17 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report teen others) has signed his name. Nothing much has changed for Dr. Petrasso. In 1997 he was quoted by writer Bennett Daviss: “The ongoing reports of excess heat and nuclear by-products catch peo- ple’s attention about as much as the occasional UFO report. I have better things to do with my time.” (In TWA Ambassador article, Sep- tember 1997, see reprint in IE No. 17.) He and Professor Parker con- tinue to spend your money on hot fusion. There were other negative books, one by DoE’s John Huizen- ga ( Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century , 1992), and another by science journalist Gary Taubes ( Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion , 1993). Taubes became a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT for a year, a nominal honor for him, if not a disgrace for MIT. The MIT News Office, to my knowledge, never published one word about the exis- tence of Fire from Ice , nor the fact that Fire from Ice was nominat- ed in 1991 for the Pulitzer Prize by John Wiley & Sons as one of only two of its books so nominated that year. Professors at MIT routinely bombard the News Office with requests that their every major or minor award be acknowledged in Tech Talk . Vir- tually all such requests are granted. So goes PR at MIT—ever protective of the MIT Administration and its deficiencies—whether in flaps over an MIT student being killed by an alcohol overdose at an MIT fraternity after warnings were ignored by President Vest (See Boston Globe , October 1, 1997, p.1 “Students Warned MIT on Drinking—Complaints Began in 1992), or the very serious matter of data fudging and misrepre- sentation by MIT hot fusion scientists. The MIT Administration clearly was not happy by the spate of publicity that my resigna- tion from the News Office generated. It acted accordingly. The MIT PFC continues to receive Federal funding for its lucra- tive hot fusion projects—over $250 million since 1989. One of the ways that MIT helps to insure the continued flow of such funding is by having President Vest sit on the various Federal panels that make recommendations to the Administration and the the Depart- ment of Energy. Now that former Physics Dept. Head Professor Ernest Moniz is a Deputy U.S. Secretary of Energy, MIT’s ability to bring influence to bear for hot fusion will be even stronger. In a 1995 issue of the Journal of Fusion Energy we find “The U.S. Program of Fusion Energy Research and Development: Report of the Fusion Review Panel of the President’s Council of Advisor’s on Science and Technology (PCAST),” (Vol. 14, No. 2, 1995, pp. 213-250). One of the nine co-authors is none other than Charles M. Vest. The report’s summary states, in part: “Funding for fusion energy R&D by the Federal government is an impor- tant investment in the development of an attractive and possi- bly essential new energy source for this country and the world in the middle of the next century and beyond. . .The private sec- tor can not and will not bear much of the funding burden for fusion at this time because the development costs are too high and the potential economic returns too distant. But funding fusion is a bargain for society as a whole.” That’s their opinion, not ours. This is not even the opinion about hot fusion of many technologists who have nothing to do with cold fusion. The report states, “. . .we believe there is a strong case for the funding levels for fusion currently proposed by the U.S. Depart- ment of Energy (DoE)—increasing from $366 million in FY1996 to about $860 million in FY2002 and averaging $645 million between FY1995 and FY2005.” It goes on to acknowledge that “Although the program just described is reasonable and desir- able, it does not appear to be realistic in the current climate of budgetary constraints. . .” So the report asks for less, in the tra- dition of grabbing for whatever the bureaucracy thinks it can get: “. . .to preserve what we believe to be the most indispens- able elements of the U.S. fusion effort and associated interna- tional collaboration.” The panel recommended about $320 mil- lion/year and continues further fantasy thinking about commit- ting Federal $billions in continued support for ITER (Interna- tional Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor). Fortunately, the U.S. Congress withdrew support from ITER in late 1998. And, wonder of wonders, the 1995 report speaks directly about the need to continue to support MIT’s Alcator C-Mod toka- mak reactor. I suppose that in the general run of how Federal funding of science is promoted by numerous interest groups, this apparent conflict of interest—an MIT President recommending that MIT receive further funding for its hot fusion reactor—is not unusual. However, such advising by MIT’s Vest is very unseem- ly, when seen in the context of the cut-off of all DoE funding for cold fusion, resulting from the 1989 negative report and from the MIT PFC experiment on which that report was based. Further- more, as this history has made clear, President Vest played no small role in the whitewashing of this 1989 misconduct. In another report, this one directly to President Clinton on November 4, 1997, “Report to the President on Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty- First Century,” the Energy Research and Development Panel of PCAST, which includes Dr. Vest, we find the general recom- mendation spelled out in the cover letter to President Clinton: “The report recommends an increase, over a five-year period, of $1 billion in the Department of Energy’s annual budget for applied energy technology R&D. The largest share of such an increase would go to R&D in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, but nuclear fusion and fission would also receive increases. The composition of the R&D supported on advanced fossil-fuel technologies would change in favor of long-term opportunities, including fuel cells and carbon seques- tration technologies, but the overall spending level for fossil fuel technologies would stay roughly constant in real terms.” In table “ES.1” we find the fusion wish list after 1998 in “millions of as-spent dollars”: 1997—$232 (actual); 1998—$225 (request); 1999—$250; 2000—$270; 2001—$290; 2002—$320; 2003—$328. The report states that the request for fusion is the “third largest increase” of the various energy items. It calls the funding “. . .eas- ily justified as the sort of investment government should be mak- ing in a high-risk but potentially very-high yield energy option for society, in which the size and time horizon of the program essentially rule out private funding.” Well, virtually all of the sci- entists working in cold fusion in 1999 think that cold fusion is, indeed, “a very-high yield energy option” for society. Private industry has invested in it in a limited way, and more will come. If it were not for the Federally paid scientists—in hot fusion and high energy physics—who assaulted cold fusion with lies and deceptions—there would likely be even more private money now flowing into cold fusion. One thing is certain: no private company in its right mind will spend any significant money on tokamak hot fusion, as practiced at MIT and elsewhere. What it boils down to is this: By studying the history MIT and cold fusion, one learns that paradigm-paralyzed and unethical scientists have the motive and means to wreck massive damage against an emerg- ing science and technology, especially when an aging and well-financed program is threatened. An MIT President who has access to the high- est power levels of the Federal government should not be contributing to the distortion of government spending by feathering MIT’s nest and ignoring facts. MIT alumni/ae, students, staff, and President Charles M. Vest need to consider this—E. Mallove

