53 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report Like me, Philip Morrison took the paper’s results at face value. He calculated for himself the mean excess power shown in the heavy and light water data in the draft of July 10, 1989. A little average excess power came from the light water cell and more from the heavy water cell, which suggests that the height of the curves was not intended to be meaningless. Had the pro- cedure simply subtracted the best-fit ramp from each curve, both of these averages would have been close to zero. The published paper shows negligible average excess power from either cell. The change between draft and published ver- sion is what would have happened had the ramps been adjust- ed to yield the result that hot fusion experimenters preferred. I understand that the experimenters have been unwilling to explain their procedure when asked, and have refused to give others their data. Another piece of apparent a posteriori adjustment in the paper concerns the calibrating procedure. The draft said that dry nitrogen was bubbled through the electrolyte to stir it. Nitrogen from from a gas cylinder or from evaporating liquid is dry. But dry nitrogen would cool the cell by evaporation. The nitrogen should have been bubbled through water at cell temperature on its way to the cell. In the published paper, “dry” was missing. For its own good, and to restore some civility to a contentious field, MIT should look into ( 1 ) how its scientists came to per- form and publish such a poor experiment, (2) why they either misdescrlbed their results, making them seem more meaningful than they were or used a subtle correcting procedure without describing exactly what it was, (3) how lt came about that data from calorimeters with a claimed sensitivity of 40 mw con- verged, between drafts, after completion of the experiments, to within perhaps 5 mw of the result that hot fusion people would prefer to see. It might have been chance, but it might not. I think all parties would agree that if the experimenters thought their method of baseline correction would not conceal constant or slowly varying excess power they should have explained it in detail. If, on the other hand, both the height and the slope of their records were meaningless, they should have said so. I believe this information, whichever it is, should now be published. Sincerely yours, Charles W. McCutchen cc: Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Professor Philip Morrison Hand-written note attached in copy to Eugene Mallove: Dear Gene, Here it is. I hope MIT does something other than stonewall. I think my request is reasonable. If the height and slope of the curves mean nothing, the experimenters should say so in a corrigendum. If the slope subtraction scheme somehow left meaningful slope and height, they should explain why this is so in a corrigendum. You have my permission to copy and distrib- ute my letter if you think it would help to get the matter straightened out. Sincerely yours, Charles McCutchen Exhibit Z-5 Prof. Morrison’s Report to President Charles Vest March 20, 1992 Yet another letter from Prof. Morrison to Presi- dent Vest, concerning the MIT PFC experiment controversy and the new analysis by Dr. Mitchell Swartz. Morrison’s conclusion that “though the procedure was described in only a few lines, a technically-prepared reader who uses the entire paper can work out the missing details to a good degree,” is patently not true. The MIT PFC paper on the Phase-II calorimetry is fraudulently decep- tive.—EFM Department of Physics, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139 From: Philip Morrison, Institute Professor (emeritus) To: Charles Vest, President Response to Your Letter of 10 March 1992 I. Question and Answer Your letter put to me a specific, rather narrow question, whose back- ground is a recent painstaking study of a particular research paper (and two draft manuscripts) from MIT. The critical study, largely directed at a few specific graphs and their captions, was carried out by Dr. Mitchell Swartz, Weston, MA; its final date is 27 Jan 1992. The research paper itself, by Albagli et al., with 16 co-authors, came from the MIT Plasma Fusion Center, and was published in the J ournal of Fusion Energy , vol. 9, no. 2, p. 133, 1990. You wrote me: “The question I wish you to examine is: Is the data reduction method that was used. . . [to produce certain curves in the published paper referenced above] satisfactorily described? “ My reply is this: though the procedure was described in only a few lines, a technically-prepared reader who uses the entire paper can work out the missing