33 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report resident skeptics waiting for government funding? No, they don’t really want to be bothered with this research. Even if they were inspired to do it, they wouldn’t get the money, of course. The skeptics who influence and control DoE’s purse strings have made sure of that. What follows is the untenable and unscientif- ic position of DOE, as stated by Secretary of Energy Admiral James Watkins in a recent speech (May 6, 1991). This attitude came about not of course exclusively from, but in no small way through the efforts of influential members of the MIT community: “Remember cold fusion? Front page news for weeks on end. Will it work or won’t it? Is it the key to our energy freedom, or a hyped-up hoax? In the end, it was neither. Just bad sci- ence. But how was the public to form an opinion when the scientific community itself and the reporters who covered the story were unable to persuasively lay out the scientific merits of the issue.” “But there was damage done here too. Two members of the scientific community made everyone in white lab coats look fraudulent. Congress held hearings and railed against my agency and others for not pouring millions into cold fusion, in the process shedding no light on the real underlying issues of energy production and use. And at the same time, they cut my department’s budget for real fusion energy by $50 million.” I am aware of some relatively quiet cold fusion work done by staff members of MIT, that was conducted discretely off campus. There were also a few efforts carried out at Lincoln Laborato- ry. Some anomalies were seen, and interest there thankfully has not died completely. [Ed. Note: Definite excess energy later was observed at Lincoln Labs, but the results have been withheld from the public.—EFM] But there has been no other significant experimental work, as far as I am aware. This is disappointing, but not surprising. Professor Ronald R. Parker, one of the two professors who led the limited MIT cold fusion experimental effort from late March to late May, was quoted in his letter to author Robin Herman ( Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy , 1990). Her book has a concluding chapter mock- ing cold fusion in which Professor Parker is quoted. “Unfortunately, a lot of time and effort has been wasted due to this blunder.” I was amazed to discover that when this statement was made (May 11, 1989), the experi- ments to explore cold fusion at MIT had not even been completed. Though there has been no laborato- ry work since the spring of 1989, cold fusion has been the butt of jokes and the focus of merriment at MIT. At the Plasma Fusion Center in the summer of 1989, a “Wake for Cold Fusion” party was held. One of the MIT reviewers for a major publication [ Nature ] that has blocked numerous attempts by researchers with positive cold fusion results to publish them, once was known in this area by an editor of that publication as, “Rambo.” [This was Dr. Richard Petrasso of the MIT PFC] The head of the Physics Department [Prof. Robert Birgeneau] remarked with humor and pride in the summer of 1989 depart- ment newsletter, “I should like to note, however, that none of our faculty contributed to the confusion surrounding ‘cold fusion.’” There have been other remarkable comments. “Garbage” was how one MIT physics professor [Prof. Martin Deutsch] bluntly characterized cold fusion work to a prominent science magazine [ Science News ] in 1989. One of the researchers who was on the Plasma Fusion Center/Chemistry Department team evaluating cold fusion [Prof. Ronald Ballinger] told me five months ago that he thought Pons and Fleischmann were “crooks who should be put in jail.” Another team member, Dr. Richard Petrasso, was quoted recently on the front page of the New York Times (March 17): “I was convinced for a while it was absolute fraud. Now I’ve softened. They [Pons and Fleis- chmann] probably believed in what they were doing. But how they represented it was a clear violation of how science should be done.” Apparently another skeptical physicist could not sanction that severe charge. In a letter to the New York Times printed April 9, 1991, Yale physicist Robert Kemp Adair wrote: “Last November, I served on a a committee that met with Dr. Pons in a review of the National Cold Fusion Institute at the University of Utah. Though I concluded that he and Dr. Fleis- chmann had seen no cold fusion, I am confident they reported no invented data and committed no egregious breach of scien- tific ethics.” Unfortunately, the insinuation of fraud applied to these researchers was given early impetus here. Recently, the attacks took an uglier turn both from within and from outside MIT. Physicists Dr. Frederick Mayer and Dr. John Reitz of Ann Arbor, Michigan—both with distinguished scien- tific careers—were invited to MIT by Professors Peter Hagel- stein and Lawrence Lidsky—to conduct a scientific seminar about their theory of “cold fusion” that appeared in their “Nuclear Energy Release in Metals” paper, which has been pub- lished in Fusion Technology . The seminar was advertised in the usual channels on campus. To my knowledge, since the affair began it was the first technical seminar on cold fusion open to the general public at MIT that actually cast the phenomenon in a positive light. The presentation was informative and was con- ducted with dignity. I was proud to have helped facilitate this meeting—a worthy effort, I thought, to clear the air on the topic. In advance, Dr. Mayer had expressed a fear that he would be scurrilously attacked, as opposed to being challenged with rea- soned arguments—as he hoped he would be. Since Dr. Mayer is an acquaintance of President Vest (their sons are friends too, and Dr. Mayer was at one time a soccer coach of President Vest’s son’s team), that would have been especially offensive. Fortunately, Dr. Mayer was not attacked at the seminar because those most likely to offend didn’t show up; the critics held their fire until afterwards. Apparently Dr. Robert L. Park of the American Physical Society’s Washington office took offense not only at the theory presented by these scientists, but at their press conference in the Boston Sheraton Hotel the day after the seminar at MIT. (Only three members of the media attended.) Park, who has mocked cold fusion from the beginning, much as his weekly electronic mail column, “What’s New,” ridicules those who study the possible effects of low frequency electro- magnetic fields on biological systems, was also upset that I had provided nominal assistance (on my own time) for the Reitz- Mayer press conference. Sec. of Energy Admiral Watkins Robert Birgeneau

