41 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report the truth or falsity of cold fusion claims, nor the issue of the way in which cold fusion has been regarded at MIT generally, but the manner in which a specific piece of scientific research was conducted by one particular group at MIT. Yet the effects on the scientific process to understand a baf- fling new phenomenon cannot be ignored. The MIT work has been widely cited as a keystone in dismissing the claims of Fleischmann and Pons. It also no doubt was one factor in the decision by former Chemistry Department head, Mark S. Wrighton, to sign the DoE Energy Research and Advisory Board report (November, 1989), “Cold Fusion Research,” which most observers would agree eventually ended DoE funding of cold fusion research in the United States. Professor Wrighton was a key author of the MIT research paper. The MIT work in question has to do with calorimetry, the measurement of heat in electrochemical cells that were set up by the MIT research group to test the claims by Professors Pons and Fleischmann to have measured significant excess power in some cells. The part of the paper that is of most concern is the section on calorimetry, not the results of nuclear measurements, although I do believe that the paper’s statement in its final sum- mary with regard to nuclear measurements is completely unfounded: “Importantly, the level of fusion products present is by far a more sensitive indicator of fusion reactions than are the relatively insensitive heat-based measurements which form the foundation of the claim of nuclear fusion as put forth by FPH.” This statement presumed that all the possible nuclear reaction paths and products that might explain cold fusion were known a priori and were measured by the MIT group, clearly a state- ment that an objective scientist investigating a puzzling new phenomenon should not be making. In fact, theoretical and experimental developments have, I believe, totally invalidated those early beliefs by the MIT team. So the nuclear effects part of the paper, while useful and interesting, does not go to the heart of the cold fusion question as it was in 1989: Is there unex- plained excess power in some electrochemical cells run in heavy water and palladium-platinum electrodes? I respectfully ask you to initiate an immediate inquiry to determine whether a thorough investigation of the specific con- cerns that I have enumerated below is warranted. I believe that these concerns are certainly of sufficient magnitude to justify an investigation consistent with the Policies and Procedures guide for MIT faculty and staff. Those who are co-authors of the paper, including Professor Wrighton, should, of course, dis- qualify themselves from participating in the inquiry and subse- quent investigation. I also request that Dean of Science Profes- sor Robert Birgeneau not be involved in any inquiry and possi- ble subsequent investigation, due to his well known negative view of cold fusion research. The objectives of the investigation should be three-fold: (1) To determine whether there was misconduct in the handling and representation of the data to other scientists and to the public; (2) To determine whether there was misconduct and/or suffi- ciently egregious errors in the work to warrant the paper’s retraction or significant amendment; and (3) To determine whether two of the paper’s authors, Professor Ronald R. Parker and Associate Professor Ronald Ballinger, engaged in unethical behavior in orchestrating a public attack on the motives of researchers whose work they hoped to prove incorrect -- in part with the forementioned research paper. Further, to determine whether Professor Parker subsequently engaged in unethical behavior in deceiving the scientific community, the MIT News Office, and former MIT President Paul Gray about the nature of his actions. Specific Concerns Enumerated The MIT Plasma Fusion Center/Chemistry Department experimental contribution to cold fusion research was conducted 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. One experiment in the series of experimental cells reported in this work is of particular interest, because it is the only case in which some of the graphs of the raw data that form the power measurements are shown. This so-called “Phase II” calorimeter experiment compared the power production of a light water control cell and a heavy water cell. The record of the controversy clearly shows that at that time scientists were placing great emphasis on the need to find differences in the power production between light water cells and heavy water cells. Numerous statements by a variety of scientists at the time—on both sides of the controversy—attest to this, and these statements could read- ily be assembled if necessary. The presumption by many at the time and subsequently was that if a heavy water cell produced excess power and BREAKING SYMMETRY Cold Fusion Movie Imitates Life. . . “COMING TO A THEATER NEAR YOU” Written, Produced, and Directed by former MIT Professor Keith Johnson (Dept. of Materials Science) [Excerpts from a Synopsis by Writer, Producer, and Director Keith Johnson] Carolyn, late twenties, a recent Ph.D. in Astrophysics from Cal. Tech., where she developed a theory of “cosmic dark mat- ter,” arrives at a renowned Boston area Technical Institute to fill an Assistant Professor physics faculty position. There she meets her supervisor, Professor Klinger, a pompous physicist who heads up the Fusion Energy Lab devoted to harnessing the nuclear energy of the sun. Carolyn is told she is replacing another woman, Yvonne, who was denied tenure, and (under threat of future tenure denial) is discouraged by Klinger from continuing her own work on dark matter. While moving into her apartment, Carolyn meets Steven, a consultant chemist, and the chemistry between them begins. Steven tells Carolyn he knew Yvonne because of his academic interest in Yvonne's controversial Institute research on “cold fusion,” a cheap, environmentally safe way of generating ener- gy from water. Steven informs Carolyn that Yvonne was denied tenure because her work on cold fusion threatened Klinger's costly “hot” fusion empire. . . . . .The film reaches an explosive conclusion at a rehearsal for Carolyn’s physics convention lecture. There we learn the shocking truths about. . .Klinger's role in suppressing cold fusion, and last but not least, the connection of the cold fusion energy to cosmic dark matter.