details to a good degree. That reader would certainly be reassured by having for comparison the data for the heater power of the light water comparison cell. Those data were not in the published paper, though they were made available by Dr. Luckhardt in a letter of August 13,1991, sent by Director Parker of the Plasma Fusion Center to Dr. Mallove (Mallove Attachment #12). But I do not think I should stop abruptly. As a physicist, I want to out- line the logic of the procedure, address the results, and even add a little new matter. Dr. Swartz’s study seems to me to warrant a fuller expla- nation for your records (to augment my first response) and for possible transmission to others you may wish to inform. II. Source Documents Used The letter and manuscript from Dr. Swartz are the direct basis for my comments. But it was valuable as well to use the August 18,1991 letter of Dr. Eugene Mallove to you, with its many attachments, and my letter of last October (harmlessly misdated in Dr. Swartz’s study). Both of these were available also to Dr. Swartz, and cited in his Appendix. I was also supplied through your office with a new and fuller account of the data treatment procedures, an account prepared by Dr. Stan Luck- hardt of the Plasma Fusion Center, who carried out the original calcula- tion (Luckhardt MEMO, 3/10/92). Dr. Luckhardt and I have spoken by phone as well. I return all those documents for your files. I have destapled and resta- pled some of the papers, and made a few tick marks. F or its own good, and to restore some civility to a con- tentious field, MIT should look into ( 1 ) how its scientists came to perform and publish such a poor experiment, (2) why they either misdescribed their results, making them seem more meaningful than they were or used a subtle cor- recting procedure without describing exactly what it was, (3) how it came about that data from calorimeters with a claimed sensitivity of 40 mw converged, between drafts, after completion of the experiments, to within perhaps 5 mw of the result that hot fusion people would prefer to see. It might have been chance, but it might not. —Dr. Charles McCutchen

--- Page 54 ---

54 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report III. My Standing I refer to my earlier letter for a full statement of my own “limitations and qualifications” as an assessor. I still believe that there may be a germ of electrochemical novelty in this complex system, though per- haps independent of deuterium and palladium. IV. The Substantial Issue: A Shifting Thermal Baseline The research paper dealt with the comparative release of various ener- gies during the electrolysis of light and heavy water using cells with Pd cathodes. All interest here centers on only one product of the process, thermal power release, although most of the research, and three-fourths of the paper, was devoted to a search for a variety of other products, on which limits were set at much greater sensitivity than for heat. The center of attention is one calorimetric result: a light-water cell and a matched heavy-water cell are followed over 60 to 80 hours. The calorimetry is not absolute; both cells were open for the release of gaseous products, possibly carrying a small liquid entrainment. The necessarily changing level of electrolyte meant a changing internal cell resistance, and a changing heat flow from the cell. That heat flow was monitored by a feedback system, which controlled the current to a ther- mal heater inside the cell, acting to keep a constant cell temperature within. The electrical inputs were monitored as well. A noisy, fast-fluctuating heater current records what happened in the gassy, bubble-stirred, perhaps transiently bubble-blocked, system. The signal noise sets a statistical limit to the accuracy of any thermal power measurement at about plus or minus 40 milliwatts; this result is stated clearly, though not in detail quantitatively supported. The graphs do show the eye just the rough amount expected, the usual more or less two-sigma band of plausible uncertainty. But the cell fluid level slowly changes, and with it the observed heater power. One plot is given, (Figure 6), for the total heater power in the heavy-water cell. Plainly the heater power declines over the run of more than a week by several times the width of its noise band. The noise is reduced both by digital filtering (the data were mainly sampled every two minutes for some 80 hours), and then by binning those data points. The sloping mean baseline observed is then adjusted to form a new hor- izontal axis, the mean zero line, for excess cell power, “by fitting the drift with a