Martin Fleischmann (1927–2012)

Journal name:
Date published:
Published online

Pioneering electrochemist who claimed to have discovered cold fusion.

Although a final reckoning should not let genuine achievements be overshadowed by errors, the blot that cold fusion left on Martin Fleischmann's reputation is hard to expunge.

Fleischmann, who died on 3 August at the age of 85 after illness related to Parkinson's disease, heart disease and diabetes, was the first to observe enhanced Raman emission from molecules at surfaces, now the basis of a spectroscopy technique. And he developed ultramicroelectrodes, used as sensitive electrochemical probes.


Nonetheless, he is best known for his claim in 1989 to have initiated nuclear fusion in bench-top apparatus. The 'cold fusion' debacle provoked bitter disputes that reverberate today. Along with polywater and homeopathy, cold fusion is now regarded as one of the most notorious cases of what chemist Irving Langmuir called pathological science: “the science of things that aren't so”.

Cold fusion was not really an aberration for Fleischmann, but an extreme example of his willingness to suggest bold and provocative ideas, to take risks and to make imaginative leaps that could sometimes yield a rich harvest.

Fleischmann was born in Carlsbad in Czechoslovakia in 1927. His father was of Jewish heritage, and, just before the German invasion, his family fled to the Netherlands and then to England. Fleischmann studied chemistry at Imperial College London and, after a PhD in electrochemistry, moved to Newcastle University, UK. In 1967 he was appointed as the Faraday Chair of Chemistry at the University of Southampton, UK.

In 1974, Fleischmann and his co-workers observed unusually intense Raman emission (scattered light shifted in energy by interactions with molecular vibrational states) from organic molecules adsorbed on the surface of silver electrodes. Although the enhancement mechanism is still not fully understood, surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy has become a valuable tool for investigating surface chemistry.

Around 1980, Fleischmann and chemist Mark Wightman independently pioneered the use of ultramicroelectrodes just a few micrometres across, which can be used to study electrode processes that are otherwise inaccessible, for example at low electrolyte concentrations. In 1985, Fleischmann was elected a fellow of Britain's Royal Society.

The cold fusion experiments arose out of Fleischmann's long-standing interest in hydrogen surface chemistry on palladium. Hydrogen molecules adsorbed onto palladium can diffuse into the metal lattice, making palladium a 'sponge' that soaks up large amounts of hydrogen. Very high pressures can build up — perhaps, Fleischmann speculated, high enough to fuse hydrogen nuclei.

Fleischmann's retirement from Southampton in 1983 freed him to conduct self-funded experiments at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City with his former student Stanley Pons. They electrolysed solutions of lithium deuteroxide, collecting deuterium at the palladium cathode, and claimed to measure more heat output than the energy fed in — a signature, they said, of deuterium fusion within the electrode. One morning, they found that apparatus left running overnight had been vaporized and the fume cupboard destroyed. They believed it was the result of a violent outburst of fusion.

Not until 1989 did Fleischmann, Pons and their student Marvin Hawkins make a move to publish their data. Finding that they were in competition with a team led by physicist Steven Jones at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, Fleischmann and Pons initially accused Jones of stealing their ideas. But the groups agreed to coordinate their announcements and to submit papers simultaneously to Nature on 24 March 1989. Yet Fleischmann and Pons pre-empted that arrangement, rushing a second paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, organizing a press conference on 23 March and faxing their manuscript to Nature the same day without telling Jones.

The rest, as they say, is history, told for example in Frank Close's Too Hot To Handle (W.H. Allen, 1990). Fleischmann and Pons's announcement shocked the world. Chemists had apparently, at minuscule expense, solved the fusion problem that physicists had been working on for decades. In the attendant flurry, Fleischmann and Pons professed to be too busy to address reviewers' comments and withdrew their Nature paper; Jones's account was eventually published (S. E. Jones et al. Nature 338, 737740; 1989). Despite sporadic claims to the contrary, no comprehensive attempt at replication produced any confirmation of fusion.

Indeed, it was a lack of reproducibility that finally put paid to the cold fusion idea. More bad behaviour followed: Fleischmann refused to describe crucial control experiments; Pons's lawyer threatened to sue a Utah physicist who reported in Nature (see M.H. Salamon et al. Nature 344, 401405; 1990) that he was unable to replicate the work. The University of Utah sought to capitalize on events, throwing US$5 million at a 'National Cold Fusion Institute' that closed two years after it opened.

Fleischmann and Pons moved to France to continue their work with private funding, but later fell out. The biggest casualty of cold fusion was electrochemistry itself, suddenly seeming to be exposed as a morass of charlatanism and poor technique. That was unfair: some of the most authoritative (negative) attempts to replicate the results were conducted by electrochemists.

Fleischmann's tragedy was Shakespearean, not least because he was a sympathetic character: resourceful, energetic, inventive and remembered warmly by collaborators. As Linus Pauling and Fred Hoyle experienced, once you have been proved right against the odds, it becomes harder to accept the possibility of error. To make a mistake or a premature claim, even to fall prey to self-deception, is a risk any scientist runs. The test is how one deals with it.


  1. Report this comment #52873

    Peter Cary said:

    On behalf of John O'M. Bockris:

    10515 S.W. 55TH PLACE

    Monday, December 10, 2012

    RE: Nature, Vol. 489, page 34, 6 September 2012, the obituary for Martin Fleischmann by Philip Ball.

    Dear Chief Editor:

    In respect to the full-page which you have given Martin Fleischmann in Volume 489, page 34, the September issue for 2012, which might be said to be an obituary is one of those documents which is fully true word by word, but which by suppression, turns out to be a gross distortion of truth.

    I knew Fleischmann as well as anyone. He was my graduate student in the sense that I shared half the supervision of his Ph.D. thesis published many years ago. Of course I knew him throughout his career. He was a brilliant scientist. Fleischmann talked often about fusion and that indeed is the doubtful part of his work which is under discussion at the present time. On the other hand I must add that I count ten active chemists who during the last year have all communicated with me to say they support Fleischmann?s claim, which is an indirect one: He really claimed to have synthesized helium from deuterium and by reasoning which all accept, this turns out to imply, if true, fusion.
    Now, why I say that the material you have published distorts is the following. Because of our investigations following up the claim that he made fusion in the cold we discovered a new field in Chemistry. It is called Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions and is an active field at the present time with thousands of publications worldwide. These are modern ones. In fact the rate of publication seems to be increasing with time. Although many chemists have not followed up the various confirmations, we have made the general conclusion that in some cases it is possible to carry out nuclear reactions in the cold. We would not have had the situation we are in now which is one of advance and new knowledge if not for Martin Fleischmann.

    I must ask you to print my letter because otherwise it leaves a blot on the Journal as having allowed the publication of something with is so unrepresentative of what Fleischmann contributed to Science.


    John O?M. Bockris
    Retired Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, 1978 to 1997; Professor, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, 1953 to 1972.
    Npg 1101
    Version 2

    Ed storms
    Mel Miles
    Mike McKubre

  2. Report this comment #58813

    Brian Josephson said:

    Sorry Nature didn't publish your important letter in their correspondence section, John. As you probably know, they did publish a similar letter of mine, which can be seen at

Subscribe to comments

Additional data