--- Page 42 ---

42 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report a light water cell of identical form did not, then there would be motiva- tion to investigate further the possibility that unknown nuclear reac- tions might be occurring—particularly if the magnitude of the integrat- ed release of energy were to exceed the energy from any conceivable chemical reactions in the cell. 1. Shift of Intermediate Processed Data, Perhaps to Suppress Evidence of Possible Excess Power This is one of the most troubling aspects of the Phase-II excess power experiments. Even if the processing of the raw data for this experiment were presumed to be correct, which I doubt to be the case (see subse- quent listed concerns), data provided to me in the summer of 1989 by members of the MIT research team show that there was likely to have been an apparent difference in the performance of the heavy water cell and the light water cell; at least on one extant graph the heavy water water cell seems to be evolving excess power, while the light water cell seems not to be—exactly what many hoped to find at the time as an anomalous effect. Attached are four figures, which have been adjusted in size by me from their original form to better compare them (see Attachment #3). The first two are from the published MIT paper and show the excess power produced by the Phase-II heavy water and light water cells. The intermediate processed signal was noisy and so 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 noth- ing 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 equal- ly 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 (see Attachment #4). [Ed. Note: See graphs, p. 74.] On the other hand, I also was given the processed but unaveraged , 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 aver- aged data (see Attachment #5). The light water graph oscillates above and below the zero excess power power line (which I have introduced to make the comparison clearer), with no obvious bias above or below the zero line. There appear to be cyclic variations in the presented 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 possibility of a residual excess power (even though the magnitude of the excess power may be below the report’s stated sensitivity of their calorimetry, 40 milli- watts). The two curves are simply quite different. There could be some- thing like a few tens of milliwatts excess power here, on average, as sev- eral PFC researchers have subsequently agreed there could be. For this 0.1 centimeter diameter electrode, 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. In a recent letter to me (see Attachment #6), Professor Ronald R. Park- er, who has been aware of my concerns since at least early June of this year, states: “Our paper estimates the uncertainty of calorimetry mea- surements as 40 mW, and so you are free to posit an excess heat less than this level if you wish.” This blithe remark is of concern for a num- ber of reasons. Foremost is because I reject the entire methodology of getting to these intermediate processed curves in the first place (see below). Second, there is no substantiation of how this 40mW sensitivity of the calorimeter was derived—certainly of key importance in know- ing whether any significant shift of the data is warranted at all. I requested via a letter of April 29, 1991 to another team member, Dr. Stanley Luckhardt, information on how the sensitivity of the calorime- ter was computed (see Attachment #7). No information on this point has been forthcoming from him, as you will see below. There is yet another concern about the downward shift in the heavy water cell data. Note that on page 4 of the July 10 draft of the calorime- try section (Attachment #5), there is no final paragraph of conclu- sions. However, on the July 13 draft (Attachment 4), a conclusion paragraph has been inserted—after the curve was shifted down. The key sentence is: “The data show a slowly fluctuating power level in both the H 2 O and D 2 O cells, but neither show evidence of sustained power production at the levels claimed in Ref. [Pons and Fleis- chmann’s report].” How is one to judge what level of power may have been present in the heavy water case if the heavy water curve is arbi- trarily moved to make it look like the light water curve? The readers of this report are expected to believe that the calorimetry was sensitive enough to present evidence of a “slowly fluctuating power level” (clear- ly with less than 40 mW sensitivity required to observe them), but they are misled by the contrived down-shift of the heavy water power curve. 2. A Grossly Incorrect Analysis of Raw Data that was Guaranteed to Produce Zero or Minimal Difference Between Light Water and Heavy Water Power There is a simple equation cited by the paper’s authors that governs whether some unknown source of anomalous power, p x , is acting in the cell. That equation is: p h + p x = constant. Now by the methodology of this paper, if the heater power, p h , is declining in time, that would be an immediate indication that there might be some excess power build- ing up. Now if one fits any kind of curve to the ragged raw data that describes p h as a function of time and then subtracts this from the raw data, one does not get p x . Yet this is precisely what the group apparent- ly did. The result is merely a reflection of the “noise” that is left over once the subtraction is done. There is no way that one can say that this processing gives p x . It is obvious that p x is linearly related to p h , but to justify a subtrac- tion of any part of the raw p h signal would require a careful thermal