linear function and subtracting from the signal.” The proce- dure cannot disclose any constant power difference between the two cells, since the initial value of the baseline is set at zero within the visi- ble noise. But any chance in power yield between the two cells over time would appear. No significant change appears during the long run to break the linear fall. A couple of very modest but eye-catching peaks do appear at 24 hour intervals: they may imply an ambient temperature minimum around midnight. The binned data comprise some eighty numbers, each plotted as a dot. An exact dot count, as expected, does not work. The binning--”time averaged over 1-hour blocks”--is subject to the usual inclusive or exclu- sive decisions, especially because the digital sampling rate was changed at one time, as stated in the caption to Figure 6. Whether there are 45 or 43 dots in one forty-hour period is not material; these statistics cannot show such a nicety. Another point seems important to flag. The heater power measured goes to supply most of the heat loss from the constant temperature cell. The more power supplied, the less power comes from internal cell processes. Now, the steady downward drift in the heater-power base- line for the heavy-water cell is slower than the similar drift seen for the light water cell, at only about 60% of the light-water rate. If no correc- tion were made for that linear power decline, there would appear to be a higher “excess power” developed by the light water comparison cell, not by the one with heavy water. (I believe the Noninski paper (Mallove, Attachment 8) omits all evaporative effects.) Greater fluid loss takes place in light water, presumably by evapora- tion, as expected because of its higher vapor pressure.- I have not been able to make a reasonably simple model to fit the presumed evaporative losses, but a crude estimate shows that evaporation of a water mass com- parable to the electrolytic loss is not excluded either by cell power or by plausible gas-flow rate, estimated from saturation water vapor that may be carried both by gas bubbles and from the free cell surface. The data are not complete enough to allow a simple theory to include both the heat flow changes and any resistive effects of water loss and level change. The authors also did not offer any quantitative model for the empirically quite linear drift in power, though they outline the issues clearly. (The high-fre- quency heater power noise differs markedly between the two cells as well. There is a UROP study to be done here some day.) V. Short-Time Confirmation The week-long runs have attracted all the comment. But the pub- lished paper also presents full data for a short-time test that directly compared the measured heat production in light and heavy water cells over a time so short that the slow change in water level can be neglect- ed. In Figure 3 the noise power is again about 40 milliwatts; the light- and heavy-water cell powers agree to well within that limit. The effect expected on scaling the Utah results would be double that, and should be visible if present. This single test takes on a special interest because it was made at the end of the long run, after about 200 hours of electrolysis. If slow gas charging of the palladium electrode is a determining parameter, this was the likely optimum for the experiment reported. The hydrogen content of the Pd electrodes was measured after the experiment by degassing; the loading factor found was 75 to 80 %. If higher loading still is a nec- essary condition for excess heat, this early negative result could not in itself be final. That objection remains true for any negative test result until a necessary state of the electrode has been fully characterized! VI. Recommendations 1. The full file I have seen ( i.e, the papers of Mallove, Swartz, and the Luckhardt memo), including your queries to me and my own two responses, should be available to interested persons on request. True, that is a lot of paper; they could be given a listing and offered a choice. 2. Dr. Luckhardt should be encouraged to prepare an account of the drift correction based on his March 10, 1992 memo to me, perhaps adding a brief introduction, and Dr. Parker asked if he would issue it as a brief amplifying note from the Plasma Fusion Center. That can be sent by you to anyone who has written for more information, including of course the people who have already done so. 3. I hope that everyone will cool his comments: enough of acrimony. There are plenty of data from this powerful early experiment, though puzzles about the complex system remain even after two more years of widespread reports. Exhibit Z-6 MIT President Dr. Charles Vest’s Letter to Eugene Mallove April 1, 1992 President Vest’s final brush-off of my request for a full investi- gation appropriately fell on April 1. Note how he conveniently puts Dr. Swartz’s analysis off limits for discussion.