25 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report a deadline and it may be six hours long and all that stuff, you really need to see what was going on. Tate: What was your impression of what was happening? Ballinger: It was a fairly well-orchestrated attempt to, in my mind, short circuit in this case well-established and well-recog- nized review process for any kind of research much less this kind of research and get uh—diversion of funds to uh from the government from other projects presumably to the University of Utah. And, uh, they used uh you know. If you assume that what they are saying is correct, you may argue about the heavy- handedness of what their logic is of their methods, but for something that’s not been proved to be cor- rect, the fact that they used this (xxx) was going on plus the fact that (xxx). . . Ballinger: If you don’t look at the tape, you should read Ira Magaziner’s testimony. He is the consultant that they hired to uh . . . Parker: Is he the one who went into this society in Rome? Ballinger: He made a very, you know, a very pseudo-truth — that’s the word I’d use. You start out with something which is fundamentally true, but everything is not so true after that. We are, in fact, getting killed by the Japanese. I mean we’re great inven- tors, but we don’t do a good job of bringing things to market. The Japanese are excel- lent at that and were getting beaten. We’re getting our ass beat- en, right? And that’s the argument that he used, we should def- initely—we should stuff all kinds of money in here, we should go on parallel paths, we should establish a center—an interna- tional center in Utah, naturally in Utah, because that’s where the best scientists are. And we should get going on this right away. That makes sense, if you’re trying to, if you have an established, verified product. You know, I mean I think I agree that we’re getting killed by the Japanese and so therefore we should —there has to be a way to augment the way we do that kind of thing. But he started from a fundamental assumption which was not correct, and that is, we don’t have anything that’s proven, and moreover not only do we not have anything that is proven, but there’s a lot of reason to believe that not only will it be disproven, but it will turn out that it’s not correct. Tate: Let me ask you, just back up a step. You’re talking about—I presume you’re talking about traditional scientific controls and traditional scientific methods that have not been observed in this particular situation. Parker: This is sci— I’ll give you a quote: This is scientific schlock, Okay. Tate: Tell me specifically what they’ve done. Parker: [Parker laughs]. Tate: That is that may. . . Parker: I’ll just tell you about the neutrons, Okay.. That’s real- ly important, Okay. They’ve taken some data. They didn’t even take it themselves, they had people take it for them. They pub- lished it in their paper and they claimed that it showed the pres- ence of neutrons from their experiment. The data is patently, has been patently falsely interpreted. Neutrons are not present at anywhere near the level their own data shows. They’re not there. They’ve misinterpreted their results. They falsely inter- preted their results. Whether they did this intentionally or not I don’t know, but they did not present—interpret their results correctly. It’s a key point in their paper. Tate: Specifically what they’re claiming, that it was neutrons they were creating. . . Parker: That they were creating neutrons from their experi- ment. Their documentation unfortunately shows that not only was it falsely interpreted, but there were no neutrons at any- where near the level they claimed. You can use the data in two ways, to show that they falsely interpreted it, but also that there weren’t neutrons at the level they claimed. Tate: So at best it’s misinterpretation and at worst it’s — as you were saying. . . Parker: It’s fraud. Tate: Now do you know this from studying their research, from reviewing their information, or have you tried—and I pre- sume you’ve, in addition, attempted to parallel what they’ve done? Parker: We reproduce their results so we completely under- stand why they misinterpreted. Let me put it a different way, we don’t see why they misinterpreted, we don’t understand what they should have seen and didn’t. Tate: So you’ve reproduced their experiment? Parker: We’ve simulated the neutrons. We’ve said, suppose there were no neutrons, what would it have looked like? And we find something quite different from what they claim. Ballinger: We find what we should expect. Tate: Would you care to speculate on their intent? Parker: I think Ron made it perfectly clear that when you’re asking for $125 million for the university, I mean I don’t want to be tied into that quote, but I mean you have to draw the (xxxx). They were in Washington Wednesday asking for $125 million dollars. [Editor’s Note: At this point in the interview, Parker gets a phone call from Dr. Richard Garwin of IBM Corporation, one of the key people on the U.S. Department of Energy’s cold fusion review panel. . .] Parker (to Garwin): I just talked to Richard [Petrasso] who wrote the Nature piece. I don’t know if you saw that? But he and I basically chuck it off, I mean you know I said his piece was the best thing written so far. And he told me he saw the original submission and it did have the line at 2.5 [MeV]. The original submission had the line at 2.5 so, you know that’s, uh, the smoking gun with fingerprints, Okay, you don’t even need (xxxx). Oh, gee, I don’t want to quote him, but that’s a good question, but the original submission to the journal had 2.5, just as the 2.5 in the equation, so you know now it transcends I think the ques- tion of whether they misinterpreted to the question of whether there was deliberate fraud. Okay, alright. . .(xxx). Well, all your detective work was correct, but now he has the smoking gun with the fingerprints on it, right? [Laughs] Okay, right, see ya! Bye. . . Parker: So I thought he would be good to talk to and he just volunteered. He’d seen the original submission to the journal. The line was at 2.5. Ballinger: That’s what we suspected. Ira Magaziner He later played a role in the Clinton Adminis- tration on health policy. Photo: Courtesy White House Dr. Richard Garwin Photo: IBM Corporation