--- Page 34 ---

34 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report What was the nature of this aid? It was merely to fax a news release (which they had prepared) and their technical paper to a handful of media outlets; I also made a few phone calls, and was contacted by people who had heard about the press con- ference, including Park’s secretary. That’s how he was informed to write his diatribes. My news judgement then and now was that the seminar at MIT reflected well on the Institute; it showed that we are at least nominally in the business of openly dis- cussing even controversial scientific matters. Also, by facilitat- ing news stories that reporters apparently found interesting (such as William Broad of the New York Times ), the News Office maintained its deserved reputation as a useful information out- let. I would make that same judgement again about any other topic. Occasionally some interesting figure from outside MIT arrives to make a controversial statement, e.g. scientist Dr. James Lovelock (the Gaia hypothesis), and our office doesn’t hesitate to “promote” them to the press. As a result of these highly appropriate scientific events, these are the “gifts” we received from Park. They came in two suc- cessive weeks of his widely circulated column, which is signed “Robert L. Park, The American Physical Society,” giving the impression that his is an official Society view, even though it is not. Not once did Park mention the scientific seminar at MIT. He preferred what he evidently considered to be the pejorative “press conference.” Here is the 1st message: “INCREDIBLE COINCIDENCE: SIMULTANEOUS BOSTON PRESS CONFERENCE! At the very instant that Mills was revealing his startling new find- ings in Lancaster, two-well known physicists, Fred Mayer and John Reitz, were in Boston announcing their new cold fusion theory, with the help of the MIT press office. Their paper, which will also be published by Fusion Technology , involves—are you ready?—tiny hydrogen atoms! Except they call them ‘hydrons’ and attribute them to ‘continuum bound state resonances.’ Mayer expects prototype power generating systems in about five years. Neither Mayer or Reitz is associ- ated in any way with MIT. How then did the MIT press office get involved? Very good question?” (April 26, 1991) Professor Ronald R. Parker of the PFC chose not to bring this piece of slander and omission directly to my attention. Evidently he agreed with its tenor and was stirred up about the Mayer-Reitz press conference. Instead, he faxed a copy of it to someone in the MIT News Office, who has little famil- iarity with the scientific issues of cold fusion and with whom you know I have had clashes. In the Washington Post on Friday 26 April, Park made this state- ment about Mayer after describing his theory as “wacky”: “There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the two scientists involved, who are respected and well known as science managers [note the put-down “managers”—the two are practicing physicists!] But there are also sincere scientists who believe in psychokinesis, fly- ing saucers, creationism, and the Chicago Cubs.” Continuing his coordinated attack, Park made this insulting statement to the Chronicle of Higher Education--his assessment of the Mayer-Reitz theory: “It is proof again that a degree in sci- ence is not an inoculation against foolishness and mendacity. It’s just got to be wrong.” The following week, Park attacked me in his column again, this time directly: “MIT FUSION FLAKE FLACKS NEW BOOK! TINY LIT- TLE HYDROGEN ATOMS called ‘hydrons,’ explain cold fusion, according to two Ann Arbor physicists who held a press conference in Boston last week. Why was the press con- ference in Boston—and why was the MIT press office help- ing? The answer seems to be that an MIT science writer is pro- moting his new book, which contends that the evidence for cold fusion is persuasive. He predicts that in the history of sci- ence Pons and Fleischmann will be viewed as heroes.” The major falsehood of this nearly libelous statement: at no time during the Mayer-Reitz visit to Cambridge-Boston was Fire from Ice mentioned publicly, in any context. What a stupid way for me to “flack” a book! Park comes closer than anyone I know to wearing well the term: “scientific bigot.” It was he who in March 1990 described the First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion in Salt Lake City as a “seance of true believers”—with- out having attended the meeting or learned what went on. Now, despite their outrageous intent to defame and ridicule, one could dismiss the mouthings and electronic missiles of Robert Park as the pathetic prejudice of an aging physicist, who may fear that his world view is crumbling—as the history of sci- ence has shown happens time and again. Perhaps all wisdom does not reside in the APS, Park may be thinking. However, it is unfortunately not so easy to dismiss the outright censorship of one’s writings, particularly when that censorship is influenced by another physicist, this one at MIT. Over many months I had prepared a lengthy (9,000 word) feature article on cold fusion that was to appear in Technology Review at the end of this summer. The piece recounted the essen- tials of the cold fusion story (see attached draft), by presenting the arguments on both sides, though it did come to the general conclusion that cold fusion might well be real, given the accu- mulating evidence. My article had passed through a major revi- sion cycle, in which I had carefully adhered to the wishes of edi- tor Jonathan Schlefer. In mid to late April the word came back from Jonathan that the revision seemed to be fine—not to worry. Someone else within Technology Review even told me it was being considered as a cover story. It was considered that good. Imagine my shock on May 9, when I received a call from Schlefer telling me that the article was not going to be pub- lished. He offered no suggestion of any changes that could make it acceptable— the usual option when an editor has some new problem with a piece, particularly after he has professed to find it basically satisfactory. Schlefer told me that it had been sent out for review to three technical people, each of whom allegedly had some problems with it, though these problems were not clearly indicated nor were they discussed. There was a blanket statement that each reviewer had found the piece too positive. Further investigation on my part determined that, except in one case, this was far from true. A senior and respected MIT physicist seems to have been mainly responsible for scuttling the article [Prof. Herman Fesh- bach]. I called to ask him what he had found objectionable. Despite my distress that the article would not appear in Technol- ogy Review , throughout the telephone conversation I was calm and polite. His evident anger increased through the call. He began by saying that fundamentally my article was “not a piece Dr. Robert L. Park Dr. Fred Mayer