analysis of the cell’s heat transfer characteristics to determine how much, if any, of the heater power drift should be removed. This analy- sis was not done by the MIT group. There has been a more elaborate technical analysis of this experiment, which leads me to believe that at least in the heavy water case in the Phase II experiment, there could be evidence of excess power produc- tion. The evidence of excess power production based on this analysis appears in a technical letter to the editor in Fusion Technology , Vol. 19, May 1991, pp. 579-580 (see Attachment #8). In that letter, the power den- sity produced in the palladium electrode is shown to rise from zero at 20 hours into the test to close to 2 watts per cubic centimeter at 100 hours. In view of the very belated release of the light water heater power curve (see concern 6. below), I am less confident of all the details of the analysis in Fusion Technology, but I am very confident that the MIT group’s method is without justification. The analysis on which Drs. Noninskis’ conclusion in Fusion Technolo- gy is based differs from the MIT group analysis because the latter analy- sis has introduced the forementioned subtraction from the raw data that does not appear to be proper -- a subtraction from the raw data of a lin- ear fit to the noisy and declining heater power. In fact, if this adjustment is performed, for the reasons suggested in the MIT paper, it is possible to get nearly a null result for the excess power measurement 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. In Professor Parker’s letter to me of August 8, 1991 (Attachment #6), remarkably he acknowledges that the subtracting out of p h due to the depletion of the electrolyte may not necessarily be justified : “Whether this is a correct assumption is arguable. . .” Then he states by pure fiat: “but in any event, the main conclusions stand: We detected no significant difference between H 2 O and D 2 O. . .” In other words, even though the PFC’s assumptions about the manipulation of the data may be incorrect, we are expected to believe that there is no significant difference between H 2 O and D 2 O because the PFC group says without substantiation that its calorime- ter’s sensitivity was 40 milliwatts. 3. False Assertion About the Significance of Unpublished Test Results That Motivated The Incorrect Analysis The authors of the MIT work attempt to justify their unwarranted subtracting out of the heater power. On page 20 of the PFC report (Attachment #1) we find the statements: “However, measurement of p h

--- Page 43 ---

43 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report over a 100 h period, Figure 6, indicates a significant drift caused by a reduction of the solvent volume. We demonstrated that this drift was due to solvent loss rather than to an unknown power source, p x , by cal- ibrating ph as a function of the electrolyte solution volume. When enough solvent was added to the D 2 O cell to compensate for that lost to the electrolysis at the end of the 100 h period shown in figure 6, p h returned to within 20% of its original value.” This statement is shock- ing because the authors are suggesting that a 20% discrepancy in heater power (over 200 milliwatts) to heat the same volume of fluid that was present initially can be ignored. In fact, if this experimental finding of a 20% discrepancy is true, it might be the best evidence of all that the heavy water cell really did produce anomalous excess heat. The report immediately follows with yet another blatantly untenable statement: “If the total volume of solvent loss over the course of the experiment had been taken into account, including that lost to evapora- tion, p h would have been even closer to its original value.” If the cell has been refilled to compensate for the water lost to electrolysis, then what fraction of that refilled water disappeared through evaporation and what fraction disappeared through gas evolution is irrelevant. The net effect of these statements—just as in the unexplained downshift—is to obscure the possible evidence for excess power. 4. Subsequent Claims that the Basic Objective of the Research was Other than Claimed in the Report Long before the concerns that are being enumerated in this letter had been brought to the attention of the MIT group, I met with Dr. Stan- ley Luckhardt to try to understand in detail how the MIT work was done. Frankly, I was politely looking for assurances that the data had not been arbitrarily down-shifted and that there might be some funda- mental unpublished reason for the shift. I met with Dr. Luckhardt on January 25, 1991 and, without being accusatory at the time, received extremely unsatisfactory explanations. Dr. Luckhardt could not explain how the “bias,” as he called it, was taken out to make the resulting power curves seem so similar. In fact, he agreed at the time that there might be 20 milliwatts of excess power in the MIT group’s heavy water cell, “but not the 80 milliwatts that Fleischmann was talking about.” This litany continues of redefining the objectives of the Phase II experiment to argue that no unwarranted data moving has occurred. In the belated letter of explanation that I received from Professor Parker (see Attachment #6) he writes: “The implicit assumption is that we were looking for 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.” It seems to me that technical papers cannot have “implicit assumptions” as to their basic objectives. The basic objective was to find out whether there was a difference between heavy water and light water performance. There is no clearer evidence that such a comparison