--- Page 26 ---

26 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report Parker: Right (xxxx). . . Parker: This is where I’d say, uh, we just don’t know, I mean —misinterpretation or was it malicious. . . [Editor’s Note: Now Parker remarks about Prof. Huggins’ positive results in his Stan- ford University replication of P&F’s experi- ment.] Parker: Unfortunately I’ve seen that paper. I’d give it a B as a senior thesis . . . [Parker and Ballinger laugh intensely about Fleischmann’s implication about Japanese work.] Parker: So, what are you going to do with this, uh, Nick? You know this is. . .what you’re hearing is that we think it’s a scam, right? Tate: Why is it today that you think it’s a scam? Parker: We have been studying the evidence together very slowly and we want to have a paper out on this before we actu- ally blast them. Monday we’re putting a paper out on it. . . Parker: It depends on what magnitude you want to break it. Tate: Well, it seems to me that it’s a very significant story for you to be saying... Parker: It’s the first time I’ve actually been (xxx) this strong. Up until now I’ve been hoping... Tate: I mean everybody thinks you have been very skeptical, as have other teams (xxx) can reproduce it. . . Parker: Open to the possibility. I think after five weeks we are basically getting to the point where we can no longer sus- pend the disbelief. [Parker gets a phone call from science reporter Bob Bazell of NBC-TV] Parker (to Bazell): Hello, Bob. Thanks for calling me back. Okay, appreciate it because uh (xxxx) we don’t want them to have a chance to uh come up with any sort of (xxxx) Now I promise on Monday we’ll have it out. I’ll fax it to you. Okay, alright? I’ve got one in my office! Ha, ha. It’s a local paper. No, we have not done anything as far as a press release. . .Uh, well maybe we can work something out. It depends on how big a story he wants to do. Well, if they didn’t see neutrons. You know I just talked by the way to Richard Garwin and he con- firmed that the first paper that Pons and Fleischmann submit- ted had the line at 2.5 MeV. Did you know that? Well, that’s important because they moved it. And now the question is, is it fraud, or is it (xxxx)? Parker: Well, that was Bazell, Bob Bazell — you know who he is, of NBC? — he’s a little concerned about how you’re going to handle it. He’s concerned and I am too, because he’s been very good to me as far as being confidential and respecting my views. He’s at the (xxxx) right now where he wants to run something on this. And I feel like I’d like to, you know, I don’t mind if it hits the streets the same day, but I think it would be. . . Tate: That’s fine. Parker: I think if you’d respect that we can probably give you more. . . Tate: I would just ask that no other media outlets get this infor- mation beforehand. I think that’s fair. Parker: I was just thinking in my mind. I have a list of sort of good (xxxx). . . Ballinger: Technology Review . . . Parker: Yeah, they’ll come out months from now. We’ll have to give it to MIT actually, I mean Mallove. Tate: I’m not real hot to scoop anybody with the story. It’s a big story. I’d like to do that and respect your wishes. But if it comes out in another publication, a competitor or a daily publication . . . Parker: It’s not coming out in the Globe . Tate: Okay. Ballinger: And I don’t answer phone calls unless they’re from inside MIT. . . Tate: Obviously, we’re going to need to get into more of the technical aspects of it. Can you tell me some of those for that story in Monday’s paper or would you prefer to handle that? Parker: I’m going to have to leave in ten minutes anyway, so it’s not going to be great. . . Let’s see, how to handle it. We’re going to get into trouble with Mallove, if we don’t apprise him on Monday. But you could break the story on Monday. Parker: [Parker on the phone to Harold Furth of Princeton Plas- ma Physics Lab]. . . We’re also working with a guy called Wrighton, who is an electrochemist. . . Next week we’re defi- nitely going to hit them. . . So meanwhile, we’re pretty much going to blast these guys on Monday — on the neutrons. . . Well you know, you can take that one on. I’m not going to get into the calorimetry. I think, having done the calorimetry for several weeks now, I understand much better about the prob- lems, and I think I could speculate on what they did or didn’t do. I certainly know enough to discount completely the Stanford experiment, only because they published enough details so I could see where they went wrong. Now in the case of Utah, they didn’t publish details, so I can’t say. . . All I’m going to focus on— I know the following facts. They published a peak initially at 2.5, they then moved it to 2.2 for the same data, alright? Now that could be either fraud or it could be just misinterpretation. I’m not going to comment on that. However, the line that they finally show is xxx sodium iodide, 3-inch crystal. . . Parker: How are we going to leave it? You’re going to hold this for Monday, right? Ballinger: I’d really like to see it for technical content. You know nobody’s going to try to, and although we might like to sometime. End of Tape Prof. Huggins Photo, Stanford University Robert Bazell Photo, NBC TV Eugene Mallove “In one word, it’s garbage.” MIT Professor of Physics Emeritus Martin Deutsch May 6, 1989, characterizing cold fusion. Harold P. Furth Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