--- Page 18 ---

18 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report You ask for “. . .a few words. . .” Perhaps they can be found above. If not, how about: Eugene Mallove has produced a sorely needed, accessible overview of the cold fusion muddle. By sweeping away stubbornly held preconcep- tions, he bares the truth implicit in a provoca- tive variety of experiments. Yours, Julian Schwinger P.S. I am grateful for E.M. for quoting A.C.D. [Arthur Conan Doyle] on p. 216. I have long been conscious of that bit of sher- lock Holmes wisdom, but could not recall the particular story in which it appears. J.S. Other Comments on Fire from Ice by MIT-Affiliated People (from the book jacket) “Mallove brings dramatically to life the human side of this important scientific controversy, which has tapped the emotions of its scientific participants in a way usually typical only of major scientific revolutions. Fire from Ice is highly recommend- ed reading for anyone who is interested in the nature of scien- tific controversy and scientific change. I frankly could not put the book down once I had started it.” —Dr. Frank Sulloway, former MacArthur Fellow, science historian, MIT Program in Science., Technology, and Society “ Fire from Ice is a masterpiece of scientific documentation. Progress in deciphering the cold fusion effect is now stalemated by an establishment pressure for conformity. An authoritative book needed to be written, and it had to come from someone with roots in both the science and journalism communities; there are very few people in the world as qualified as Eugene Mallove is to write it and give the story the meticulous attention it required.” —Dr. Henry Kolm, co-founder of MIT’s Francis Bitter National Mag- net Laboratory Letter by Julian Schwinger Re: Eugene Mallove’s Fire from Ice Letter of February 5, 1991 from physics Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger (Nobel Prize for physics in 1965, shared with Sin-Itiro Tomanaga and Richard P. Feynman “for their fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics, with deep-ploughing consequences for the physics of elementary particles”). This handwritten letter was sent to John Wiley & Sons, Inc., concerning the manuscript of Eugene Mallove’s book, Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor , which would soon be published in May 1991. [Note: Italics and square brackets have been added by E. Mallove.] Dear Judith McCarthy [John Wiley & Sons]: Thank you very much for sending me Mallove’s typescript. For almost two years, I have been muttering: “Someone has to write a book about this!” “This”is the bizarre story of cold fusion—its bizarre science, and its bizarre human behavior. The author of that book would need some familiarity with the rele- vant physics (atomic and nuclear), chemistry (electrolysis, at least), and should have had first-hand experience of some of the events and their participants. But, most of all, he must have a balanced view that incorporates an understanding of what the “scientific method” really means. I have just finished reading every word of 470 pages of type- script. (In modest proof thereof, I offer two ‘Typos. . .etc.) I enjoyed it very much. Eugene Mallove, in my book, is the right one to write about “the truth behind cold fusion.” I have enclosed two recent articles of mine, one delivered the day before December 7 [1990], in Tokyo, the other a short sup- plement that has been submitted to a Japanese journal. Please send them on to E.M. (beyond MIT, I am unaware of his address) for his possible interest and, at least, amusement. I should also like to add, vis-a-vis his recognition of the absurdity of the Editorial note on p. 435, that its promise— ”duty to give him the opportunity to explain his ideas and pre- sent his case. . .” was a lie. Only the short introductory note, Part 1, was published. When Part 2 and the much more substantive Part B were submitted, they received the usual vituperative reviews and were rejected; they have never been published. Incidentally, the other paper of mine cited on p. 551, Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis , which was published after more than a year’s delay, went first to PRL [ Physical Review Letters ]. Although I anticipated rejection, I was staggered by the heights (depths?) to which the calumny reached. My only recourse was to resign from the American Physical Society, (APS). Prof. Peter Hagelstein lecturing on cold fusion theory at MIT April,1989. MIT Photo Dr. Petrasso, Prof. Hagelstein, and Prof. Fleischmann at First International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1990, Salt Lake City. Photo by E. Mallove