—EFM CHARLES M. VEST, PRESIDENT, Room 3-208 Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Bow, New Hampshire Dear Dr. Mallove: I write in response to your letter of February 9, 1992. Earlier, by letter dated January 6,1992. I had responded to your letters of August 18 and October 24, 1991. I believe the issues raised by your earlier letters have been addressed, and I will not repeat that response here. As for your comments and requests related to the letter and manu- script of Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz, it is not appropriate for me to comment to you on Dr. Swartz’s work. Sincerely yours, Charles M. Vest CMV/mmd Exhibit Z-7 Prof. Widnall’s Letter to Dr. Charles McCutchen April 2, 1992 Now Charles Vest begins to act through subordi- nates, such as the new Associate Provost, Prof. Widnall, who would later become U.S. Secretary of the Air Force. She tells Dr. McCutchen, “the experimenters have been extremely forthcoming with Dr. Mallove,” which clearly does not square with the facts as is evident by all previous Courtesy U.S. Air Force

--- Page 55 ---

55 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report exhibits.—EFM OFFICE OF THE PROVOST SHEILA E. WIDNALL, ASSOCIATE PROVOST ABBY ROCKEFELLER MAUZE PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS ROOM3-234 Mr. Charles W. McCutchen Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland Dear Dr. McCutchen: President Vest has passed your letter regarding the experiment reported in Albagli et al. on to me as falling within my responsibilities as Associate Provost. I assume that you have written as an interested scientist and not as an official of NIH, which as far as I know, has no official interest in this topic nor any role in the sponsorship of the work. As you are no doubt aware, the paper in question has been the subject of some scientific debate and media attention. And that is entirely proper since the nature and impor- tance of scientific contributions are quite properly dealt with through open debate in the scientific literature, through peer review, in open scientific meetings and through the media. Disputes are part of the scientific process and scientific results are always provisional, based on the data and theories developed to date. The paper you questioned was a contribution to this debate but clearly not the last word. I believe that most of the issues raised in your letter are more appro- priate for a letter to the editor of the journal in question or for a com- munication directly to the authors rather than a subject for action by MIT. MIT has separately considered the issues raised by Dr. Mallove. Contrary to the viewpoint expressed in your letter, the experimenters have been extremely forthcoming with Dr. Mallove. He has been given data from the calorimeter experiment and several opportunities to dis- cuss the procedure used with the investigators. In the near future, a memo will be prepared by the experimenters giving more details regarding the analysis of calorimetric data than were available in the manuscript. I shall see that you receive a copy of this when it becomes available. Sincerely, Sheila Widnall Exhibit Z-8 Dr. Charles McCutchen’s Letter to Prof. Sheila Widnall July 26, 1992 Dr. McCutchen has not been impressed with Prof. Widnall’s let- ter. He makes a simple request for an ethical clarification by the MIT PFC of its results. This suggestion was never carried out by MIT, thus maintaining the fiction , to this date, that the MIT PFC results of 1989 were definite and null for excess heat.—EFM Sheila E. Widnall, Associate Provost Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 3-234 Dear Dr. Widnall Thank you for your letters and for talking with me on the telephone. I took your advice and telephoned Stanley Luckhardt. As you probably know, because of the change in the thermal resis- tance between interior and exterior of its cell with time, the MIT cold fusion experiment could not have detected small, steady power pro- duction or small power production that varied linearly with time. How- ever, Luckhardt says that the experiment specifically looked for a sud- den onset of power production by the cell. Given this limited purpose, it was legitimate for the experimenters to subtract the the best-fit ramp from the data. So far, so good. But the description of the experiment does