--- Page 27 ---

27 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report Exhibit C MIT News Office Deceptive Press Release I had been up into the wee hours of the night of April 30-May 1, 1989, sending a press release dictated to me over the tele- phone at my home in Bow, New Hampshire by Professor Park- er. I telephoned it to UPI, Reuters, and the Associated Press, and it denied what Parker had said in the interview with the Boston Herald’s Nick Tate. When I arrived at the MIT News Office early that morning after a sleepless night, we hastily put together a printed form of the press release to handle the approaching storm. This is the text of the Press Release that was issued from the MIT News Office on May 1, 1989. On the day of my resignation from my MIT News Office position, June 7, 1991, I publically disavowed this Press Release—an unin- tended falsification of the truth in which I was used as a dupe in part of an orchestrated campaign against cold fusion (an image of this Press Release appears on page 76)—EFM MIT News Office PRESS RELEASE May 1, 1989 URGENT MEDIA ADVISORY For Immediate Release May 1, 1989 MIT Contact: Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D. Chief Science Writer CAMBRIDGE, Mass., May 1—Professor Ronald R. Parker, Director of the MIT Plasma Fusion Center responded today to an article published this morning in the Boston Herald , an article that he says has seriously misquoted him and given a largely incorrect view of his discussions with the Boston Herald’s reporter, Nick Tate. Professor Parker issued this statement: “The article erroneously characterizes remarks that I made regarding the cold fusion experiments done at the University of Utah. Specifically, I did not: (1) Deride the University of Utah experiments as “scientific schlock” or (2) Accuse Drs. Fleischmann and Pons of ‘misrepresentation and maybe fraud’.” Today, Professor Parker’s colleagues will present a paper (co-authored with him) at the meeting of the American Physical Society in Baltimore, Maryland, in which they sug- gest that data that Drs. Pons and Fleischmann claim support the observation of neutron emission in their experiments were misinterpreted by Pons and Fleischmann. Based on their independent analysis, the MIT researchers say that if neutron emission occurred in the Pons and Fleis- chmann experiment that they reported in the Journal of Elec- troanalytical Chemistry , it would have been at a level far below that reported by the University of Utah group. Exhibit D — Boston Globe Letter to MIT President Paul Gray —April 17, 1989 There is convincing evidence (see Exhibit B) that Prof. Parker had made a deliberate attempt to exclude the “cheer-leading” Boston Globe from getting access to the MIT PFC in the hectic early days of the cold fusion uproar. Frustrated Globe science writer Richard Saltus wrote an extraordinary letter on April 17, 1989 to then MIT President Paul E. Gray. This was before the Herald’s bombshell story of May 1, 1989 broke!—EFM The Boston Globe, Boston Massachusetts 02107 Telephone 617-929-2000 Paul E. Gray, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dear Dr. Gray: We in the Sci-Tech section have always regarded MIT as a rich and crucial source of ideas and information. The News Office does an invaluable job in bringing stories to our attention, and the faculty and staff generally are very helpful when we call on their expertise. In addi- tion, your visit to the Globe left a strong impression, and created renewed interest in subjects like science and math education and glob- al environmental issues. It has been disturbing, therefore, to have encountered such a lack of cooperation—a selective one, it appears—from the leadership of the Plasma Fusion program during our reporting of the claimed break- through at the University of Utah. We felt our readers would want to know how this scientific controversy has affected a premier fusion research center—and one in the Globe’s city. However, repeated attempts by myself and another reporter to talk to individuals at the Plasma Fusion Center have met with little success. In the first weeks of the story, Dr. Ronald Parker did make himself avail- able on a few occasions, but for the past week or more has failed to return phone calls. I also was utterly rebuffed in an attempt, which I had cleared with the News Office, to visit the fusion center briefly— entirely at Dr. Parker’s convenience—so that I could convey something of the activity there during this highly unusual time. I called several times, dropped by once, and left telephone numbers where I could be reached, saying I’d be glad to talk with anyone who had a free moment. The secretary promised to let me know what could be arranged. However, no one ever responded. I appreciate the enormous demands on Dr. Parker’s time. Yet, he has found time for other publications, including the Wash- ington Post —whose reporter toured the facility, took photographs and interviewed several researchers and the New York Times , which quoted Dr. Parker as recently as last Sunday. Whether this selective access reflects caprice or some bias against the Globe is hard to tell. In any case, it is regrettable that we have had to give up on MIT and turn to institutions like Princeton, where, although I am sure they are no less busy, researchers have been more helpful. Sincerely, Richard Saltus, Science writer cc: Dr. Ronald Parker, Plasma Fusion Center Exhibit E — MIT President Paul Gray’s Letter to the Boston Globe May 1, 1989 MIT President Gray, apparently unaware of Parker’s true deal- ings, was himself duped into writing what he honestly thought was a valid response to the Globe’s Saltus.—EFM OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Richard Saltus, Science Writer The Boston Globe Dear Mr. Saltus: I write in response to your letter of April 17, which laments the recent inaccessibility of Professor Ronald Parker. I have looked into this and find that Professor Parker has been deluged by requests for information about cold fusion and is unable to respond to all of them. He has tried to be as helpful as possible, consistent with his belief that judgment should be reserved until the scientific facts are clarified. That cautious stance has led him to discourage all media visits to the Plasma Fusion Cen- ter, although his efforts have not always been successful. I have been assured that there was no discrimination against the Boston Globe and that, to the contrary, Professor Parker spoke five or six times with your colleague, Mr. David Chandler. I regret that you feel ill used during these recent events, but I am satisfied that they are merely a consequence of the extra- ordinary circumstances attendant to the claim of cold fusion. We certainly hope that our good relations with the Boston Globe, and with the Sci-Tech section in particular will continue. Sincerely yours, Paul E. Gray PEG/mmd Signed in his absence cc: Kenneth D. Campbell, Ronald R. Parker