--- Page 19 ---

19 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report In Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger’s eloquent talk at MIT, he compared the possible theoretical foundation of cold fusion with that of the much more accepted but equally mysterious phenom- enon, sonoluminescence. Julian Schwinger had resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) to protest its censorship of his theoretical work on cold fusion from APS publications. It was an honor for me to have become a good friend of Schwinger’s due to my involvement with cold fusion. His praise for my book, Fire from Ice, was a very great honor (see prior page). Unfortu- nately, Schwinger’s 1991 message at MIT was not absorbed by the assembled MIT physicists.—EFM A Progress Report: Energy Transfer in Cold Fusion and Sonoluminescence by Julian Schwinger, University of California Birthday celebrations are inevitably somewhat nostalgic. Appropriately, then, I found the cover title for this lecture in my own distant past. I first came to Berkeley on the day that World War II began. Not long after, Robert Oppenheimer gave a lec- ture—perhaps on cosmic ray physics—which he called “A Progress Report,” in the sense, he explained, that time had elapsed. A similar expression of modesty is in order here. I have no great discoveries to announce; only feelings, hypotheses, and programs. As Mort Sahl once proclaimed: The future lies ahead. I am sure that my first topic, cold fusion, has caused many eye- brows to levitate. Cold fusion? Isn’t all that nonsense dead and buried? How can anyone be so insane as to talk about this totally discredited subject? Well, to the extent that sanity implies conformity with the mores of a society—didn't the Soviets clap their egregious dissidents into insane asylums?—sanity, I submit, is not a canon of science. Indeed, isn’t it a goal of physics, specifically, to push at the fron- tiers of accepted theory through suitably designed experiments, not only to extend those frontiers, but, more importantly, to find fundamental flaws that demand the introduction of new and revolutionary physics? The seemingly bizarre behavior of some key players in the cold fusion melodrama has managed to obscure a fundamental challenge that this episode presents. Whether or not the reality of cold fusion has been demonstrated experimentally, one must ask if any conceivable mechanism now exists, or might be devised, whereby nuclear energy could be extracted by manip- ulations at the atomic level. One is mindful of the high temperature superconductivity story. Despite the assurances of theorists that superconductivi- ty could not exist much above absolute zero, that barrier was broken experimentally. Although it took time to get repro- ducible results, the reality of the phenomenon is completely established, despite the absence (to my knowledge) of any accepted theory. High temperature supercon- ductivity is an atomic process. Cold fusion is that too, but also involves the much shorter space and time scales of nuclear physics. It should therefore be much more difficult to control this phenomenon by manipula- tions at the atomic, perhaps bet- ter said: at the chemical, level. More difficult, but not necessari- ly impossible. Despite my earlier qualifica- tion of the established reality of cold fusion, one cannot ignore the evidence accumulated in many laboratories—of excess heat production, of tritium pro- duction—all of which is characterized by irreproducibility and by uncontrollable emission in bursts. But, from what has just been said, that kind of behavior is expected; it is not a basis for rejecting the reality of the phenomena. This brings me to study the validity of the case against cold fusion, as seen by a hot fusioneer—henceforth known as HF— who rejects the possibility that new physics is involved. In the hot fusion of two deuterons—the D-D reaction—the formation of a triton ( 3 H) and a proton proceeds at about the same rate as that for the creation of 3 He and a neutron. But, given the claims of tritium production in cold fusion experi- ments, neutrons at the expected intensities are conspicuously absent, although low levels of neutrons, appearing in bursts, have been observed. To HF the conclusion is obvious: No neu- —sanity, I submit, is not a canon of sci- ence. Indeed, isn’t it a goal of physics, specifically, to push at the frontiers of accepted theory through suitably designed experiments, not only to extend those frontiers, but, more impor- tantly, to find fundamental flaws that demand the introduction of new and revolutionary physics? A lecture by cold fusion theorist Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger, November 11, 1991, at MIT celebrating the 60th birthday of Professor Kenneth Johnson—a former student