was what was originally intended by the MIT group than the paper’s remark about the comparison of the light water and heavy water cell power output near the end of a 200 hour run (page 19 of Attachment #1). There is no discussion there of looking for “fast turn on” of power. I believe that this is a newly invented experimental objec- tive to justify any past juggling of data that the group might have done. 5. Public Renunciation in June 1991 by Professor Parker of the 1989 Calorimetry Work, Whereas the Work Was and Continues to be Pro- moted as Sound and Definitive Regarding Excess Heat On June 7, 1991, during the question and answer period following the talk by Dr. Frank Close at the PFC, Professor Parker had this exchange with me (transcribed from a tape of the meeting): Parker: 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 another set of experiments 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 experiment, 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 ascer- tain 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 com- pletely 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 electrode 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 Dou- glas Morrison [of CERN] and I see it from people like Frank Close and others, that your prestigious laboratory with its excellent resources is being used in some respect as a standard which everyone else is sup- posed to adhere to. . . Professor Parker continues to insist in representing his data in two different ways. Both before and after this remarkable June 7, 1991 renunciation we have statements that the work shows no evidence of excess power. How is it that Professor Parker thinks he can disparage his group’s own work in public and later claim that it has validity? This is not a small point. The MIT work has been cited on numerous occa- sions by people bent on attacking cold fusion researchers for their sup- posed “delusions” and “incompetence.” We never before heard from any member of the PFC team that the work was “worthless.” Quite the opposite. Professor Parker’s colleague Professor Mark S. Wrighton in a letter on October 10, 1990 ( to Dr. Vesco Noninski (see Attachment #9), was quite firm that the MIT work was definitive. 6. Obstruction of Other Scientists’ Attempts to Access Data Critical to Understanding the Group’s Experiments It is clear that for about a year now the MIT group has been very reluctant to release data that would allow other researchers, including myself, to gain insight into their calorimetry work. I introduced an elec- trochemist visiting from Bulgaria, Dr. Vesco Noninski, to Dr. Stanley Luckhardt on August 15, 1990. Noninski had viewed the MIT work very positively, because it was one of the few experiments in calorimetry in which at least some raw data was published. He had begun to believe that the MIT heater power data for the heavy water cell could be ana- lyzed to show evidence of excess power. There followed discussions between Drs. Noninski and Dr. Luckhardt in which it became clear that there was a difference of opinion between the two on how the experi- ment should be analyzed. But in spite of Dr. Noninski’s completely valid request to Dr. Luckhardt to receive the raw data corresponding to the light water cell, he would not release this data. Both Dr. Luckhardt and Professor Wrighton wrote letters to Dr. Noninski in which they dis- missed his analysis outright. Much later, in early May 1991, I was attempting to write a paper for Fusion Technology , to assess the MIT Phase-II calorimetry and to remark about the relative points made by Drs. Noninski and Luckhardt. So I asked Dr. Luckhardt if he could give me the light water heater power curve. Initially he said he would do this at a pre-arranged meeting between us. There followed over the next several weeks a series meet- ings that were cancelled by him. Finally on May 29, 1991, in a lengthy phone conversation with Dr. Luckhardt, he said that he would not turn over the data to me. The reasons he offered were that it would take too much time for him to explain to me how to correctly interpret the data. He said it would take four or five days to interpret the data. He further put me off by suggesting that I talk to another group “perhaps SRI” to get advice on calorimetry. Even though he would not give me the data, he said of the two heater power curves that they “looked pretty much the same” but that “fluctuations” were different, and he could not recall which one was unusual in which respect. After I showed the apparently down-shifted intermediate

--- Page 44 ---

44 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report processed data at the seminar at the Plasma Fusion Center on June 7, 1991, Professor Parker publicly said, “We will give you every piece of data we ever took.” So on June 14, 1991 I submitted a request to Profes- sor Parker for various data items that would help me clarify the issue (Attachment #10). Another scientific colleague, Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz, independently had made several phone calls to Professor Parker, in which messages were left about requests for the data that Swartz had heard Parker on June 7 offer to make available. Not having received any communication from Parker regarding my June 14 request, I submitted a reminder letter on July 30, 1991 (Attach- ment #11). There was no response to this letter either. Nor were any of Dr. Swartz’s calls returned by Professor Parker. The first response from Professor Parker came in a faxed letter to me (Attachment #6) on the evening before a WBUR radio program about cold fusion, in which Parker and I were both