--- Page 35 ---

35 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report of journalism.” He described it as more of an “advocacy piece.” This assessment struck me as very pecu- liar for three reasons: 1.) I had delib- erately balanced both sides of the controversy as closely as possible, even as I interjected my own view by suggesting that it was difficult to explain away all the phenomena— that some unexplained cold fusion phenomena seemed truly spectacu- lar; 2.) Technology Review is a forum for advocacy—sometimes not even advocacy with which many readers will identify. Many if not most pieces in Technology Review are advocacy pieces, some quite markedly so—like the cover story that suggested that the U.S. used atomic bombs against Japan to demonstrate a threat against the Soviet Union; like the recent cover that all but ratified the threat of global warming (even though the question is still being debated); or like the most recent cover story that suggests that the motivating force for the war in the Gulf was the Pentagon’s need to check out a new mil- itary paradigm; 3.) Finally, it became completely clear in the remaining conversation that an advocacy piece against cold fusion would very much have pleased this professor. I was astounded that this professor had not learned that argu- ments “from authority” don’t hold water. He ridiculed me citing “that Bulgarian chemist.” He did not use the chemist’s name; it happens to be Dr. Vesco Noninski, a multi-talented electro- chemist from Bulgaria who is fluent in many languages and who is visiting the United States. Noninski, apart from his having car- ried out in Bulgaria very novel heat measuring experiments on cold fusion—ones that demonstrated excess power—has pub- lished and prepared very interesting analyses of the MIT and Caltech cold fusion calorimetry experiments. These indicate the possibility that these teams may have measured excess power, but didn’t realize it because of improper analysis of their own data. These analyses are very convincing. They don’t prove, of course, that cold fusion is real, but they do indicate that not all negative result experiments may be truly null. Furthermore, Noninski is far from an “advocate” of cold fusion. He maintains that he does not know what the phenomenon is, but insists that careful calorimetric (heat measuring) analyses must be carried out even to begin to discuss “cold fusion.” He has considered the error source aspects of cold fusion calorimetry more than anyone I have encountered in the field. So what did our physicist non-calorimetry expert say about Noninski? He challenged me angrily, “You would trust this Bul- garian chemist over what Mark Wrighton said [about cold fusion]?” I didn’t answer him on that point, but yes, I would, because Noninski has put far more time into the problem (see account below). The physicist was not saying “Dr. Noninski”; I kept hearing “this Bulgarian.” And MIT is supposed to stand for cultural diversity? This is incredible! I could hardly believe what I was hearing from this man whom I had admired and respected. McBreen of Brookhaven was right! The physicist [Feshbach] told me that he had “50 years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what’s possible and what’s not.” I brought up several other names of physicists who had initially been skeptical of cold fusion, but who had done experiments of their own that had convinced them something was going on. One was at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Dr. Howard Menlove. Almost before I could get a researcher’s name out of my mouth, I was cut off by an angry objection from the physicist, generally of the character, “I don’t know who he is!” Finally, I tried to suggest that it might be a good idea if my critic examined a recent technical review of the entire cold fusion field that has been prepared by physicist Dr. M. Srini- vasan of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center, one of India’s pre- mier nuclear facilities. Srinivasan is the head of BARC’s Neu- tron Physics Division, but the physicist would hear no more about him. He was getting too angry to stay on the line much longer. He blurted out, “I don’t want to see any more evidence! I think it’s a bunch of junk and I don’t want to have anything further to do with it.” With that, the conversation ended. This arrogance is so offensive that it can hardly be suffered, and it need not be. That is one of the reasons I’m leaving the News Office. I’m profoundly embarrassed that we have such close-mindedness here on scientific issues. I cannot represent such attitudes even in an ex-officio capacity. Furthermore, I intend to attack them, not only after I leave this office, but in my remaining time here. An Unfortunate News Release MIT always speaks the truth in press releases emanating from the News Office, right? Wrong—not always, sorry to say. On May 1, 1989, the News Office issued a press release, a copy of which is attached; it was prepared by me in telephone consulta- tion with Professor Ronald Parker of the PFC at his request. The press release was crafted to deny statements that Boston Herald reporter Nick Tate had attributed to Professor Parker, which attacked Pons and Fleischmann in the manner denied in the press release. When I prepared that release, and for more than a year afterward, I believed that the statement that our office had issued was valid, though I had some doubts. I simply trusted what was being asked of me in preparing the release. I trusted too much—another reason for my leaving the News Office. I do not wish to be put in that compromised position again. My own integrity is too important. After having listened to the actual tape of the interview that Nick Tate at long last provided me (in July 1990), I believe that his story’s characterization of what Professor Parker and Pro- fessor Ballinger had said in their conversation with Tate the week before, is substantially correct. It was a well-orchestrated attempt to condemn the work of Pons and Fleischmann, not merely to criticize it technically. In my view, virtually any other competent reporter would have written essentially the same story that Tate wrote. In fact, the partial transcript published by the Herald on May 2, 1989, should have been enough to con- vince me of the soundness of Tate’s story, had I not been told that these remarks were “out of context.” Parker and Ballinger may deny it, but I know what I heard on that tape, which I was deeply disturbed to listen to. I have been wrestling with the knowledge of what it held, and this has been cutting me up inside ever since first hearing it. I have a doctorate in engineering, and I came to my career in science writing at no small sacrifice in compensation, simply because I enjoy writing more and I believed that it would give me greater reach. It definitely has. I also have been proud to rep- resent my alma mater and its fine research, including the many outstanding accomplishments in magnetic confinement fusion at the Plasma Fusion Center. Everyone, including Professor Ballinger and Professor Parker, knows that. I had, and at some level still do have affection for the people at the Plasma Fusion Center. They are personable and they have a good cause, which I am solidly behind—as I spell out clearly in Fire from Ice , even as I strongly believe in the prospect of cold fusion. Hot fusion research has many merits that go far beyond the distant and admirable goal of commercial power reactors, and these may Prof. Herman Feshbach MIT News Office