not say that a sudden onset was all the experimenters were looking for. And it never says that ramp subtraction renders meaningless the height and slope of the resulting curve. Someone as sharp as Philip Morrison integrated the excess power signal numerically over the entire length of the experimental runs in the apparent expectation that the result meant something. To the experimenters, a reduction in the integrated power between one draft and the next would mean only that their ramp subtraction had improved. To a reader who thought the absolute height of the curve was significant, this same reduction could look like data-cooking. I therefore suggested to Luckhardt that science and civility would be served if the experimenters published a correction explaining that the height and slope of their final data meant nothing, and apologizing for not saying so in the original article. To my great surprise, he objected strongly to this proposal. For one thing, he said, in one part of their experiment, absolute signal height was significant. They had compared the excess power before and after fluid was electrolysed and then replaced. Somehow this was a reason for not explaining that, for most of the data, absolute height was not significant. More sur- prisingly, reference to the article shows that this absolute-height part of the experiment failed. The data were discrepant, though the experimenters thought that the discrepancy would be smaller if more care were taken to refill the cell to its original level. I talked to Eugene Mallove, and found him unwilling to concede that the MIT experimenters’ sin might be only misdescribing their experi- ment. He and Mitchell Swartz insist that comparison of the experi- menters data before and after reduction shows that the reduction was not done properly, and that the effect was to suppress evidence of excess power that had a sudden onset. I think the experimenters had such a low opinion of both cold fusion and their own experiment that they would not have gone to the trouble of subtly cooking the results. Still, Luckhardt’s adamant and puzzling refusal to clear up the confusion in their description make me wonder if they are keeping everything closed because there are things in their data reduction that will not stand examination. So what should MIT do? Leaving the experimenters and the doubters to resolve the matter is creating a festering sore and a suspicion of coverup. The groups are not communicating effectively. Each accuses the other of non-cooperation. I think MIT management should take a hand. In the end, this would waste less of its time than trying to stay out of the matter. It should ask the experimenters to publish a corrigendum saying that their original description obscured the fact that they were looking for an abrupt turn- on of power generation by the cell. I see no respectable reason for them not to comply. At the same time, they should be asked to give their orig- inal data, data reduction formulae and algorithms to the doubters, who should, in turn, be asked to give their objections, in writing, to the experimenters. Out of this head-knocking, truth should emerge. These requests could not reasonably be refused. They are impolite, but both sides have broken social conventions (the doubters said the experi- menters were crooks; the experimenters ran a party celebrating the death of cold fusion), so neither can expect the protections of politeness. Sincerely yours, Charles W. McCutchen Exhibit Z-9 Prof. Widnall’s Letter to Dr. Charles McCutchen August 3, 1992 Provost Windall’s final stonewall letter to Dr. McCutchen.—EFM Mr. Charles W. McCutchen Princeton, New Jersey Dear Dr. McCutchen: I'm responding to your letter of July 26. I'm glad that you took the opportunity to speak with Dr. Luckhardt regarding his memo and the earlier paper. I recognize that this area remains controversial and the issue you raised is: Is there anything that MIT as an institution should do in response to the controversy? I think MIT management should take a hand. In the end, this would waste less of its time than trying to stay out of the matter. It should ask the experimenters to publish a corrigendum saying that their orig- inal description obscured the fact that they were looking for an abrupt turn-on of power generation by the cell. I see no respectable reason for them not to comply. —Dr. Charles McCutchen

--- Page 56 ---