pre-recorded participants. In this letter, he con- tinued to put obstacles in the way of getting the light water heater power curve. None of the other data requests of June 14, 1991 were even alluded to. In this letter he claims that Dr. Luckhardt “has been extreme- ly forthcoming in discussing them with you and would be willing to assist you further.” He wrote, “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.” Finally, to cap this absurd one-year history of evasion at every turn, I received yet another fax letter from Professor Parker on August 13 (Attachment #12), in which inexplicably there has been some time for Dr. Luckhardt to generate (or simply retrieve from his files) the light water heater power curve. But the letter suggests that the accompanying curves (both heavy water and light water) “should not be reproduced or disseminated without our permission.” This statement is put forth even though the heavy water heater power curve was already published by the MIT group! For reasons unknown to me, Professor Parker wants the light water power curve to remain out of the public domain. I think that it is absolutely clear that there has been an unwarrant- ed withholding of data by the MIT group from people with a legitimate need to access it. In fact, this withholding of data was the turning point that prompted this request for an inquiry. I had considered making the request earlier, but was very reluctant to make it. However, the final evasions raised even greater suspicions in my mind about the nature of this data and how it was handled. 7. Attacks on the Motives of Scientists Who Were Making Positive Claims About Cold Fusion The method of performance, representation, and access to the MIT team’s research is the central issue of this request for an inquiry and investigation. However, the MIT group’s work did not occur in an intel- lectual vacuum. It is impossible to dissociate from the MIT group’s per- formance the unethical behavior of some of the key organizers of that research in view of their attacks on the motives of Professors Pons and Fleischmann, whose work they apparently wished to discredit with their own results. This raises questions about the integrity with which the MIT group’s work was carried out. On May 1, 1989, the MIT News Office issued a press release (see Attachment #13) that was prepared by me in telephone consultation with Professor Parker of the Plasma Fusion Center in the early morning hours of May 1, 1989. The press release was crafted to deny statements that Boston Herald reporter Nick Tate had attributed to Professor Parker, which attacked Professors 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 the MIT News Office had issued was valid, though I had some doubts. I simply trusted what was being asked of me in preparing the release. After having listened to the actual tape of the interview that Nick Tate played for me in July 1990, I am certain that his story’s characteri- zation of what Professor Parker and Professor Ballinger had said in their conversation with Tate the week before is substantially correct. Professor Parker and Ballinger clearly were conducting a well-orches- trated attempt to condemn the work of Pons and Fleischmann, not merely to criticize it technically. In the taped interview, a copy of which I obtained from Nick Tate in February 1991 (a partial transcript of which appears in Attachment #14), Professor Parker used the word “fraud” no less than five times and he does refer to the work of Pons and Fleis- chmann as “scientific schlock,” despite his subsequent and continuing denials. At one point in the interview Professor Parker says to Nick Tate, “..what you’re hearing is that we think its a scam, right?” 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 convince me of the soundness of Tate’s story, had I not been told by Professor Parker that these remarks were “out of context,” and that reporter Tate was a “viper.” Professor Parker deceived me and other members of the MIT News Office about what he had said, then in a press conference on May 1, 1989 he deceived the world about what he had said, and he continues to deceive the world again and again (see transcript of recent WBUR radio program, Attachment #15). Remarkably, Professor Parker apparently deceived even former MIT President Paul Gray about the nature of his effort to manipulate the News Media. An April 17, 1989 letter from Boston Globe Reporter Richard Saltus to President Gray (see Attachment #16) had complained about the lack of access to Professor Parker. President Gray’s letter of response to Richard Saltus on May 1, 1989 (Attachment #17) says, “He [Parker] has tried to be as helpful as possible, consistent with his belief that judgement should be reserved until the scientific facts are clarified. That cautious stance has led him to discourage all media visits to the Plasma Fusion Center, although his efforts have not always been suc- cessful. 