--- Page 36 ---

36 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report still be necessary; we don’t know enough to say no yet. But I am absolutely outraged to have played a role in this public decep- tion that involved such objectionable language and accusations. I hope that an instance like this never occurs again for any mem- ber of the News Office. I officially withdraw my approval of the MIT news release in response to the Herald story. More important than any feelings I have about being deceived was the effect that the intended disparagement of Pons and Fleischmann’s work had on the future course of cold fusion research. Yes, others would have jumped in anyway to assail Pons and Fleischmann; the chorus might have been equally loud. But sending out the kind of calculated, negative message against Pons and Fleischmann was wrong. To add insult to injury, members of the PFC staff act as though Pons and Fleischmann were the only ones capable of what they claim to be irregularities in research. Unfortunately, their own house is not in such fine order (see below). Further actions were taken by various members of the PFC to assist in discrediting Pons and Fleischmann. In particular, there was clearly significant cooperation with physicist Frank Close, who has written in my view a highly negative and extremely imbalanced account of the cold fusion story—his book, Too Hot to Handle . It focuses on numerous alleged departures in scien- tific ethics on the part of Fleischmann and Pons, while saying virtually nothing about or belittling all subsequent experimen- tal work that provides supporting evidence for cold fusion, e.g. physicist Howard Menlove’s neutron burst detection work at Los Alamos National Laboratory is not discussed. The dedica- tion to Close’s book reads precisely: “To the xxxxx from MIT and the friends and colleagues who shared the spring of 1989.” [The “xxxxx” was Richard Petrasso] Incidentally, Close is uni- formly disparaging of the role of the media in the cold fusion saga, paralleling the attitude of some on the PFC staff (and Park of the APS) who continue to get upset whenever cold fusion is given some credence in the media. When cold fusion is dispar- aged, it’s fine with them. Close shamelessly brings up several times the now thoroughly discredited accusation by another journalist that fraudulent adulteration of experimental cells with radioactive tritium occurred at Texas A&M University. An interesting aside: Close is so reckless in his treatment that he was able to confuse the Boston Globe with the Boston Herald , which confusion is sure to please neither paper. Questions About the MIT Cold Fusion Calorimetry Experiments The MIT Plasma Fusion Center/Chemistry Department experimental contribution to cold fusion research was conduct- ed from late March 1989 through late May 1989. The search for evidence of cold fusion in heavy water cells and comparisons with light water cells included attempts to find various nuclear products, as well as indications of excess power. The final report of the sixteen-member team appeared as Plasma Fusion Center Report, PFC/JA-89-34, dated July, 1989: “Measurement and Analysis of Neutron and Gamma Ray Emission Rates, Other Fusion Products, and Power in Electrochemical Cells Having Pd Cathodes.” The authors are listed as: D. Albagli, 1 R. Ballinger, 2,3 V. Cammarata, 1 X. Chen, R. Crooks, 1 C. Fiore, M. Gaudreau, I. Hwang, 2,3 C.K. Li, P. Linsay, S. Luckhardt, R.R. Parker, R. Petrasso, M. Schloh, 1 K. Wenzel, and M. Wrighton 1 [1 = Dept. of Chemistry, 2 = Department of Nuclear Engineer- ing, and 3 =Department of Materials Science and Engineering]. The abstract to the report concludes, “Within estimated levels of accuracy, no excess power output or any other evidence of fusion products was detected.” Later this report was reprinted in essentially the same form in the Journal of Fusion Energy , June 1990, Vol.9, No.2, pp.133-148. Here I wish to comment not on the nuclear product measure- ments discussed in this report and subsequent paper, but on the power measurements. In fact, one experiment in the series of experimental cells reported in this work is of particular interest, because it is the only case in which graphs of the raw data that form the power measurements are shown. This so-called “Phase-II” calorimeter experiment compared the power pro- duction of a light water control cell and a heavy water cell. The record of the controversy clearly shows that at that time skepti- cal scientists were placing great emphasis on the need to find differences in the power production between light water cells and heavy water cells. The presumption by many at the time and subsequently was that if a heavy water cell produced excess power and a light water cell of identical form did not, then there was more reason to investigate further the possibili- ty that unknown nuclear reactions might be occurring. A Possibly Incorrect Power Analysis Regardless of how the data from this experiment are inter- preted, I am firmly of the opinion, as are many others, that it is not possible to use the latter MIT experiment, or even the more crude series discussed earlier in the PFC paper, to conclusively prove anything one way or another about the reality of cold fusion. It is simply far too limited a check. Some other laborato- ries that have obtained sporadic positive results for excess power have generally spent much more time in their trials and tried a greater series of electrodes, a possible requirement some- times to pick up the anomalous thermal effects. However, there has been a technical analysis of this MIT experiment, which leads me to believe that at least in the heavy water case in the Phase-II experiment, there is evidence of excess power production. The evidence of excess power pro- duction based on this analysis is to appear in a forthcoming issue of Fusion Technology . In that paper, the power density pro- duced in the palladium electrode rises from zero at 20 hours into the test to close to 2 watts per cubic centimeter at 100 hours. The analysis on which this conclusion is based differs from the MIT analysis because that analysis has introduced an adjust- ment to the raw data whose validity remains uncertain. (This adjustment is a subtraction from the raw data of a linear fit to the noisy and declining heater power, with no quantitative assessment as to why this should be done.) In fact, if this adjust- ment is performed, for the reasons suggested in the MIT paper, it is possible to get a null result for the excess power measure- ment in every case. It is surprising that this was done, because in the methodology of the MIT calorimeter, declining heater power should have suggested the presence of an unknown heat source. The explanation in the paper does not seem satisfactory. Without question, more work needs to be done to decide what analysis of the Phase-II experiment is appropriate. Other than that, the result cannot be used to draw any firm conclu- sions about excess power. An Unwarranted Curve Shift There is another aspect of the Phase-II excess power experi- ment that is troubling. Even if the MIT thermal analysis (which sanctions the forementioned subtracting out of the heater power) is presumed to be correct, data provided to me in the summer of 1989 show that there was likely to have been a dif- ference between the heavy water cell and the light water cell; the heavy water water cell seems to be evolving excess power, while the light water cell does not—exactly what many wanted to see at the time as an indication of anomalous nuclear effects. Attached are four figures. The first two are from the pub-