--- Page 28 ---

28 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report Exhibit I Eugene Mallove’s Letter to MIT President Charles Vest April 12, 1991 My urgent letter to President Vest, copied to President Gray, went unanswered. Should I have been surprised? Not when President Vest had chosen Chemistry Department head Pro- fessor Mark Wrighton as Provost. Wrighton was a co-leader of the 1989 MIT PFC cold fusion experiments and a signer of the 1989 negative DoE cold fusion report. If President Vest had given him my letter to review, Wrighton would probably have dumped it in his circular file.—EFM Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D., Chief Science Writer MIT News Office, Room 5-111 Lecturer in Science Journalism, Department of Humanities Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Charles M. Vest Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dear Dr. Vest: I am reminded of wonders wrought by science and technolo- gy on this day, the 30th anniversary of the first flight into space by a human being, Yuri Gagarin, and also the 10th anniversary of the flight of our space shuttle. I recall my feelings of awe—as a child and later as a young engineer, that human beings could accomplish these wondrous things. It seems that on the fron- tiers of science and technology, when dedicated men and women give their energies to a task, they can achieve wonders. We are now facing, I believe, a new wonder in science. It is one, to be sure, that seems to be having an exceedingly difficult birth. I speak of what some people consider to be preposterous and “pathological” science, but others whom I believe have probed deeper into the matter, consider to be no longer deniable: that unusual nuclear reactions of incompletely understood char- acter have been produced in metal lattice systems. Of course I am speaking of the controversial “cold fusion” phenomena. As Exhibit G - MIT President Paul Gray’s 1990 Remarks on Cold vs. Hot Fusion This public statement clearly shows how badly the MIT PFC had duped the rest of the MIT community.—EFM “If ever there was, in the media’s eye, a silver bullet, ‘cold fusion’ certainly fit the bill. According to the first news release, it was ‘simple, safe, and easy to implement.’ Unfortu- nately, all the media attention surrounding the controversy over the veracity of the cold fusion experiments has over- shadowed the quality work that has gone into ‘hot’ plasma fusion research over the last forty-five years. Here the poten- tial energy payoff is so great and the scientific and political motivation so strong that a very large and productive research effort is already in place.” Energy and The Environment in the 21st Century (Proceedings of a Conference held at MIT March 26-28, 1990), MIT Press, 1991, p. 119- 136, in “Energy Technology: Problems and Solutions,” by Paul E. Gray, Jefferson W. Tester, and David O. Wood. Exhibit H Prof. Mark Wrighton’s Letter to Dr. V. C. Noninski October 10, 1990 This brusque letter from Prof. Wrighton, offering no scientific discussion, is an insult, yet so symptomatic of how the MIT Administration went about its anti-cold fusion work.—EFM MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY MARK S. WRIGHTON DEPARTMENT HEAD AND CIBA-GEIGY PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY Dr. V.C. Noninski New York, NY Dear Dr. Noninski: Unfortunately, I have not had time to review your various pieces of correspondence with me concerning our work direct- ed toward establishing the validity of claims concerning cold fusion. Let me be perfectly clear with you: we have obtained no evidence whatsoever to verify the original claims by Pons and Fleischmann concerning cold fusion. I believe that we have indicated the nature of the errors involved in the calorimetry that we have done and do not believe that there is experimentally significant evolution of “excess heat.” Sincerely yours, Mark S. Wrighton MSW:jvs cc: Dr. S. Luckhardt MIT President, Paul E. Gray Plasma Fusion Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology To: Terri Priest From: Ron Parker Subj: Cold fusion Mug Date: July 18, 1989 Thanks for your thoughtful procurement of the “cold fusion” mug. I really enjoyed it and will keep it with my “stamp out scientific schlock” tee-shirt and other cold fusion memorabil- ia. We have ordered two dozen (at quantity discount) for sou- venirs to members of the MIT Cold Fusion Group. When they arrive, I’ll send you one in case you know of someone else who would enjoy it. Thanks again! Exhibit F Photos, Infinite Energy archives