--- Page 20 ---

20 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report trons—no tritium—no cold fusion. Moreover, the two cited reactions are the only important ones in hot fusion. So: No neu- trons—no cold fusion—no excess heat. Very soon after March 23, 1989—which one might well call D- day—-the idea was advanced that excess heat is produced by the formation of 4 He in the ground state. To this HF responds that the suggested reaction is weak, and no one has detected the γ -rays of roughly 20 MeV that should accompany the formation of 4 He. Then came the suggestion that excess heat might result from the HD, rather than the DD, reaction. Heavy water (D 2 O) always has some small contamination of light water (H 2 O). The fusion of a proton and a deuteron produces 3 He. To which HF responds that no γ -ray of roughly 5 MeV, which should accom- pany this reaction, has been observed. With heat production and tritium production allocated to the HD and DD reactions, respectively, how can one understand the suppression of neutron production? It may be that two fus- ing deuterons populate, not the quite remote ground state, but rather the first excited state of 4 He. That excited state decays into a triton and a proton. But, decay into 3 He and a neutron is energetically forbidden. Tritium—Yes. Neutrons—No. HF responds to this by pointing to the absence of the roughly 4 MeV γ -ray that should accompany the 4 He excited state. Thus presented, the experimental aspects of HF’s indictment of cold fusion come down to the non-existence of various γ -rays that the tenets of hot fusion require. What rebuttal can one give to these charges? Well, consider the following bit of insanity: The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion. In contrast with hot fusion, where energies are measured in substantial multiples of kilovolts, cold fusion deals with ener- gies that are a fraction of a volt. The dominant electromagnetic mechanism for hot fusion is electric dipole radiation, in which the parity of the particle system reverses. Now, at the very low energy of cold fusion, two deuterons, for example, which carry even intrinsic parity, have very little chance of fusing in other than the orbital state of zero relative angular momentum—of even orbital parity. Thus, an excited state of 4 He is formed that has even parity. Possibly it radiates down to the first excited state, or the ground state of 4 He. But both of the latter states also have even parity. With no parity change, electric dipole radiation is forbidden. There are, of course, other mechanisms that might intervene, albeit much more weakly—electric quadru- pole radiation, magnetic dipole radiation, electron-positron pairs. But, much more important is the impetus this result gives to con- sidering the following additional bit of insanity: The excess energy liberated in cold fusion is not significantly transferred by radiation. If not radiation, what? HF, with his focus on near-vacuum conditions, would have no answer. But cold fusion does not occur in vacuum—it appears in a palladium lattice within which deuterium has been packed to form a sub-lattice. Which leads to the next bit of insanity: The excess energy of cold fusion is transferred to the lattice. This is the moment to introduce HF’s theoretical ace in the hole. In hot fusion work it is taken for granted that the fusion reaction rate is the product of two factors: the barrier penetra- tion probability that stems from the Coulomb repulsion of like charges; and the intrinsic reaction rate that refers mainly to the nuclear forces. At the very low energy of cold fusion, the pene- trability of the Coulomb barrier is so overwhelmingly small that nothing could possibly happen. How does one respond to that? By sharpening the initial insight: The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion. At the very low energy of cold fusion, one is dealing essen- tially with a single wave function, which does not permit the factorization that HF takes for granted. The effect of Coulomb repulsion cannot be completely separated from the effect of the strongly attractive nuclear forces. This is a new ball game. All very well, but can one be a little more specific about the new mechanisms that might produce cold fusion? If, as I hypothesized, the lattice is a basic part of that mecha- nism, some knowledge of the palladium lattice, loaded with deuterium, is needed. That knowledge exists for light loading, but, as far as I am aware, not for heavy loading. There is, how- ever, a theoretical suggestion that, for sufficiently heavy load- ing, a pair of new equilibrium sites, for hydrogen or deuterium ions, comes into being within each lattice cell. The equilibrium separation of such a pair is significantly smaller than any other ionic spacing in a cell. It would seem that, to take advantage of those special sites, a close approach to saturation loading is required. (Indeed, that is so if a steady output is to occur.) But, the loading of deuterium into the palladium lattice does not proceed with perfect spatial unifor- mity. There are fluctuations. It may happen that a microscopically large—if macroscopically small—region of the lattice attains a state of such uniformity that it can function collectively in absorb- ing the excess nuclear energy released in an act of fusion. And that energy might initiate a chain reaction as the vibra- tions of the excited ions bring them into closer proximity. This burst of energy will continue until the increasing number of irregularities in the lattice produce a shut-down. The start-up of another burst is an independent affair. It is just such intermit- tency—of random turnings on and off—that characterize those experiments that lead one to claim the reality of cold fusion. Now we come to barrier penetration, or rather, what replaces it. HF accepts a causal order in which the release of energy—at the nuclear level—into the ambient environment, follows the penetration of the Coulomb barrier. The response to that care- fully crafted statement is surely: Of course! What else? Well, how about this major bit of insanity? Other causal orders and mechanisms exist. Unlike the near-vacuum of HF, the ambient environment of cold fusion is the lattice, which is a dynamical system capable of storing and exchanging energy. The initial stage of one new mechanism can be described as an energy fluctuation, within the uniform lattice segment, that takes energy at the nuclear level from a dd or a pd pair and transfers it to the rest of the lattice, leaving the pair in a virtual state of negative energy. This description becomes more explic- it in the language of phonons. The non-linearities associated with large displacements constitute a source of the phonons of the small amplitude, linear regime. Intense phonon emission can leave the particle pair in a virtual negative energy state. To illustrate the final stage of this mechanism, consider the pd example where there is a stable bound state: 3 He. If the energy of the virtual state nearly coincides with that of 3 He a resonant situ- ation exists, leading to amplification, rather than Coulomb barrier suppression. Between the two extremes of causal order there are, of course, a myriad of intermediate energy transfer mechanisms, so that the mechanism, as a whole is devoid of causal order. I note here the interesting possibility that the 3 He produced in