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.” The truth about Professor Parker’s media manipulation is clear from this interview with Nick Tate. At one point Parker says, “The rea- son I stopped talking to the Globe for example is that I felt that they were reporting irresponsibly...they were out there just leading the cheers instead of being objective.” Then later, “. . .you know I can’t trust the Globe , I’d like to trust you.” This deception and compounded deception about what was said and how it was arranged to be said to Nick Tate amounted to a direct attack on the integrity of an honest reporter as well as the contrived involve- ment of a number of MIT personnel, including the former President, in that deception. But as important or more so was the effect that the intend- ed disparagement of Professor Pons and Fleischmann’s work had on the future course of cold fusion research. The work was difficult enough to assess without imputing the motive of possible fraud, which allegation at that time and to the present day remains completely unfounded. Professor Parker was not the only member of the MIT research team to bring up allegations of fraud about Professors Pons and Fleischmann. I am aware of at least two other authors of the MIT research paper who have made such allegations publicly and privately. I hope you will determine that the concerns I have raised about the conduct of the MIT group’s work merit a prompt investigation. If car- ried out objectively, such an investigation will, I am very confident, reveal various levels of scientific misconduct. To conclude this formal request, I would like to make clear my belief that however the data from the Phase-II calorimetry experiment are interpreted, it is clear that it is impossible to use the raw data behind these flawed results or the data of the cruder series discussed earlier in the PFC paper to conclusively prove anything one way or another about the reality of cold fusion. I do not believe that any member of the MIT research group ever actually believed it had discovered evidence for cold fusion and then “covered it up.” However, I do firmly believe that they mishandled their data in a manner calculated not to leave any room for doubt about the finality of their conclusions, when in fact there was considerable room for such doubt. In my view, the data in this work were not only improperly manipulated to emphasize an allegedly neg- ative result, but the significance of conclusions about that data were and continue to be misrepresented and confused. Even if this work had been done properly and offered a clear null result, it would still have been far too limited a check. Other laboratories that have obtained sporadic positive results for excess power—and by now even reproducible excess power (SRI, Inc. in Palo Alto under EPRI contract)—have generally spent much more time in their trials and employed a larger series of electrodes, a possible requirement sometimes to pick up the anomalous thermal effects. The body of evidence in sup- port of some if not all cold fusion claims, in fact continues to grow, as can

--- Page 45 ---

45 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report be seen in several reviews and compilations of many experiments: * Edmund Storms (Los Alamos National Laboratory), “Review of Experimental Observations About the Cold Fusion Effect,” accepted for publication in Fusion Technology, 1991. * M. Srinivasan (Bhabha Atomic Research Centre), “Nuclear Fusion in an Atomic Lattice: Update on the International Status of Cold Fusion Research,” Current Science, 25 April 1991. * Steven E. Jones, Franco Scaramuzzi, and David Worledge (editors), Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 228, 1991. * Investigation of Cold Fusion Phenomena in Deuterated Metals (four volumes), by the National Cold Fusion Institute, June 1991, now available from NTIS. What is most disturbing, however, about the way in which the MIT research was conducted was the arrogant dismissal of the work of other scientists with the group’s insubstantial, manipulated, and flawed evi- dence. It smacks of a rush to judgement by a group that had made up its mind that it would never find anything positive nor would it report such. Even before they had completed their experiments, members of the MIT group made it quite clear to the world in so many ways that they didn’t expect to find anything. The parallel effort to discredit the motives of other scientists and the denial that such an effort was ever made has had a lasting corrosive effect on the entire field. I hope that when the inquiry and expected investigation of this matter is completed, MIT will adopt guidelines to insure that this behavior is never repeated. Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove List of Attachments (those with * can be found in this issue) 1. Plasma Fusion Center Report, PFC/JA-89-34, “Measurement and Analysis of Neutron and Gamma Ray Emission Rates, Other Fusion Products, and Power in Electrochemical Cells Having Pd Cathodes” 2. The corresponding paper in the Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol.9, No.2, 1990, pp.133-148. *3. Four figures, two of which were obtained from the MIT team’s draft material and two of which were published. These have been adjusted in size by me from their original form for easier comparison. 4. Draft report of calorimetry section, July 13, 1989. 5. Draft report of calorimetry section, July 10, 1989. *6. Letter from Professor Ronald R. Parker to Eugene Mallove, August 8, 1991. *7. Letter to Dr. Stanley C. Luckhardt from Eugene Mallove, April 29, 1991. 8. A technical letter to the editor in Fusion Technology , Vol. 19, May 1991, pp. 579-580. *9. Letter to Dr. Vesco C. Noninski from Professor Mark S. Wrighton, October 10, 1990. *10. Letter (June 14, 1991) from Eugene Mallove to Professor Ronald R. Parker, requesting data that was promised at an open public meeting. *11. Letter to Professor Parker from Eugene Mallove, July 30, 1991. *12. Letter to Eugene Mallove from Professor Parker, August 13, 1991. *13. MIT News Office press release, May 1, 1989. *14. Partial transcript of April 28, 1989 interview by Boston Herald reporter Nick Tate with Professor Ronald R. Parker and Associate Professor Ronald Ballinger. *15. Transcript of David Baron’s WBUR radio program (August 9, 1991) about the cold fusion controversy. *16. Letter from Richard Saltus of the Boston Globe (April 17, 1989) to President Paul E. Gray. *17. Letter from President Paul E. Gray to Richard Saltus (May 1, 1989). Exhibit S Permission Given to Transmit Request to Dr. Vest September 9, 1991 It was necessary for Dr. Rowe to have my formal permission to submit my request for an investigation to President Vest.