56 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report MIT, along with all other universities that I know anything about, does not often intrude between its faculty members and their profes- sional actions as scientists. We don't, for example, review the manu- scripts of our faculty prior to publication, as do many corporations and government organizations. We are used to a high level of controversy, often between members of our own faculty. Disputes about scientific data, methods and results are common and play a positive role in advancing science. When MIT faculty take public positions as scientists or citizens, it is assumed that they are acting as individuals and not as official spokesman for the institution. Criteria for institutional involvement in such matters derive from our contractual and institutional responsibilities. Alleged violations of insti- tutional policies by members of our community will bring forth an insti- tutional response. As you undoubtedly know, at our request Prof. Philip Morrison undertook a detailed examination of the issues raised by two individuals concerning the manuscript in question and determined that there was no tangible basis for further institutional action. I hope that the various groups on our campus who are involved in this research will continue to have collegial, scientific dialogues but I see no basis to direct any of the groups to take specific actions. Sincerely, Sheila Widnall Associate Provost and Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Exhibit Z-10 Dr. Charles McCutchen’s Letter to Eugene Mallove August 18, 1992 Eugene F. Mallove, Bow, NH Dear Dr. Mallove, As you can see from the enclosures, I did not get far with Sheila Wid- nall. I was surprised she did not respond to my point that Philip Morri- son, their own expert, had been misled by the paper. I had previously been surprised when Stanley Luckhardt irritatedly refused to consider publishing a full description of the way the experimenters interpreted their calorimetry experiment. I thought this would be a good way to remove some confusion and lower the anger level. How about taking the advice Dr. Widnall offered in her letter of April 2, 1992, and submitting a letter to Journal of Fusion Energy . You might get your points out ln the open for the experimenters to answer. Perhaps the hot fusioneers will stop the Journal from publishing your letter. This would be objective evidence that they are brass-knuckle types, evidence you could take to Sheila Widnall to show what happens when one tries to have an “open debate in the scientific literature, through peer review,” with MIT scientists. Sincerely yours, Charles W. McCutchen Exhibit Z-11 Dr. Charles McCutchen’s Letter to Prof. Sheila Widnall August 18, 1992 Dr. McCutchen’s final word to Provost Widnall fell on deaf ears.—EFM Sheila E. Widnall, Associate Provost Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 3-234 Dear Dr. Widnall, Thank you for your letter of Aug. 3, 1992. I do not envy you in hav- ing to deal with matters that take time away from the constructive busi- ness of the university. But consider, it is the enforcement of decency among scientists that makes collegiality possible. Without sanctions for bad behavior, science becomes a jungle. Like it or not, you knuckle-rap- pers are keepers of the flame. MIT is using formal procedures to evade responsibility. You and I agree, I think, that bad scientific ethics are a university's business. So far, so good. But MIT thinks that getting Philip Morrison to give the matter a once-over-lightly discharges its responsibility. (Substitute '”Eisen” for “Morrison” and you have the beginning of the Baltimore affair.) I explained that Morrison was misled by the inaccurate description of the experiment, the very thing that I object to. That he was thus misled shows that a correction should be published. You did not respond. This is stonewalling. Collegial mechanisms will not resolve the issue. They work when all parties play fair. The MIT hot fusion people are not playing fair. They published a misleading description of an experiment. The errors ln the description were important. The collegial rules require that they pub- lish a clarification. They refuse to do so. What can the cold fusion people do now? If they submit a complain- ing letter to the journal that carried the original paper, the hot fusion people will probably try to prevent it from being published, and likely succeed. There will be more anger on both sides, and a lot less colle- giality—all because MIT management cannot bring itself to make the hot fusion people, its own employees, behave like gentlemen. (Remem- ber that what they refuse to publish is their own, verbal description of the way the major part of the experiment worked.) I am sorry that MIT continues to tough it out. Apparently the university feels it need not be fair