--- Page 21 ---

21 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report the pd fusion reaction may undergo a secondary reaction with another deuteron of the lattice, yielding 5 Li. The latter is unsta- ble against disintegration into a proton and 4 He. Thus, protons are not consumed in the overall reaction, which generates 4 He. The suggestion that nuclear energy could be transferred to an atomic lattice is usually dismissed (contemptuously, I might add) because of the great disparity between atomic and nuclear energy scales; of the order 10 7 , say. It is, therefore, of great psy- chological importance that one can point to a phenomenon in which the transfer of energy between different scales involves-- and here I quote—”a focusing or amplification of about eleven orders of magnitude.” It all began with the sea trials, in 1894, of the destroyer HMS Daring. The onset, at high speeds, of severe propeller vibrations led to the suggestion that bubbles were forming and collaps- ing—the phenomenon of cavitation. Some twenty-three years later, during World War I, Lord Rayleigh, no less, was brought in to study the problem. He agreed that cavitation, with its accom- panying production of pressure, turbulence, and heat, was the culprit. And, of course, he devised a theory of cavitation. But, there, he seems to have fallen into the same error as did Isaac Newton who, in his theory of sound assumed isothermal condi- tions. As Laplace pointed out in 1816, under circumstances of rapid change, adiabatic conditions are more appropriate. During World War I, the growing need to detect enemy sub- marines led to the development of what was then called (by the British, anyway) subaqueous sound-ranging. The consequent improvements in strong acoustic sources found no scientific applications until 1927. It was then discovered that, when a high intensity sound field produced cavitation in water, hydro- gen peroxide was formed. Some five years later came a conjec- ture that, if cavitation could produce such large chemical ener- gies, it might also generate visible light. This was confirmed in 1934, thereby initiating the subject of sonoluminescence (SL). I should, however, qualify the initial discovery as that of inco- herent SL, for, as cavitation noise attests, bubbles are randomly and uncontrollably created and destroyed. The first hint of coherent SL occurred in 1970 when SL was observed without accompanying cavitation noise. This indi- cates that circumstances exist in which bubbles are stable. But not until 1990 was it demonstrated that an SL stream of light could be produced by a single stable cavity. Ordinarily, a cavity in a liquid is unstable. But it can be sta- bilized by the alternating cycles of compression and expansion that an acoustic field produces, provided the sonic amplitudes and frequencies are properly chosen. The study of coherent SL, now under way at UCLA under the direction of Professor Seth Putterman, has yielded some remarkable results. What, to the naked eye, appears as a steady, dim blue light, a photomultiplier reveals to be a clock-like sequence of pulses in step with the sonic period, which is of the order of 10 -4 seconds. Each pulse contains about 10 5 photons, which are emitted in less than 50 pico seconds, that is, in about 10 -11 seconds. When I first heard about coherent SL, some months ago, my immediate reaction was: This is the dynamical Casimir effect. The static Casimir effect, as usually presented, is a short-range non-classical attractive force between parallel conducting plates situated in a vacuum. Related effects appear for other geome- tries, and for dielectric bodies instead of conductors. A bubble in water is a hole in a dielectric medium. Under the influence of an oscillating acoustical field, the bubble expands and contracts, with an intrinsic time scale that may be consider- ably shorter than that of the acoustical field. The accelerated motions of the dielectrical material create a time-dependent— dynamical—electromagnetic field, which is a source of radiation. Owing to the large fractional change in bubble dimensions that may occur, the relation between field and source could be highly nonlinear, resulting in substantial frequency amplification. The mechanisms that have been suggested for cold fusion and sonoluminescence are quite different. But they both depend significantly on nonlinear effects. Put in that light, the failures of naive intuition are understandable. So ends my Progress Report. Julian Schwinger’s cold fusion work has been published in non-APS journals, including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . We proudly reprinted his “Cold Fusion: A Brief History of Mine,” in Issue No.1 of Infinite Energy , 1995. For a few years, the “cold fusion underground” at MIT held a well-attended cold fusion symposium during the IAP (Inde- pendent Activities Period). Since 1996, this activity has moved off campus.—EFM COLD FUSION A Massachusetts Institute of Technology IAP Program—Video-Lecture-Demonstration Program January 21,1995, Saturday 9AM-5PM Room 6-120, Physics Lecture Hall First floor, main building of MIT. TENTATIVE PROGRAM - Subject to Change Start at 9:00 am sharp * Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, MIT'69, Organizer -—Introduction, outline, and overview of latest results (30-45 min) * Dr. Peter Graneau (Video tape of water plasma explosions) “Anomalous Forces in Water Plasma Explosions” (45-60 min) * J. Patterson's U.S. Patent and Technology—video tape and lecture by staff of Clean Energy Technology, Dallas, TX (30 min) * James Griggs—The Hydrosonic Pump (video and lecture) (45 min) * Coffee Break * Ray Conley, MIT -- Results of Light Water Excess Heat Experi– ments (20min) * Fred Jaeger, ENECO (Patents and Commercialization) (10 min) * Recent results of experiments at E-Quest Sciences—Helium and Excess Heat (10 min) * Lunch Break of 20-25 minutes, refreshments to be served outside 6-120 * Professor Peter L. Hagelstein, MIT “Neutron Transfer Reactions”—Progress in theory (45 min) * Professor Keith Johnson, MIT, Progress in Theory of Excess Heat and Progress in Producing "Cold Fusion: The Movie" (45 min) * Professor Vesco Noninski, Fitchburg State College “Nuclear measurements—new understandings” (20 min) * Bertil Werjefelt, PolyTech(USA) (45 min) “'Magnetic Energy': Experiments, Commercial Prospects, and Theory” * Video Tape from Japan, Fuji Television (8 minutes)—“Magnetic Energy” * Time allotted for late-arriving additions in cold fusion and enhanced energy * CBC Cold Fusion Program, “Too Close to the Sun” (50 min) * Evening Break at 5:00 p.m. for dinner and possibly resume for 7:00-8:30 General Discussion of Business and Social Issues—Possible Panel Discussion. Refreshments and organizing costs contributed by ENECO, a company committed to commercialization of cold fusion and enhanced energy technologies. The full tapes of the program and a written record summarizing the meeting will also be available through Dr. Gene Mallove, Bow, NH.

