So the
cost of the energy would be low.

For more information, see LENR.org

[Links to this paper by McKubre, or something similar:


The main goal is to attract as many viewers as possible, perhaps even
triggering a viral response. Another goal is to overturn the viewer's
notions about cold fusion, but not by challenging those notions directly or
by arguing. We present the facts and let them speak for themselves. This
has to be technically accurate with no exaggerations or false promises.

The choice of messages seems self-evident to me. What else do we have to
say? The difficult part is to present this in a way that people find
compelling. Will people find this compelling? Can it go viral? I do not

This draft may present too much detail. It may need fewer topics with more
repetition. This text takes me ~2.5 minutes to read. With animated graphs
and some pauses it would be 3 or 4 minutes. A few more details, with more
repetition would bring it to 6 minutes. I am tempted to add this detail
from Roulette et al, but I think it is too much, and it strains credulity:
"A few cold fusion devices the size of a coin have produced heat at 100 W
continuously for months. This much chemical fuel would last only a few

The trick is to leave out details while giving viewers a link to a document
so that they can learn more if they want to. This is not intended to
educate people so much as to intrigue them. To grab their attention. This
resembles a movie trailer.

I would ask McKubre and other experts to review this. It would be best to
have an experienced advertising copywriter contribute. Someone who has done
advertisements targeted to the general public for technical products from
companies such as IBM.

Good graphics and production values are essential. They are more important
than most people in this field realize. I think it would be best to have a
professional announcer read the voiceover. The images should be mainly
animated graphs and tables, done by a graphics professional.

We need to get right to the point and stick to it. No time should be spent
with introductory music or setting the stage.

I would aim for approximately the level of detail and number of facts
presented in this 6.4-minute video about economics, which has been viewed
16 million times:


I realize this is a controversial video and that some readers here may
disagree with the conclusions presented in it. I do not wish to trigger
political arguments about economics. I cite it because it is: effective;
well produced; short; it went viral; and it presents what might be
considered a dry subject and technical facts roughly as complicated as
those of cold fusion. It has an underlying, barely spoken theme of tragedy
and large consequences to society, as does the Gates Foundation video on
infant mortality and population growth. The cold fusion video should also
hint at momentous potential consequences, more by tone than by beating the
viewer over the head yelling "THIS IS IMPORTANT!" Again, let the facts
speak for themselves.

Note how many times this economics video repeats and emphasizes the same
basic points. This would be tedious to hear in a video or lecture that
lasted 20 minutes, but in six minutes it works. In advertisements and TED
talks to you see the same points are reiterated again and again.

There is a long list of things I would NOT include in the video. No photos
of Fleischmann and Pons; no photos of labs or equipment; no photos of
chimneys belching smoke; no images of the voiceover narrator talking; no
scrolling list of laboratories that replicated; nothing about Rossi or
nickel; no mention of palladium; and as Dennis Cravens emphasized this will
not have one word about the controversy or any of the views of the
opposition. Let them make their own videos. This will be presented as
accomplished fact.

- Jed

Reply via email to