--- Page 29 ---

29 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger said in March 1990, “It is no longer possible lightly to dismiss the reality of cold fusion.” After long and careful study of this controversy in both its sci- entific, media, and political dimensions, I am personally con- vinced at greater than a 99% confidence level that cold fusion is real—both the nuclear emanations that have been reported and the excess enthalpy that seems to emerge from various experi- ments. The erratic nature of the phenomena —the lack of repro- ducibility “on demand”—has clearly been the central obstacle to acceptance in the scientific community, but extraneous “political” and programmatic factors have also played a role. It would seem, however, that reproducibility—no doubt a func- tion of certain critical atomic structure and composition factors in the test systems—is getting to be less and less a problem. Two unusual documents that have come to my attention are only the most recent in a cascade of information that is now emerging in the field. Physicist David Worledge of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), who has just returned from a trip to the Soviet Union, supplied me with the astounding report of the “Workshop on Nuclear Fusion Reactions in Condensed Media,” which was held at a world-class high-energy physics center under the sponsorship of the USSR Academy of Sciences, among other prestigious scientific organiza- tions. This is extraordinary because this heretofore unknown but suspected level of effort on cold fusion in the Soviet Union gives an independent check on some of the nuclear effects work in the U.S. (I regret to say that in the present atmosphere of hostility to cold fusion in the U.S., such a confer- ence would now be unthinkable at places like Brookhaven National Laboratory and Fermilab.) Noteworthy is the claimed increasing levels of reproducibility in the experiments, which incidentally, is also happening in the U..S— e.g. at Los Alamos National Laboratory and at SRI International in Palo Alto, which has carried out reproducible excess energy production in electro- chemical cells. The other paper comes from my col- league, Dr. M. Srinivasan, Head of the Neutron Physics Division at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center, BARC, in India. This is his recent excellent sum- mary of the experimental evidence for cold fusion, which BARC has played a major role in supplying. Read it and per- haps be amazed, as I have been. I was already aware of most of the results that he cites, but he assembles it so nicely. As for experimental work here at MIT in this exciting new field, I regret to tell you that it does not exist. After the initial brief but intense period of experimental assess- ment in the spring of 1989 by an interdisciplinary team drawn from the Plasma Fusion Center and from the Chemistry Depart- ment, led by PFC Director Professor Ronald R. Parker and then Chemistry Department head, Professor Mark S. Wrighton, to my knowledge, nothing further has been done along experimental lines. It is notable, however, that researchers in several depart- ments at MIT have continued a strong interest in the field. An atmosphere of hostility, analogous to the editorial posi- tion on cold fusion of a certain well-known scientific journal [ Nature ], is prevalent. I do not feel that MIT’s best interests are served any longer by unwarranted ignoring of the mounting experimental evidence for cold fusion. It seems to me essential that members of the MIT community reassess the experimental findings that have come and are coming from both domestic and foreign laboratories. To do any less would be, it seems to me, an abdication of scientific responsibility, not to mention a possible longer range injury to the reputation of MIT. It is even possible that the international competitiveness position of the U.S. might be at stake, something we here have given much attention to. There is strong evidence, for example the enclosed Matsushita Corporation patent application, that Japanese laboratories are devoting their considerable talents to this field. (I believe it prob- able that a major Japanese Corporation may be funding the work of Drs. Fleischmann and Pons now in France.) [ E ditor’s Note: That corporation turned out to be IMRA, an affiliate of Toyota Corp.—EFM ] Basically, I think the train is leaving the station, and MIT is not on it. This deeply troubles, saddens, even embarrasses me —as an alumnus who cares deeply about MIT and its image. May I suggest that you assemble very soon and publicly a panel of MIT scientists and engineers to consider and evaluate the status of research on “nuclear reactions in deuterium infused metals.” (There is no need to call it the politically charged, “cold fusion,” even though that may well be what it is.) I can imagine the com- position of such a panel, who would hear from researchers both within and from outside MIT—including from foreign countries. Obviously, MIT's thoughtful skeptics ( e.g . Dr. Richard Petrasso) as well as proponents of these phenomena ( e.g Professor Peter Hagelstein) should be aboard. As a chairperson, I would offer the names of three outstanding scientists, who could guide deliberations in a fair manner: Professors Philip Morrison, Jerome Friedman, or Henry Kendall. Because of my knowledge of the field through being a conduit of information, I would be honored to assist any such panel in its deliberations. I have sent a copy of this letter to your predecessor, Professor Paul Gray, with whom I have discussed cold fusion earlier, in the days when the controversy arose. My deep appreciation to you for carefully considering this suggestion. I look forward to discussing the idea further with you, if you feel that it has merit, and of course I hope you will. Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove Exhibit J Eugene Mallove’s Letter to Dr. Stanley Luckhardt April 29, 1991 My written request to Dr. Luckhardt for clarification and other data was rebuffed.—EFM Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D., Chief Science Writer, MIT News Office, Room 5-111, Lecturer in Science Journalism, Department of Humanities Dr. Stanley C. Luckhardt Room 36-293 Dear Stan: Glad that you were able to come to Dr. Fred Mayer’s [cold fusion] seminar last week and ask some good questions. It’s nice to have an alternate theory to compare with Peter’s [Hagelstein’s] ideas. I have been meaning to submit a short note to the Journal of Fusion Energy , a comment of sorts about the MIT experiments in the spring of 1989 and where they fit into the big picture. I would mainly be address- ing the calorimetry issue and in that regard would want to refer to both your perspective and to that of Dr. Noninski. I realize that there are two pieces of information that it would be helpful, though not essential, for me to have: (A) The precision and assumed accuracy of each of the mea- suring devices (current, voltage, and temperature) and (B) The plot of the heater power versus time for the light water comparison cell run that corresponds to the D 2 O heater power plot presented in the PFC report. Thanks in advance for your help, and I look forward to sharing with you some of my ideas, once I get them on paper. Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove Dr. M. Srinivasan of BARC Dr. Worledge of EPRI