--- Page 22 ---

22 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report EXHIBIT A While the MIT PFC-Chemistry Department team was going through the early stages of its motions to “debunk” the work of Drs. Fleischmann and Pons, one of the team members, Profes- sor Ronald Ballinger, was sent to Washington to testify before Congress. The MIT hot fusion people wanted to minimize the chance that Congress would divert any hot fusion funding to the investigation of cold fusion. In his testimony, Ballinger auda- ciously claimed that the MIT calorimetry methods were more sophisticated than those of Fleischmann and Pons—a great irony in view of later serious questions about the MIT PFC work. While this Congressional blocking action was carried out, the plan to launch a PR assault against cold fusion was moving for- ward. Only two days later, Professors Ballinger and Ronald R. Parker would give a secret interview with Boston Herald reporter Nick Tate (see Exhibit B), the story that would mark the begin- ning of accusations of fraud against the Utah electrochemists.— Eugene Mallove (EFM). Comments on “Cold Fusion” Testimony presented to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D. C. by Professor Ronald G. Ballinger, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts April 26, 1989 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I am Ronald Ballinger, a faculty member of the Departments of Nuclear Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I am very grateful for your invitation to convey my views related to the recent reports of the achievement of “cold fusion.” I am a member of an interdis- ciplinary team at MIT that is involved in an attempt to repro- duce the reported “Cold Fusion” results of Professors Pons and Fleischmann of the University of Utah. The team’s principals include Dr. Ronald R. Parker, Director of MIT’s Plas- ma Fusion Center; Professor Mark S. Wrighton, Head of the Chemistry Department; and myself. (A complete list of team members and areas of expertise is included). The team is com- posed of experts in the fields of physical metallurgy, electro- chemistry, plasma physics, instrumentation, and radiation detection. The team has been involved in attempts to reproduce the results, reported by Professors Pons and Fleischmann since shortly after their results were released to the press and for pub- lication in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry . As I am sure that you and the members of this committee are aware, any breakthrough in the area of energy production that has the potential to supply current and future energy needs in a non-polluting manner must be given serious attention. Quite apart from its impact on basic science, the results recently reported by Professors Pons and Fleischmann, should they prove to be correct, represent such a breakthrough. The basic nature of their results have been described and discussed by earlier testimony before this committee. Basically, the team at the University of Utah has reported the fusion of deuteri- um atoms in a palla- dium matrix at room temperature. As evidence that “cold fusion” has taken place, the pro- duction of excess heat and neutron radiation has been reported. The report- ed magnitude of both of these is such that their presence could be verified by other investigators. Much more mod- est results have been reported by a team of investigators at Brigham Young University. We feel that it is important to dis- tinguish between the BYU results, which are of scientific inter- est but of limited or no practical significance and those of the University of Utah which, should they prove correct, have major implications for future energy production. Since the reports of these results, a number of teams world- wide have been attempting to reproduce these results. To my knowledge, with the possible exception of the Stanford results and results from Europe and the USSR of which I have no per- sonal knowledge, no team has been successful. As far as the results of attempts by the team at MIT are concerned, we have been thus far unable to scientifically verify any of these results. This is in spite of the fact that we are employing calorimetry and radiation detection methods of even greater sophistication and sensitivity than those of the University of Utah. Having said this, I can assure you that these negative results have not been the results of a lack of effort. The MIT team has been, as I am sure is the case with other teams, laboring around the clock. However, we and the other teams have been handicapped by a lack of enough scientific detail to guarantee that we are actual- ly duplicating these experiments. In the scientific community, the soundness of experimental or theoretical research results is evaluated through peer review and duplication. For results such as those reported, whose potential impact on the scientific community and the world are so great, this review process is absolutely essential. Unfortu- nately, for reasons that are not clear to me, this has not hap- pened in this case—at least so far. The level of detail concerning the experimental procedures, conditions and results necessary for verification of the Pons and Fleischmann results have not been forthcoming. At the same time, almost daily articles in the press, often in conflict with the facts, have raised the public expectations, possibly for naught, that our energy problem has been “solved.” We have heard the phrase “too cheap to meter” applied to other forms of electric energy production before. And so the scientific community has been left to attempt to repro- duce and verify a potentially major scientific breakthrough while getting its experimental details from the Wall Street Jour- nal and other news publications. Experiments conducted in haste and based on insufficient detail coupled with premature release of results have often resulted in retractions and embarrassment on the part of the sci- entific community—caught in the heat of the moment. I guess we are all human. Professor Ronald G. Ballinger MIT Photo