--- Page 37 ---

37 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report lished MIT paper and show the excess power produced by the Phase-II heavy water and light water cells. The raw signal was noisy and was averaged in hour-long intervals to produce the data (black dots) seen in these figures. The results rise and fall above the zero excess power line, and there is nothing that leaps out from this data comparison to suggest that excess power is being produced in the heavy water cell and not in the light water cell. It looks as though both excess power plots are about equally noisy. This data that form these curves was prepared at least as early as July 13, 1989, because I was given a draft article by the PFC that bears that date. [Ed. Note: See page 74.] On the other hand, I also was given the processed but unaver- aged, and hence more noisy, data that went into forming these published curves. These data appear in the two other attached figures. The figures are copies of graphs that appear in another PFC draft report to me on calorimetry, dated July 10, 1989, three days before the draft with the averaged data. The light water graph oscillates above and below the zero excess power line (which I have introduced as a dotted line to make the compari- son more clear), with no obvious bias above or below the zero line. There appear to be cyclic (24 hour?) variations in the pre- sented excess power, but it is not clear what these are from. The heavy water curve by contrast is dominantly above the zero line, indicating the strong possibility of a residual excess power (even though the magnitude of the variation may be below the stated sensitivity, 40 milliwatts). The two curves are simply quite different. There could be something like a few tens of mil- liwatts excess power here, on average, as one PFC researcher agreed there could be. For this 0.1 centimeter diameter elec- trode, 9 cm long, 20 milliwatts would translate to excess power of 0.28 watts per cubic centimeter. So why do we see no evidence of this possible excess power in the graphs that are in the final report and the published paper? The inescapable answer seems to be that the averaged data for the heavy water was moved down an arbitrary amount so that it now has more the appearance of the null result in the case of the light water averaged data. Interestingly, the light water averaged data seem to be consistent in level with the corresponding curve of raw processed data, that is, it has not been moved down. I am planning to prepare an article for Fusion Technology that will address some of these data analysis issues. Lessons The recent turn of events in the David Baltimore-Imanishi Kari-Margot O’Toole affair offers some lessons for MIT on the matter of cold fusion. This is brought home most effectively by Dr. Baltimore’s recent apology to Dr. O’Toole. As quoted in The Tech (May 5, 1991), Baltimore said, “I recognize that I may well have been blinded to the full implications of the mounting evi- dence by an excess of trust, and I have learned from this expe- rience that one must temper trust with a healthy dose of skepti- cism. This entire episode has reminded me of the importance of humility in the face of scientific data.” Clearly many MIT sci- entists who have recklessly attacked honest efforts to come to grips with a possible new phenomenon have lacked “humility in the face of scientific data.” Another pertinent comment was recently made by Professor William F. Schreiber of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Writing on the Baltimore affair in the MIT Faculty Newsletter (April 1991), he said: “A name on a paper implies responsibility for its contents. We certainly ought not to appear as authors of work we have not watched carefully enough to know whether or not it is correct.” Employment Prospects [ Editor’s Note: non-relevant sections of this part of resignation letter omitted for brevity .] . . .Working at the MIT News Office as Chief Science Writer has been a great privilege and an enlarging experience for me. The vistas that have opened up are immense and the talented people and friends I have come to know are many. I wish that the MIT community had been able to react with less acrimony and divi- siveness in the matter of cold fusion. I will not reconsider my decision to leave the News Office unless that situation changes radically, something I do not foresee happening soon. But I am deeply grateful to both of you for having selected me in the sum- mer of 1987 to fill the important role of science writer, and I appreciate that you have always respected my abilities and sought my perspectives. But circumstances dictate a moving on. Whatever may transpire, I hope to stay in touch with you and perhaps even work with you in some new capacity in the future. Science Reporting Suggestions [ Editor’s Note: non-relevant sections of this part of resignation letter omitted for brevity .] . . .Difficult as some of these matters are to hear about, I hope this airing of views has been helpful to you and will lead to ben- eficial changes within MIT. You have been great people to work with. (Even though this letter is being given to you today, it was written in nearly its present form on May 24, 1991). Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove Exhibit M Eugene Mallove’s Formal Request for MIT PFC Raw Data June 14, 1991 Following my resignation from the New Office, I attempted, in vain, to get the data that Prof. Parker had promised me at the public forum on June: To: Professor Ronald Parker, Director Plasma Fusion Center, MIT From: Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Bow, New Hampshire Date: June 14, 1991 Re: Data Required for Further Evaluation of the MIT Cold Fusion Calorimetry Experiment In response to your offer to provide data that I might request concerning the cold fusion calorimetry experiments carried out in the spring of 1989 at the PFC, I would appreciate receiving the following items: (1) The unpublished Phase-II experiment heater power curve for the H 2 O case, corresponding to the D 2 O heater power curve that was published. (2) Copies of all laboratory notebook pages relating to the PFC calorimetry experiments on cold fusion, both Phase-I and Phase-II. (3) An explanation of why the hour-interval-average excess power curve for the case of the D 2 O Phase-II experiment is cen- tered around the zero excess power level, when the processed data (before time- averaging) on Dr. Luckhardt’s memo of July 10, 1989 are almost entirely above the zero excess power line. A memo dated July 13, 1989 is where this apparent change occurs, and that is the graph that was published. (4) An exact data-processing and mathematical description of how the excess heater power curves were arrived at from raw experimental measurements. (5) Calculations, if any, that provide a thermal analysis for heat