--- Page 30 ---

30 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report Matters came to a head on June 7, 1991, when— unknown to me until the very few days before it occurred—a lecture by a strong critic of cold fusion, Dr. Frank Close of the UK, was scheduled for a Friday seminar at the Plasma Fusion Center. The posters for the talk pro- claimed it to be “An Exposé on Cold Fusion”—and indeed, it was just that— a slanderous attack of Fleischmann and Pons! It turned out to be a climactic event in my career and in the history of cold fusion.—EFM Parker: Looking at the Pons and Fleischmann experiment is a valuable object lesson, you know, regardless of whether there is anything to the field that sort of followed their work. And to me probably the most disturbing comment that was made and left out there was the almost inference that it’s O.K. to drop a data point if your name is Millikan [the physics Nobel laureate]. I don’t think it’s O.K. to drop a data point if your name is Mil- likan, Parker, Fleischmann, or Pons. That’s the lesson. That is what science is about. We don’t drop data points, we don’t become passionate, you know, about “this has to be right, we have to make that data look this way.” [ Ironically, that is pre- cisely what the MIT PFC did with its data! —EFM ] Science is supposed to be objective, even if it sometimes goes against the grain, and that is what we try to teach here at MIT to our stu- dents. Let it come out the way it comes out and don’t mount a big PR campaign, you know, and if it doesn’t fit, then force the data to fit. We’re trying to be dispassionate. That’s what science is about and I hope that’s what students will take out of this whole thing. Regardless of whether or not any of these other experiments which you can mention are right or wrong, let’s look at them one at a time. Let’s try to reproduce them. We at MIT looked very carefully at Fleischmann and Pons, and this is what we came up with. [If we] think we ought to look at anoth- er set of experi- ments and we think we have expertise, we will. But just let it fall where it lies. We’re not going to come out one way or another until we look at it. Mallove: Would you consider re-evaluating your own experi- ment, if I brought in experts to evaluate it? Would you consider that? Because I’ve asked Dr. Luckhardt for several weeks now— and I know he’s not here today. He told me at one point he would provide me with the heater power curve for the light water experiment so that I could ascertain what the heck was going on in that experiment. He then finally ended up saying to me he would not give it to me—or that it would take a week to do it. Parker: I think, Gene, that what you showed up here earlier is completely a surprise to me. [The Phase II comparison power tests of light water versus heavy water, published and unpublished versions.] We will give you every piece of data we ever took. Parker: My personal. . . Mallove: Fine. Parker: I’ll tell you what my opinion is of that work, because I was part of it. I don’t think it’s worth very much. Alright? And that’s why it’s just published in a tech report. I don’t think it’s worth very much. I think to do calorimetry is one of the hardest things I ever tried to do. I’d rather stick to plasma physics. Mallove: But, Ron, with all due respect, I agree with you, I agree with you. [that the work was not conclusive] Parker: When you have an open system is where you can make big errors, where you don’t know the overpotential, the elec- trode potential, and so on. These things are unknown. I mean it’s really tough and that’s why I don’t put any stock at all -- you can redraw those curves anyway that you want. I don’t think that data is worth anything. Now you may be able to find something in it. I did the experiment; I don’t think it’s physics. Mallove: But what I’ve seen, because I certainly see it from Douglas Morrison [of CERN] and I see it from people like Frank Close and others, that your prestigious laboratory with its excel- lent resources is being used in some respect as a standard which everyone else is supposed to adhere to. My own personal feel- ing is that those who have continued beyond May of 1989 to do experiments, have gotten some very significant results that this laboratory and other laboratories at MIT ought to take a look at again, and that’s the only thing that will ultimately clear this up. I don’t agree that passion and PR and so forth should solve this: I think experiment should, but they are not being done here. Frank Close: Can I say something? It’s one o’clock and we’ve got to go to a luncheon. [inaudible] I think that what Ron just said about moving data points and [inaudible]. Whether this turns out in the long run to be right or wrong is a completely separate issue as against what happened at the time. This really addresses the question of what you were saying to the students. One cannot do science and start just dropping data points because it was conve- nient for you, changing curves around because you wanted to prove something. If you do, and you’re caught out, that’s how it is and I could not rightly suppress information once it had come my way. If scientists try to hide the fact when they discover that things are being done in the name of science malevolently, then science is going to suffer for it. And if then people who come out and whistle blow get attacked for it, it’s even more disturbing. We saw what happened over many years with the David Balti- more case and how long it did take for that to come out. I don’t think that those sort of things will give science a very good name, if we didn’t address them when they came up. Petrasso: Thank you very much for coming today. Exhibit K Question and Answer Session for Frank Close's talk at MIT Plasma Fusion Center (“Too Hot to Handle: An Exposé on Cold Fusion”), Friday June 7, 1991. (Final interchange, in which the PFC Director Ronald Parker was introduced by Richard Petrasso) Transcription by Eugene F. Mallove. Bold type sections are of particular interest (bold added by E. Mallove). MIT PFC Promotional Brochure