to cold fusion people. Perhaps it is afraid to be fair. Luckhardt’s negative response to my proposal that a correction be published suggests that hot fusion patriotism requires one to be unfair to cold fusion people. Why else (unless there is real data faking that they are trying to hide) will the hot fusion people not publish a cor- rection that would blunt some of the anger, and enhance their own reputa- tion for honesty? Sincerely yours, Charles W. McCutchen cc: Dr. Eugene F. Mallove “MIT Professor Has a Theory to Explain ‘Cold Fusion’” MIT Provost John Deutch said, “MIT is a place where creative individuals are encouraged to address scientific subjects of the greatest significance. We are pleased to see Professor Hagelstein proposing an explanation for ‘cold fusion’ and we are encouraging investigators both here and at other research institutions to continue their work on this most surprising phenomenon, which may have enormous consequences.” [Later, Dr. Deutch became Director of the CIA in the Clinton Press Release MIT News Office April 12, 1989 Ponder the unthinkable. Question the status quo. Live in the world as well as in your own nation. Dream of a better future, but contribute to the present. Share your talents. Commune with all people. Be steady friends and bold companions. Be honest in all that you do. — MIT President Charles Vest’s Commencement Address June, 1998. Photo: Courtesy CIA

--- Page 57 ---

57 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report Key Cold Fusion Publications of MIT Graduate, MIT Professor Peter L. Hagelstein • “Coherent Fusion Theory,” presented at the ASME Winter Meeting, San Francisco, Dec. 1989, paper TS-4. • “Coherent Fusion Theory,” Journal of Fusion Energy , Vol. 9, No. 4, 1990. pp. 451-463. • “Status of Coherent Fusion,” DoE Annual Report, January 1990. • “Status of Coherent Fusion Theory,” Proceedings of The First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion , March 28-31, 1990, Salt Lake City, pp. 99- 118. • “Coherent Fusion Mechanisms,” AIP (American Institute of Physics) Conference Proceedings #228, Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems , Provo, Utah, 1990, Editors: Steven E. Jones, Franco Scaramuzzi, and David Worledge, pp. 734-781. • “Coherent and Semi-Coherent Neutron Transfer Reactions,” Confer- ence Proceedings, Vol. 33, The Science of Cold Fusion , Ed: T. Bressani, E. DelGiudice, and G. Preparata, SIF Bologna, 1991, pp. 205-209. • “Coherent and Semi-Coherent Neutron Transfer Reactions,” Pro- ceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion (October 21- 25, 1992), Frontiers of Cold Fusion , Ed., Hideo Ikegami, Universal Acad- emy Press, Inc., Tokyo, pp. 297-306. • “Coherent and Semi-Coherent Neutron Transfer Reactions I: The Interaction Hamiltonian,” Fusion Technology , Vol. 22, 1992, pp. 172-180. • “Coherent and Semi-Coherent Neutron Transfer Reactions III: Phonon Generation, ” Fusion Technology , Vol. 23, 1993, p. 353-361. • “Coherent and Semi-Coherent Neutron Transfer Reactions II: Dipole Operators,” submitted to Fusion Technology , 1993. • “Coherent and Semi-Coherent Neutron Transfer Reactions IV: Two-Step Reactions and Virtual Neutrons ” submitted to Fusion Technology , 1993. • “Lattice-Induced Atomic and Nuclear Reactions,” Transactions of Fusion Technology , Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii, December 6-9, 1993, Vol. 26, No. 4T, December 1994, pp. xi-xii. • “In Memory of Julian Schwinger,” Transactions of Fusion Technology , Pro- ceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii, December 6-9, 1993, Vol. 26, No. 4T, December 1994, pp. xi-xii. • “A Possible Mössbauer Effect in Neutron Capture,” Hyperfine Inter- actions , Vol. 92, 1994, p. 1059-. • “Update on Neutron Transfer Reactions,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion (9-13 April 1995, Monte Carlo, Monaco), pp. 327-337. • “Proposed Novel Optical Phonon Laser Pumped by Exothermic Desorption,” Bull. APS , Vol. 40, 1995, p. 808. • “Anomalous Energy Transfer Between Nuclei and the Lattice,” Progress in New Hydrogen Energy: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion , October 13-18, 1996, Japan, pp. 382-386. • “Models for Anomalous Energy Transfer,” Proceedings of the Seventh Key Cold Fusion Publications of MIT Professor Keith H. Johnson • “Hydrogen-Hydrogen/Deuterium-Deuterium Bonding in Palladi- um and the Superconducting/Electrochemical Properties of PdH/- PdD,” K.H. Johnson and D.P. Clougherty, Mod. Phys. Lett. B , Vol. 3, 1989, p. 795-. • “Jahn-Teller Symmetry Breaking and Hydrogen Energy in γ -PdD ‘Cold Fusion’ as Storage of the Latent Heat of Water,” K.H. Johnson, Transactions