--- Page 23 ---

23 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report The result of this unsatisfactory situation has been that a healthy skepticism and, in some cases, distrust of the reported results has developed. We at MIT share this skepticism. At the risk of becoming too technical in my comments, I feel that I must be a bit more specific with regard to the source of this skepticism. As I mentioned earlier the major results, reported by the University of Utah group, are that there has been a genera- tion of excess heat and the measurement of neutron radiation. By excess heat I mean that there has been a measurement of more energy produced than has been supplied to the system. From our standpoint, the key point of verification is the detec- tion of neutron radiation. From an engineering point of view, however, the importance of excess heat production is critical. On these two critical points we have found that the results reported in the few available published documents from the University of Utah are inconclusive or unclear. For example, with respect to the detection of neutrons, critical products of the fusion reaction, the reported results are confusing. They either do not agree with or are not presented completely enough to show that they are consistent with what one would expect from the emission of neutrons from the deuterium fusion reaction. Specifically, the γ - ray spectrum shown in the Fleischmann/Pons paper and attrib- uted to neutron emission does not exhibit a shape and intensity that demonstrates the increase reported in the number of detect- ed neutrons above normal background. Further, the reported rate of neutron emission and level of tritium production are con- sistent with natural background. The results have nevertheless been reported as “significant.” Those inconsistencies can only be resolved by a full disclosure of the details of the experimental measurements for examination by the scientific community. Until such time as this occurs we feel that the data is insufficient to demonstrate the presence of neutrons. As far as the issue of excess energy is concerned we are also faced with a confusing situation. While the presence of excess energy is documented in the Journal of Analytical Electrochem- istry paper, the method by which this excess energy was deter- mined is not clear. With metals, such as palladium, which act as hydrogen storage media and at the same time as catalysts for many chemical reactions, both situations which can result in discontinuous chemical energy releases, it is critical that a total energy balance over time be done. To us it is not clear that this has been the case. Until this issue is clarified we are unable to make a judgement concerning the excess energy issue. In conclusion, I feel that it is safe to say that the scientific community is (1) excited about the possibility of a significant advance in the area of fusion energy research, (2) but is, at the same time, skeptical of results that have not been verified to this point and (3) is very frustrated at the methods by which the dis- covery has been handled both in the scientific and non-scientif- ic community. Thank you. PROFESSOR RONALD GEORGE BALLINGER Professor Ballinger is an Associate Professor at the Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology with a joint appointment in the Departments of Nuclear Engineering and Materials Science & Engineering. Professor Ballinger's areas of specialization are as follows: (1) Environmental effects on material behavior, (2) Physical metallurgical and electro- chemical aspects of environmentally assisted cracking in aqueous sys- tems, (3) Stress corrosion cracking and hydrogen embrittlement in Light Water Reactor systems, (4) The effect of radiation on aqueous chemistry and stress corrosion cracking, (5) Experimental fracture mechanics tech- niques and analytical methodology, and (6) Materials development for cryogenic applications. Professor Ballinger is the author of several papers in the above areas and is a member of several professional soci- eties including the National Association of Corrosion Engineers, The American Society for Metals, The Electrochemical Society, The Ameri- can Nuclear Society, and the American Society for Testing and Materi- als. Professor Ballinger is a member of the International Cyclic Crack Growth Review Group and the International Cooperative Working Group in Irradiation Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking. MIT Cold Fusion Group Plasma Fusion Center Professor Ronald R. Parker Director, Plasma Fusion Center Plasma Physics/Fusion Research Dr. Xing Chen Postdoctoral Associate Radiation Detection Dr. Catherine Fiore Research Scientist Radiation Detection Dr. Marcel Gaudreau Research Engineer Fusion Engineering Dr. David Gwinn Research Engineer Instrumentation/Design Dr. Paul S. Linsay Principal Research Scientist Radiation Physics Dr. Stanley Luckhardt Principal Research Scientist Plasma Physics Dr. Richard Petrasso Research Scientist X-and γ -ray Spectroscopist Mr. Kevin Wenzel Graduate Student Radiation Detection Dept. of Nuclear Engineering and Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering “Words to Eat” MIT Professor Ronald George Ballinger may hold the all- time record for making a foolish statement against cold fusion. He wrote in 1991: “It would not matter to me if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experi- ments that see excess heat. These results may all be correct, but it would be an insult to these investigators to connect them with Pons and Fleischmann.” These words of “wisdom” appeared in the Gordon Institute News , March/April 1991. Apart from their unrepentant mean spirit, they are internally inconsistent. If in his hypothetical the remarkable discovery of Fleischmann and Pons were to be validated, why would the scientists not be due praise? Is Ballinger’s sense of righteous indignation about Fleischmann and Pons so pronounced that he could not grant them cred- it— ever ? One would think that scientific ethics alone would mandate that these “thousand other investigations” should be tied directly to those who inspired them! Ballinger wrote in the same venue: “Putting the ‘Cold Fusion’ issue on the same page with Wien, Rayleigh-Jeans, Davison-Germer, Einstein, and Planck is analogous to com- paring a Dick Tracy comic book story with the Bible.” The facts about this moralizing hypocrite, Prof. Ballinger, are even more amazing when one learns that Ballinger subsequently person- ally sought funding support from Dr. Thomas O. Passell at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to carry out materi- als science projects related to cold fusion! Professor Ronald G. Ballinger Associate Professor Physical Metallurgy and Electrochem- istry Dr. Il Soon Hwang Research Scientist Physical Metallurgy/Electrochemistry Dr. Alan Turnbull Visiting Scientist (National Physical Laboratory, UK) Electrochemistry/Surface Science Martin Morra Graduate Student Physical Metallurgy Mr. Frank Wong Graduate Student Mechanics/Instrumentation Department of Chemistry Professor Mark Wrighton Head, Department of Chemistry Chemistry/Electrochemistry Dr. Richard Crooks Postdoctoral Associate Electrochemistry Mr. Vincenzo Cammarata Graduate Student Chemistry/Electrochemistry Mr. Martin Schloh Graduate Student Chemistry/Electrochemistry Mr. David Albagli Graduate Student Chemistry/Electrochemistry