--- Page 38 ---

38 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report flow out of the top of the cell, including the glass tubes, etc., which touch the cell solution. My sincere thanks in advance for any information that you might provide on your experiments. Some of my colleagues may be interested in the nuclear products data, but I am con- cerned only with the heat measurements. Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove Exhibit N Eugene Mallove’s Letter to Professor Parker July 30, 1991 The data and notebooks promised and requested were still not forthcoming from Prof. Parker as of July 30, so I sent him a reminder—not really expecting to get satisfaction from this stonewaller. Professor Ronald Parker, Director MIT Plasma Fusion Center, Room NW16-288 Dear Professor Parker: It is surprising and distressing that six weeks after my written request to you and your colleagues for data and information that you publicly promised to provide about the PFC cold fusion experiments, not a single requested item has been sent to me. I hope that you will remedy this situation very soon or at least explain the reasons for the delay. I have attached a copy of the fax to you of 14 June 1991, which lists the needed information. Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove cc: Kenneth Campbell, MIT News Office Exhibit O Prof. Ronald Parker’s Letter to Eugene Mallove August 8, 1991 By a “miraculous coincidence” a letter from Parker arrived by fax at my home on August 8, 1991, the very day before the Broadcast of the August 9, 1991 WBUR radio program by David Baron concerning the cold fusion furor at MIT and my resigna- tion (see Exhibit P). Of course, since Parker had been inter- viewed for this program, he knew it would be broadcast, though he could not know how revealing it would be of his various per- fidies against cold fusion. However, no data—on request since June 14, 1991—accompanied Parker’s fax. This letter is an insult to the intelligence of any scientist who thinks about it. Here we have Parker post-experiment reconstructing the objec- tive of the PFC Phase-II calorimetry so that it coincides with his hoped-for outcome, namely a null result! PLASMA FUSION CENTER MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Ronald R. Parker, Director Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Bow, NH Dear Gene: Regarding the specific information that you requested in your June 14, 1991 fax, I will attempt to respond to your point (3), the same point which you raised after the seminar by Frank Close, and, as I understand it, the same point you raised with Stan Luckhardt who gave you the same answer as I will give you here. As the calorimetry experiments progressed, electrolyte evapo- rated causing a decrease in thermal conductivity of the system to the external world and a concomitant decrease in heater power required to sustain constant temperature. The difference in the two curves corresponds to two different ways of accounting for this systematic baseline drift. In one, the drift was fitted with a somewhat arbitrary linear function, and the data in Figs. 4b and 5b of the 7/10/89 draft was produced after subtraction. In the other, the drift was fitted with a different linear function, this time a least-squares fit, and the data appearing in the final version of the paper were produced. The difference in the two results is an indication of the error intrinsic in the measurement. The implicit assumption was that we were looking for a fast turn-on of the anomalous heat production and so it was legitimate to subtract out a slow baseline drift caused by depletion of the electrolyte. Whether this is a correct assumption is arguable, but in any event the main conclusions stand: We detected no significant difference between H 2 O and D 2 O, and in both cases any excess power would have been less than 79 milliwatts, the level claimed for a similar experiment by the Utah group. Our paper estimates the uncertainty of calorimetry measurement as 40 mW, and so you are free to posit an excess heat less than this level it you wish. As for the other points raised in your fax, I believe that Stan has been extremely forthcoming in discussing them with you, and would be willing to assist you further. However, he has major responsibility for several PFC projects and I cannot allow him to take time away from, them for this purpose. I suggest that you negotiate directly with him to see what arrangements could be made. Sincerely, Ronald R. Parker cc: Ken Campbell, MIT News Office MIT Aero/Astro student Ray Conley, works on his cold fusion project in the Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His patent application was attacked by the USPTO, in part by the citation of the “negative” MIT PFC cold fusion experiment of 1989 (See Infinite Energy , No.11). Photo E. Mallove FUSION and OTHER NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN THE SOLID STATE Volume 2 - Calorimetric Complications [Includes: "LESSONS FROM OPTICAL EXAMINATION OF the PFC Phase-II CALORIMETRIC CURVES"] Edited by Dr. Mitchell Swartz; JET Technology Press (Wellesley, MA) ISBN 1-890550-02-7, March 1999 (60 pages, 8 color figures) $24.95 The book is part of a series. BUT for subscribers of Infinite Energy $19.95 (available~April 99) (shipping/handling $2.00 U.S., $4.00 outside US) Order from: JET Technology P.O. Box 81135 Wellesley Hills, MA 02481