of Fusion Technology , Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii, December 6-9, 1993, Vol. 26, No. 4T, December 1994, pp. 427-430. • “Method of Maximizing Anharmonic Oscillations in Deuterated Alloys,” U.S. Patent 5,411,654, Brian S. Ahern, Keith H. Johnson, and Harry R. Clark, Jr., Filed July 2, 1993, Date of Patent, May 2, 1995. • “Water Clusters and Uses Therefore,” K.H. Johnson, Bin Zhang, and Harry C. Clarke, US Patent 5,800,576, Filed, November 13, 1996, Date of Patent, September 1, 1998. Cold Fusion Publications of MIT Graduate Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz JET Energy Technology has contributed through our R&D, high standards, and quality control. Publications on Research and Q/C • Swartz, M. 1993. “Some Lessons from Optical Examination of the PFC Phase-II Calorimetric Curves,” Vol. 2, Proceedings: Fourth Interna- tional Conference on Cold Fusion , 19-1, op. cit. • Swartz, M. 1994. “A Method To Improve Algorithms Used To Detect Steady State Excess Enthalpy,” Transactions of Fusion Technology , 26, 156-159. • Swartz, M. 1996. “Relative Impact of Thermal Stratification of the Air Surrounding a Calorimeter,” Journal of New Energy , 2, 219-221 (1996) • Swartz, M. 1996. “Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction,” Journal of New Energy , 1, 3, 219-221. •Swartz, M. 1996. “Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calori- metric Systems,” Journal of New Energy , 1, 126-130. •Swartz, M. 1996. “Definitions of Power Amplification Factor,” J. New Energy , 2, 54-59. • Swartz, M. 1997. "Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1- Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material,” Fusion Tech- nology , 31, 63-74. • Swartz, M. 1997. “Noise Measurement in Cold Fusion Systems,” Journal of New Energy , 2, 2, 58-61. • Swartz, M. 1997. “Biphasic Behavior in Thermal Electrolytic Genera- tors Using Nickel Cathodes,” ECEC 1997 Proceedings , paper #97009 • Swartz, M. 1998. “Patterns of Failure in Cold Fusion Experiments,” Proceedings of the 33rd Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion , IECEC-98-1229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6,1998. • Swartz, M. 1998. “Optimal Operating Point Characteristics of Nickel Light Water Experiments,” Proceedings of ICCF-7 . • Swartz, M. 1998. “Improved Electrolytic Reactor Performance Using p-Notch System Operation and Gold Anodes,” Transactions of the Amer- ican Nuclear Society , Nashville, TN 1998 Meeting, (ISSN:0003-018X pub- lisher LaGrange, IL) 78, 84-85. Publications on Quasi-1-dimensional Isotope Loading, and Optimal Operating Point Behavior • Swartz, M. 1992. “Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal,” Fusion Technology , 22, 2, 296-300. • Swartz, M. 1994. “Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled to Reactions at an Electrode,” Fusion Technology , 96, 4T, 74-77 • Swartz. M. 1994. “Generalized Isotopic Fuel Loading Equations,” Cold Fusion Source Book , International Symposium on Cold Fusion and Advanced Energy Systems, Ed. Hal Fox, Minsk, Belarus, • Swartz. M. 1997. “Codeposition of Palladium and Deuterium,” Fusion Technology , 32,126-130 Publications on Catastrophic Desorption and Nuclear Theory • Swartz. M. 1994. “Catastrophic Active Medium Hypothesis of Cold Fusion,” Vol. 4. Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion , sponsored by EPRI and the Office of Naval Research. • Swartz, M. 1996. “Possible Deuterium Production from Light Water Excess Enthalpy Experiments Using Nickel Cathodes,” Journal of New Energy , 3, 68-80 (1996). • Swartz, M. 1997. “Hydrogen Redistribution by Catastrophic Des- orption in Select Transition Metals,” Journal of New Energy , 1, 4, 26-33. • Swartz, M. 1997. “Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids,” Fusion Technology , 31, 228-236 (March 1997).

Note: Page images are archived as separate threaded comments for optimal storage.

🔐 Cryptographic Verification

Archived URL: file://mitcfreport.pdf

�� CONTENT HASHES:
  SHA-256:  77a4393ad62ccd60b0fc20cb91fec3cdc1a3ab33df9b5e7685e5fb0a6b9ceda4
  BLAKE2b:  b7aa4732c99a2daf0cbd36185f19cf6aee156d831f30f4ada0b2d780243cce0b
  MD5:      9ab82f684a32c8909c264f79b6d2a3e9

�� TITLE HASHES:
  SHA-256:  f5e155e3a69bb3e223ab5cf091444640b4c730b7c72d1b59a8c252d1645c75ab
  BLAKE2b:  9571310e9b199da41efcec22e09a196be3f2999daeddf9023cfa58391397a828
  MD5:      e5da4fc83f7ebc4d47ca3e3cd710552c

�� INTEGRITY HASHES:
  SHA-256:  a3b7c05c2ecf6ec846aa03095117e61bb02cc013b73c171ae37c6ce18364e7a3
  BLAKE2b:  701eb44610fb0b7de131913d4b0a579b5e3ac54e6503e004c832cd93843b4089
  MD5:      403e21cb8b9bd82dac229ae5933de4fa