--- Page 31 ---

31 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report and his group. In one calorimetry experiment a Pons-Fleischmann electrochemical cell was filled with heavy water and a control cell with ordinary water. The power curves generated were published in the Journal of Fusion Energy and came out looking essentially the same, apparently indicating that the heavy-water cell had not pro- duced excess heat as might have been expected if a fusion process were going on. Mallove says that the heavy-water curve was shift- ed by the experimenters to make it look the same as the ordinary water curve but that actually the heavy-water cell experiment did show excess heat. Parker’s explanation is that the shift was made in accordance with conventional data treatment. All this came at time when MIT was still reeling from the Balti- more-Imanishi-Margot O'Toole furor. Perhaps that is why Mallove's resignation drew only mixed attention from the media. The Boston Herald , UPl, the Chronicle of Higher Education , and the Christian Science Monitor thought it newsworthy, but The New York Times , Science magazine, and Nature , which would normally have covered or at least noted such a dramatic form of professional self- immolation in academia, were notably silent. Interestingly the Wall Street Journal , which in July reported a series of new cold fusion findings (or “sightings of the dead” as the physicists regard them), failed to mention Mallove's whistle-blowing departure from MIT. The MIT administration also did not respond, although Professor Parker said he thought the affair ridiculous and dismissed the alleged new evidence of cold fusion as no evidence at all. Mallove then accepted an invitation from National Public Radio to air the controversy over WBUR in Boston. The broadcast of 9 August 1991 led off with: “A crisis of confidence in Boston's lead- ing research institution . . .MIT scientists are now being charged with manipulating the media and altering data in an attempt to shoot down the work of the Utah scientists.” Then Mallove's voice cut in: “What went on behind closed doors at my alma mater is so upsetting that I will not rest until the whole mat- ter is given thorough airing. We have a major big science program, hot fusion, which is literally trying to squash cold fusion.” In late August, Mallove pressed Parker and his group for their lab notebooks to allow for an independent check of the calorimetry work in 1989. So far, he says, only an item or two has turned up. Parker insists that it isn’t worth the effort to have an assistant gen- erate all the lab data involved. While Mallove interprets this as bad faith, the prevailing view at MIT is that rather than fraud the sci- entists involved may have conducted poor science that they would not like to expose. Mallove has now escalated the furor once again by dispatching a registered letter to Mary Rowe, assistant to the president of MIT, requesting a formal inquiry into the misconduct charges. This time Nature did report the incident as a cold-fusion tempest at MIT. Much of the betting is that a formal inquiry is unlikely to take place, main- ly because it would be hard to prove malicious intent, and even if the data had been improperly handled at a time of high tension at MIT, it would mark only a minor footnote to the now largely discredited work of Pons and Fleischmann. Is there life beyond the MIT News Office for Mallove? Appar- ently yes. At 44 he intends to retain his post as a lecturer in science journalism in the humanities department at MIT and he enjoys the thought of no longer daily commuting 60 miles to Cambridge from his home in Bow, New Hampshire. He has a dozen book proposals making the rounds of publishing houses and if none of them works out, he could return, he says, to an early love—the entrepreneurial life. In the 1980s he produced astronomical materials such as sky maps for museums and consulted with aerospace manufacturers like Hughes on the potential of innovative space propulsion sys- tems. At the moment he has no special plans for cold fusion except to write a sequel to his book—assuming, of course, that there is also a sequel to cold fusion. ✍✍✍ Fall 1991 (NASW’s)* Newsletter (“SW”) SCIENCE WRITER QUITS MIT NEWS OFFICE, CITES COLD-FUSION DISPUTE by Lee Edson (Reprinted with permission from NASW). (Freelance writer living in Stamford, CT) “I am convinced at greater than 99% confi- dence level that cold fusion is real—both the nuclear emanations that have been reported and the excess enthalpy that seems to emerge from various experiments.” Thus did Eugene Mallove, chief science writer of the MIT News Office, write to MIT President Charles Vest in April 1991. After detailing new, and as he put it, astounding findings in Russia and India, he decried the lack of experimental work on cold fusion at MIT “after the initial but intense period of experimental assessment in the spring of 1989.” Mallove based his expertise in large part on his research for Fire from Ice , an optimistic book on cold fusion published in July by John Wiley & Sons. He also holds a B.S. and M.S. in astronautical engi- neering from MIT, a Sc.D. in environmental health sciences from Har- vard, and has authored several other scientific books. Urging the MIT president to set up a panel to investigate the sta- tus of research on cold fusion, Mallove went on to say, “I do not feel that MlT's interests are best served any longer by unwarranted ignoring of the mounting experimental evidence for cold fusion. It seems to me essential that members of the MIT community reassess experimental findings that are coming from both foreign and domestic laboratories. To do any less would be an abdication of sci- entific responsibility, not to mention a longer range injury to the reputation of MIT. . .” By June, Mallove had not heard from MIT and was convinced that the scientific community had closed its mind to cold fusion as a real phenomenon, even if not promising as a source of endless cheap ener- gy. Frustrated and feeling uncomfortable about continuing his role as a spokesman for MIT, NASWer Mallove quit his job in the News Office, announcing his resignation at a public meeting, and submitted a 17-page “J’Accuse” letter to his alma mater. The litany of charges expanded on his earlier note to the president. He accused the univer- sity of publishing fudged experimental findings to support MlT’s early condemnation of the work of Pons and Fleischmann—a condemnation he charged that helped propel the nation's negative tone toward the Utah scientists. Mallove went on to blast MIT Professor Ronald Parker, head of the Plasma Fusion Center, for “using” him and the press of– fice in publishing a false press release. In that release Parker had denied that he had ever called Pons and Fleischmann frauds as reported by Nick Tate in the Boston Herald . Tate later produced transcripts that showed Parker had indeed used the expression “fraud” on several occasions, and in a classic riposte Parker said that he didn’t mean it in connection with the controversial cold fusion findings. Mallove also charged that the university was seeking to censor his writings by killing a 9,000-word article that he had written for the MIT magazine, Technology Review , explaining his views on cold fusion. He claimed the article had been accepted after revision but was later turned down because of the negative comments of reviewers, especially by an MIT physicist who was violently anti- cold fusion. (In a subsequent telephone interview Jonathan Schle- fer, the former managing editor of Technology Review, who told me he was responsible for rejecting the article, firmly denied Mallove’s allegations, saying that his article was too one-sided and not up to snuff.)[Ed. Note: This reconstruction by Schlefer is utterly false— EFM]. Nevertheless, Mallove was paid the full price of $1,000 for the article. The core of the scientific misconduct alleged by Mallove has to do with calorimetry experiments performed by Professor Parker Photo by E. Mallove