--- Page 39 ---

39 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report In disgust with all that had happened against cold fusion, I resigned from MIT on June 7, 1991. Later that summer, August 9, after I battled with the Plasma Fusion Center to get data that Parker had promised me on June 7 (see Exhibits K, M, and N), science journalist David Baron broadcast over Boston’s Nation- al Public Radio affiliate, WBUR, a program that encapsulated the controversy at MIT up until then.—EFM A crisis of confidence in Boston's leading research insti- tution, details just ahead here on 90.9 WBUR Boston at Boston University. I’m Jordan Weinstein. . . [weather report and lead-in music] Announcer: One of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s top spokesmen on scientific matters has resigned, charging researchers at the school with misconduct. The dispute centers around events of two years ago during the flurry of activity stem- ming from claims of cold fusion by researchers at the University of Utah. 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. In our weekly segment on science and health, WBUR’s David Baron reports: Baron: For almost four years, Gene Mallove represented MIT to the world. As chief science writer for the Institute, Mallove produced press releases and encouraged reporters to write stories about the school. With a bachelors and masters degree from MIT and several books to his credit, Mallove was considered well-qualified for the job. Two months ago, he quit. Mallove: What went on behind closed doors at my alma mater is so upsetting that I will not rest until the whole matter is given thorough airing. Baron: In a seventeen-page resignation letter, Mallove alleged misconduct by scientists at MIT’s Plasma Fusion Center, mis- conduct he says he unearthed while researching a book on cold fusion. MIT’s Plasma Fusion Center receives tens of millions of dollars in federal funds each year to develop an energy source based on hot fusion, the same process that powers the sun. Mallove says the scientists had a vested interest in seeing cold fusion die as quickly as possible. Mallove: We have a major Big Science program, hot fusion, which is literally trying to squash cold fusion. Baron: For most people, the cold fusion story began on March 23, 1989. On that day, two chemists at the University of Utah announced that they had accomplished in a simple table-top experiment what other scientists had failed to do after decades of work. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann said they’d pro- duced sustained power using nuclear fusion—potentially pro- viding a cheap, safe, and nearly inexhaustible source of energy. Scientists worldwide raced to replicate the Utah work. Some laboratories initially reported success, but the excitement soon turned to skepticism when many of those early claims proved incorrect. Then on May 1, 1989, the Boston Herald ran a story on its front page with the banner headline: “MIT Bombshell Knocks Fusion Breakthrough Cold.” The article said that MIT scientists had discovered serious flaws in Pons and Fleis- chmann’s work. Ron Parker, head of MIT’s Plasma Fusion Cen- ter, reportedly accused the Utah scientists of misrepresentation and maybe fraud and called the research “scientific schlock.”The story immediately spread across the country. MIT issued a press release, denying that Parker had made the pub- lished comments. Parker spoke at a news conference that day: Tape of Parker’s remark at 1989 press conference: Let me just say quite clearly for everybody, that I am not, have not, and, uh, really seriously doubt whether I ever will accuse Professors Pons and Fleischmann of fraud. Baron: Parker says he was misquoted. The Herald reporter who wrote the story, Nick Tate, says when he heard that, he was flabbergasted. Tate: Not only were the concerns about possible misinterpretation and fraud and scientific schlock repeated to me more than one time during the course of our interview, but I also had them on tape. Baron: At the time, Tate decided not to release his recording of the interview, but a year later he gave a copy to Gene Mallove at MIT. And this week he gave a copy to WBUR. On five sepa- rate occasions during the taped interview, Parker uses the word “fraud.” At one point he says, quote, “Now it transcends the question of whether they misinterpreted to the question of whether there was deliberate fraud.” Tape of Parker talking in 1989 interview: . . .you know now it transcends I think the question of whether they misinterpreted, to the question of whether there was deliberate fraud. Baron: At another point, Parker says to reporter, Tate, quote, “So what are you going to do with this, Nick? What you’re hear- ing is we think it’s a scam, right?” Tape of Parker talking in 1989 interview: What you’re hear- ing is we think it’s a scam, right? Baron: Elsewhere in the interview Parker indicates he pur- posely did not contact the Boston Globe with his story, because that newspaper was, he said, “leading the cheers for cold fusion.” The way Gene Mallove sees it, Parker and colleague Ron Ballinger, who also took part in the Herald interview, plant- ed the critical story in the Herald to generate widespread nega- tive publicity regarding cold fusion. MIT’s Ron Parker says he stands by his claim that he was misquoted. He points out that the Herald said he accused Pons and Fleischmann of misrepre- sentation. The word he really used was misinterpretation. Parker: I have said that they have published data which was incorrectly interpreted and not real data. Uh, I, have, uh, no way of knowing if they knew at the time or even since that time whether the data was incorrect. Baron: Parker says his comment about a scam was meant to refer not to Pons and Fleischmann’s research, but to their request for $25 million from Congress. And Parker denies he was trying to manipulate news coverage. He says he was merely trying to communicate important findings about the Utah work. Parker: When we had found out that they had made funda- mental mistakes in interpreting their data, we felt certainly an obligation to bring this to the attention of the media at that time. Exhibit P Transcript of WBUR (90.9 FM) Radio Broadcast, Friday, August 9, 1991, 5:50 a.m. and 7:50 a.m., Boston, MA. [WBUR is a National Public Radio affiliate station.] David Baron WBUR Science Broadcaster Boston University Photo Services