--- Page 24 ---

24 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report From this “smoking gun” interview, it is clear that the story in the Boston Her- ald, May 1, 1989, was an eminently fair reflection of the interview with Profes- sors Parker and Ballinger. Virtually the full April 28, 1989 interview with Parker and Ballinger is transcribed from the audio tape released by the Boston Her- ald. It is fascinating to hear Parker telling a DoE Cold Fusion Panelist (Dr. Richard Garwin of IBM) that they think they have evidence of “fraud” by Fleis- chmann and Pons. Parker is seen coordinating with NBC reporter Bob Bazell the forthcoming “blast” against the Utah electrochemists.—EFM [ Editor’s Note: “xxxx” means inaudi- ble portion of audio tape. ] Parker: . . .accuse them of fraud, one could. Tate: Can you—can you tell me what the uh—what exactly the significance of the 2.5 is? I mean, understand I’ve attempted—I’m not a scientist. I’ve attempted to read as much as I can understand. Parker: I can give you a short synopsis of that. Ballinger: Can we, uh—can I make— say something here about —? You’re going to publish this right? Tate: Yes. Ballinger: You’re not a scientific person, right? Tate: That’s correct. Ballinger: What’s the procedure about this? Can we see what you’re going to print, before you’re going to print it? Not to change anything, but to make sure you don’t screw something up here. Tate: In technical terms? Ballinger: In technical terms. Tate: Uhhh— Ballinger: You know we’re talking about serious business here and I have seen crap in newspapers that comes out, you know, that quotes the generation of isotopes which aren’t—don’t exist and all kinds of stuff like that. Nobody’s going to change anything— Parker: That’s a good point. The reason I stopped talking to the Globe, for example, is that I felt that they were reporting irre- sponsibly. Ballinger: They interviewed me but didn’t (xxxx). . . Parker: Yeah, and you know they were out there just leading the cheers instead of being objective. Tate: Let me say this to you, that in general the process is—the policy of the paper is to turn down a story before having it proof read outside of the paper. But I understand what you’re saying. I think that given I am not a scientific person, we could work something out. Ballinger: There has to be a way because there’s sort of a moral obligation here on our part to make sure that . . . Parker: Let me—Yeah let me put it another way, I mean we’re beginning to get a very short fuse on this whole issue, as you can tell, because for example these guys were down in Congress when Ron was down there on Wednesday asking for twenty- five million bucks. [ Editor’s Note: See Ballinger’s Congres- sional testimony, page 84. ] Ballinger: A hundred and twenty five. Parker: Well, a hundred. . . Tate: Was it $125 million? Parker: Only a mere twenty-five from the government, right? Ballinger: Twenty-five from the government, the rest from industry. Parker: And, you know, it’s one thing when they come out with something that’s potentially interesting scientifically and so on and so forth. It’s quite another thing when they’re out there trying to fleece the public money to push something that, uh, has no credibility at this point. Now in a (xxxx) way what we’re saying is we’re ready to begin getting into the controver- sial issue. Tate: I should explain to you. . . Parker: We don’t want to do that without trusting the source, Okay? In other words, you know I can’t trust the Globe , I’d like to trust you. I can’t trust you unless I know what you’re going to turn out. Tate: I guess it depends on what we talk about. What you’re suggesting is that what I would like to do based on just a little information that I’ve heard is write a story that indicates you have serious questions and concerns about what Pons and Fleis- chmann are saying. . . Parker: We can go beyond the concerns and questions to say that what they have reported is not true. That’s a much stronger statement. Tate: And potentially what you’re suggesting is that—to bring some money into the university. Parker: I shouldn’t say that, I should say that that’s your con- jecture, not mine. Okay, the fact that they’re down there asking for $125 million you can draw your own conclusions from that. Ballinger: I would suggest that you probably have a tape of the entire hearing. Parker: Do you have one? Tate: I don’t have one, no. Ballinger: Well, you should get one and you should look at it and spend the time, because then you’ll understand what was going on down there. In terms of your background, it’s a very important thing for you to look at. Even though you may be on Exhibit B: Partial transcript of tape of interview (Friday, April 28, 1989) by Nick Tate of the Boston Herald with Professor Ronald R. Parker and Associate Professor Ronald G. Ballinger T his tape was released to the public, according to a Boston Herald story on May 2, 1989. The contents of this tape clearly contradict the MIT Press Release of May 1, 1989, which was issued by the MIT News Office on behalf of Professor Parker. Prof. Ballinger Prof. Parker Nick Tate, then of the Boston Herald

--- Page 25 ---