--- Page 32 ---

32 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report My letter of resignation form the MIT News Office was submit- ted June 7, 1989, two days before my 42nd birthday. It details the constellation of concerns about unethical press manipula- tion and data manipulation that was the central fact of the MIT PFC’s response to cold fusion.—EFM Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D., Engineering Lecturer in Science Journalism, Department of Humanities Massachusetts Institute of Technology June 7, 1991 Kenneth Campbell, Director and Robert DiIorio, Associate Director MIT News Office, MIT Room 5-111 Dear Ken and Bob: The time has come to formalize what I have been alluding to these past few weeks. Regrettably, I must tell you that I intend to leave the MIT News Office within this year as soon as I am able to obtain employment elsewhere. Circumstances sur- rounding the cold fusion controversy and the unfortunate way it has been dealt with at MIT leave me no choice. Furthermore, the appearance of Fire from Ice , has already prompted insulting attacks by those negativists—on and off campus—who think that they have a monopoly on scientific wisdom in this area. I feel increasingly uncomfortable being the ex-officio represen- tative of the tragic and indefensible abrogation of academic stan- dards that has occurred at MIT in this matter. The latter charac- terization will prompt raised eyebrows, I’m sure, given that in the (erroneous) popular view it is cold fusion researchers who are the exclusive violators of such standards. But this amazement will merely be another manifestation of arrogance toward and misin- formation about cold fusion research. Please excuse the length of this letter, which is of the nature of a report, albeit not a compre- hensive one, on the treatment of cold fusion at the Institute. This is a serious matter, not some esoteric quibbling about a peripheral exotic question. The sooner the MIT administration understands this and acts upon it, the better it will be for this cherished place of great dreams, visions, and deeds. I am proud to be an alumnus of MIT, but I am outraged, embarrassed, and amazed at what has happened here. Of course there may well be an open-minded attitude toward cold fusion among a large “silent majority” of students and faculty here. I hope that my book will be able to inform those at the Institute who still are curious about cold fusion. The most visible MIT response to cold fusion so far, however, has been an appalling arrogance and intolerance, combined with actions that have significantly hindered understanding of the phenomenon here and else- where. The consequences for MIT could well be devastating when the last “i” is dotted and the last “t” crossed toward proof that cold fusion phenomena exist. The shield that falsely pro- tects the Institute now is the milieu of skepticism that surrounds cold fusion in certain prominent publications and societies, but that skepticism is doomed to collapse like a house of cards. It is only a matter of time, and it may be sooner than many believe. Ironically, this is a false shield of skepticism run amok that some researchers within MIT have labored mightily to help build. Frankly, the direct evidence for nuclear effects in many cold fusion experiments is already overwhelming. If and when— more likely I would say, when—the measurement of real excess power production is resolved and proved to come from hereto- fore unknown nuclear processes, the MIT response to cold fusion will be judged most severely; and that negative assess- ment will be completely correct unless an immediate and dra- matic change of course occurs. If cold fusion ultimately proves to be a utilitarian power source, it will be very difficult for MIT to recover its credibility. Some of my intolerant critics will probably hasten to suggest that it is I who will suffer the consequences of a too credulous view of cold fusion. On the contrary, I will never be embarrassed by my views, first because they have been honestly reached; I started with deep skepticism, went back and forth from belief to disbelief many times, and arrived at what is to me an inescapable conclusion. Second, even were I to be proved wrong—an unlike- ly event—I have taken great pains to spell out precisely the required circumstances for the collapse of the multiple channels of experimental evidence that would have to occur to prove that cold fusion is an illusion. If that unbelievable circumstance should arise, so be it, but I wouldn’t recommend waiting for it. I know that there are many other dimensions of my job in the News Office that present no apparent conflict. By right, there should have been no conflict in the matter of cold fusion either —even though I have written a book on the subject that takes a contrary view to widely held skeptical opinions. After all, isn’t diversity in scientific viewpoint supposed to be the driver of progress at a great research university? And I do have scientific and engineering training and experience, and am presently a Lecturer in Science Journalism in the Department of Humani- ties. These credentials certainly qualify me to discuss this sub- ject as a peer of those who decry it. But cold fusion is no ordi- nary topic. Regrettably, it has not been possible to discuss it here as one would, for example, relativistic space travel or “child universes”—concepts that are hardly “accepted,” but which apparently do not cause the visceral reaction to their mere men- tion that cold fusion does. As Dr. James McBreen of Brookhaven National Laboratory has said, “A lot of people undergo personality changes when discussing this topic.” Indifference, Intolerance, Ridicule, Censorship On 12 April [1991] I wrote to President Vest about cold fusion, and sent a copy of the letter to former MIT president Gray (see attached). The letter was a summary of where I thought matters stood now in the field, including the reports of the recently announced Soviet work and the well-known Japanese involve- ment. I asked that Dr. Vest consider appointing a panel to assess the field in light of many new developments. I presume he has taken the matter under advisement, but I find it distressing that no hint of a response has come on this earnest appeal. I know that our chief executive is very busy, but this is an important matter. It would not surprise me at all, though, if that letter were being disparaged by high-level negativists here who are legion. Much more disturbing is the stark reality that since the spring of 1989, no experimental work on cold fusion has occurred at MIT, an indisputable message of indifference. Thus we have the institutional response, in effect, “It’s dead.” One of the world’s greatest scientific institutions has not actively participated in its splendid laboratories in getting to the bottom of a possible new scientific phenomenon. Incidentally, even if “cold fusion” were not to be a revolutionary nuclear process, there is broad agree- ment even among skeptics that some unusual thermal effects have been seen in palladium-platinum heavy water cells. So where is the scientific curiosity among our resident skeptics to put that final nail in the excess power issue by doing experi- ments to discover what is causing these effects—possibly inter- esting and useful in their own right even if not nuclear? Are our Exhibit L Dr. Mallove’s Resignation Letter from the MIT News Office June 7, 1991

--- Page 33 ---