--- Page 40 ---

40 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report Baron: But when Gene Mallove resigned from his post at MIT, he said Ron Parker’s unethical behavior went beyond the episode with the Boston Herald . In July of 1989, Parker and his colleagues reported the results of their attempt to replicate Pons and Fleischmann’s work. They claimed they found no evidence of fusion, either in the form of radiation or energy produced. But when Mallove recently found a draft of that final report, he discovered what he considers a significant discrepancy. One of the graphs in the draft report suggests some low level of power was produced, but in the final version, the points on the graph have been moved. Mallove: The data has been shifted down to make it look like there was no net power. Now in my estimation, there was absolutely no justification for this and I do not know why this was moved, nor have I had an answer from them as to why it has been moved. Baron: Mallove suspects the data was moved because the sci- entists didn’t want to provide any positive evidence for cold fusion supporters. But Ron Parker says it was unclear exactly where to put the data points on the graph and in the final report he used a more sophisticated method for determining their placement. Besides, he adds, the level of power hinted at in the earlier graph falls within the experiment’s margin of error. That is, says Parker, it’s effectively zero. Parker: It’s as simple as that and that’s the end of the story on it. Baron: But Gene Mallove hasn’t let the story end there. He has continued to press Parker and his colleagues for their lab note- books to check their work. Parker has declined to turn them over, saying to collect all the relevant papers would be time con- suming and not worth the effort. One MIT faculty member familiar with but not involved in the dispute said he thinks Mallove’s claims have a germ of truth to them. The professor, who asked not to be identified, said scientists at the Plasma Fusion Center didn’t keep a very open mind to the claims of cold fusion. The faculty member said he doesn’t think anyone was guilty of deliberate misconduct, though they may have conducted bad science. MIT’s administration has so far stayed out of this cold fusion controversy. Gene Mallove hasn’t pushed for any formal inquiry, and the Institute’s Provost, Mark Wrighton, says he doesn’t see anything worth investigating. Observers say even if MIT scientists were guilty of misconduct, it’s unlikely their actions changed the course of history. By the late spring of 1989, scientists across the country were coming to the same conclusion—that the Utah work was seriously flawed. And while intriguing claims of cold fusion continue to be reported at laboratories around the world, the field has had a hard time regaining its credibility. For WBUR, I’m David Baron. Exhibit Q Prof. Ronald Parker’s Letter to Eugene Mallove August 13, 1991 After the WBUR radio program, another fax arrived from Prof. Parker, this one having some but not all the requested data appended to it. And, he was asking me not to disseminate data that had been generated during a Federally funded research project! Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Bow, NH Dear Gene: At my request, Stan Luckhardt dug out the data you request- ed concerning the heater power for the H 2 O cell in the Phase-II calorimetry measurements. For convenience in comparing with D 2 O, he plotted the corresponding D 2 O result on the same scale. The two graphs that he produced accompany this letter. Since these data are unpublished, they are provided only for your information and should not be reproduced or disseminat- ed without our permission. Sincerely, Ronald R. Parker XC: S. Luckhardt, K. Campbell The stonewalling and obstruction of fact-finding about the MIT PFC experiment had been unrelenting. After much deliberation, I made the decision to submit a request for a formal investiga- tion of scientific misconduct.—EFM Dr. Eugene F. Mallove The Writing Program, 14N-316, Department of Humanities Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 August 18, 1989 Dr. Mary P. Rowe Special Assistant to the President, Room 10-213 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Dr. Rowe: I regret to have to bring to your attention a serious matter of possible scientific misconduct, which has to do with the mishan- dling, analysis, and representation of scientific data by a group of researchers at MIT. Much as I did not wish to involve your office in a formal inquiry into this matter, I believe that the circum- stances and evolution of this controversy now demand this action. Specifically, I refer to some key data presented in a technical report of July 1989 done by a team of researchers from the MIT Plasma Fusion Center and their associates in the Department of Chemistry. The report is designated PFC/JA-89-34, “Measure- ment and Analysis of Neutron and Gamma Ray Emission Rates, Other Fusion Products, and Power in Electrochemical Cells Having Pd Cathodes”(Attachment #1). This report was subse- quently published as a paper in the Journal of Fusion Energy , Vol. 9, No. 2, 1990, pp. 133-148 (Attachment #2). The research was supported, the report says, “in part by the United States Depart- ment of Energy contract number DE-AC02-78ET51013.” So I presume that not only MIT guidelines but Federal regulations as to the handling of scientific data govern here. The sixteen authors of the paper are: D. Albagli, 1 R. Ballinger, 2,3 V. Cam- marata, 1 X. Chen, R. Crooks, 1 C. Fiore, M. Gaudreau, I. Hwang, 2,3 C.K. Li, P. Linsay, S. Luckhardt, R.R. Parker, R. Petrasso, M. Schloh, 1 K. Wenzel, and M. Wrighton 1 [1=Dept. of Chemistry, 2=Department of Nuclear Engineering, and 3=Department of Materials Science and Engineering]. As an engineer with a long-standing professional interest in energy systems and in my former role as chief science writer at the MIT News Office, my interest in this paper evolved as the controversy about the claims of cold fusion emerged beginning with the announcement on March 23, 1989 by Professors Fleis- chmann and Pons at the University of Utah. As you know, I am the author of a book, Fire from Ice , about the scientific, political, and media aspect of the cold fusion controversy. My recent res- ignation from the MIT News Office was prompted by my deep concerns about the way prominent members of the MIT faculty have dealt with the subject. However, the issue at hand is not Exhibit R Eugene Mallove's Formal Request for an Investigation of Scientific Misconduct at MIT

--- Page 41 ---