—EFM Dr. Eugene F. Mallove The Writing program, 14N-316, Department of Humanities Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Mary P. Rowe Special Assistant to the President, Room 10-213 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dear Dr. Rowe: As per our telephone conversation of last week and earlier telephone message exchanges, I agree with you that my formal request for an inquiry and investigation of possible scientific misconduct at MIT (let- ter and attachments dated August 18, 1991) should be redirected by your office to President Vest. Though I am assuming that you have already made this transfer, I hereby formally give you permission to direct the request to Dr. Vest. Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove Exhibit T Eugene Mallove's Response to a Statement on Cold Fusion Issued by the MIT News Office 8/30/91 Received by Mallove only on 9/16/91 The MIT PFC had put out an outrageous “Press Release” on August 30, 1991, which I did not get wind of until mid-Septem- ber. Here is my rebuttal of its various claims. —EFM Dr. Eugene F. Mallove Bow, New Hampshire, September 17, 1991 On August 30, 1991, the MIT News Office issued a disgraceful and misleading statement about the cold fusion controversy (see attached). What follows is my point-by-point response to this statement. Bold type are quotations from the August 30, 1991 MIT News Office statement. • “MIT scientists intensely investigated the phenomenon called ‘cold fusion’ for two months in 1989. Like other scientists around the world, they were unable to duplicate the Pons and Fleischmann experiment They have concluded that, while the reaction termed cold fusion is scientifically interesting, it is not one which is valuable for them to pursue at this time.” Note the implication that all scientists at MIT who had any- thing to do with cold fusion investigated it for only two months and then dropped it after being unable to duplicate the Pons and Fleischmann experiment. This is not true. To my knowledge, at least five MIT professors continue to be actively interested in cold fusion experiments and theories. Numerous other profes- sors, researchers, and students at MIT, not directly engaged in cold fusion, have expressed intense curiosity about the status of current cold fusion research. At least two MIT professors have applied for patents on cold fusion concepts. The cold fusion the- ory of one MIT professor is highly regarded in the field. More- over, cold fusion research is right now being actively pursued at dozens of laboratories in the U.S. and abroad. I challenge the term “intensely investigated for two months.” The MIT professors who influenced this statement arrogantly suggest that it is possible to perform two months of experi- ments and come to definitive conclusions about so difficult a phenomenon as cold fusion. They are wrong about this and they know it, as the phrase “scientifically interesting” so clearly reveals. The preparers of this statement are well aware that they do not understand this “scientifically interesting reaction,” nor is it likely that they have they kept current on what is really happening in this field, yet they claim to be able to determine that “it is not one which is valuable for them to pursue at this time.” This is an indictment of the appalling lack of scientific curiosity manifested by these individuals. If this is supposed to be an example to MIT students about how deeply scientific curiosity should be followed, the Institute is in grave trouble. The statement also incorrectly implies that other scientists have not been able to duplicate the Pons Fleischmann experi- ment. The phrase used was, “like other scientists around the world.” Again, the statement preparers are engaging in smoke- screen tactics. Numerous other investigators have to their own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of other objective evaluators replicated cold fusion phenomena, including excess energy evo- lution in excess of what can be explained by conventionally understood chemical or mechanical energy release, the produc- tion of tritium, the production of neutron bursts, low-level neu- tron emissions, and charged particle emissions. • “They note that the University of Utah, where ‘cold fusion’

--- Page 46 ---

46 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report began, has closed its cold fusion institute.” What a pathetic bit of innuendo—to imply that scientific, budgetary and programmatic difficulties at one research labo- ratory somehow validates the statement preparers’ lack of inter- est in cold fusion research. For less than $5 million, the Nation- al Cold Fusion Institute generated a large body of impressive scientific data in a research program that was favorably cri- tiqued by four outside scientists in the spring of 1991, some of whom were and continue to be skeptical of cold fusion. How- ever, the reason that NCFI was mothballed had to due only with the inability to attract private funding for the Institute after state funding expired, as was the agreement from the outset. Since when do funding successes or failures reflect on the sci- entific and technological merits of a new area of research—as implied by the News Office statement? • “He [Eugene Mallove] says that MIT scientists should be conducting further investigations into cold fusion. The ques- tion he raises is basically a matter of who should set MIT’s research priorities. It is the role of the individual MIT profes- sor to set those priorities. Research into this phenomenon is low on their priority list at this point.” Indeed, I have suggested to the President of MIT that research into cold fusion should be re-evaluated in view of mounting laboratory evidence. My letter of April 12, 1991, in which this opinion was brought to Dr. Vest’s attention was never answered and remains unanswered to this day. I believe that it is the responsibility of the administration of MIT to be watchful for new scientific opportunities and to encourage, not enforce, various research directions. MIT presidents have advo- cated increased efforts in nuclear reactor safety, scientific litera- cy, molecular biological research, and the like. Again we see an attempt to lump all MIT professors into the category of those who put a low priority on cold fusion research. While drawing attention to the issue of research priorities, the preparers of the News Office statement have neglected to mention that in a letter dated August 18, 1991, I have requested a formal investigation of possible scientific misconduct on the part of some MIT researchers in their handling and representa- tion of scientific data in their spring of 1989 cold fusion experi- ments. I have also asked for an investigation into the likelihood that certain researchers at MIT orchestrated an unethical attack on the work of Pons and Fleischmann. My concerns about cold fusion research at MIT are more comprehensive than matters of research priorities. • “MIT scientists have reviewed their paper that contains the data about which Mallove raised questions. Following the review, Professor Ronald R. Parker said, the conclusions of the study stand as published.” The latter statement is completely untenable in view of the June 7, 1991 statement made by Professor Ronald R. Parker at an open seminar at the Plasma Fusion Center. On this occasion (when he no doubt thought no one outside the room would ever hear his words), Professor Parker severely deprecated the experiment that I have questioned, but now he wants the world to believe that it was a good experiment and that his group’s negative conclusions stand. This is, in part, what Professor Parker said on June 7, 1991 about the experiment for which I have requested an investigation: “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 calorime- try is one of the hardest things I ever tried to do. I’d rather stick to plasma physics. . . When you have an open system is where you can make big errors, where you don’t know the overpoten- tial, the electrode 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.” [*The research was published not only in a “tech report,” but also in the Journal of Fusion Energy .] Exhibit U President Charles Vest’s Letter to Prof. Morrison October 9, 1991 CHARLES M. VEST, PRESIDENT, ROOM 3-208 In President Vest’s request to Prof. Morrison to assess my request for a full investigation, there were already some disquiet- ing signs. He was deferring consideration of the MIT PFC’s “ulte- rior purposes.” The press deception, as it turned out, was never addressed after an opinion of Vest’s “legal counsel.”—EFM. Dr. Philip Morrison Institute Professor Emeritus, Rm 6-205 Dear Philip: Dr. Eugene F. Mallove has written to my office to bring to my atten- tion “a serious matter of possible scientific misconduct, which has to do with the mishandling, analysis, and representation of scientific data by a group of researchers at MIT.” Our normal procedure would be to turn to the Provost to make judgment whether and how to proceed to con- sider a matter of this type. In the present instance, however, the Provost is one of a number of authors of a paper referred to in Dr. Mallove's statement of concern. Therefore, I am turning to you, as a distinguished member of the community, to assist the Institute in formulating the ini- tial judgments and/or actions that should be taken in response to Dr. Mallove’s letter. I am enclosing Dr. Mallove’s letter, dated August 18, 1989 and a subsequent letter dated September 9, 1991. Both of these letters are addressed to Dr. Mary P. Rowe, and the second one asks that the initial letter be redirected by her to me. All background materials that were supplied by Dr. Mallove, together with his August 18 letter, are also enclosed. I would ask that you review Dr. Mallove’s letter and the attached materials, and give me your specific advice as to how the Institute should proceed. I would suggest that there are three options that you might consider: 1. Should an inquiry be conducted, and, if so, what mechanisms and individuals might serve this function well? 2. Should a formal investigation occur at this time, and, if so, what mechanisms and individuals might be appropriate? 3. Is there an alternative course of action to 1 or 2 above, which you believe is preferable? It seems appropriate to me that consideration, at this stage, should focus on the criticisms of the science and methodology which are raised in Dr. Mallove’s letter and not on the questions of motives or ulterior purposes attributed by Dr. Mallove to various MIT scientists. In my view, these questions are not appropriate to consider until after the sci- entific issues are addressed. I very much appreciate your willingness to carry out this important task. Sincerely yours, Charles M. Vest CMV: cbb Enclosures cc: Dr. Mary Rowe bcc: Constantine Simonides

--- Page 47 ---