----
 

Zimmerman Retreats on Bubble Fusion Accusations

 

Web pages related to Peter Zimmerman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Zimmerman
http://newenergytimes.com/inthenews/2006/PatentOfficeToReinstate.shtml
http://www.imaginaryweapons.net/Peter_Zimmerman_gets_political.html

*********************
At 11:24 PM 7/28/2008, Peter Zimmerman wrote:
From: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman >
Delivered-To: mailing list hydrino@yahoogroups.com
Subject: HSG: Re: Sonofusion back in the news

I'm afraid the situation is not as clear cut and pro-Taleyarkhan as Wagner or Krivit assert. Indeed, I think truth lies far more on the side of the C-22 panel.

Let's ask just what it found: on two counts the panel has Taleyarkhan dead to rights with research misconduct. Unfortunately -- and this is what allows Krivit to spout -- those were less serious offenses for which punishment is likely to be pretty mild. RT put the name of Mr. Adam Butt on a paper to dispel one referee's blunt criticism that the paper had been done entirely by Yiban Xu (or Xu Yiban, properly). That referee said there was no way a single individual could have done the work, so RT had Butt added even tho' Butt was a masters student and not competent to be much more than a clerical assistant. That's fraud.

Much worse, RT advised Phys Rev Letters that an earlier paper in Science had been "independently concerned." One may quibble as to whether RT had fraud in mind, but the effect was to deceive the editors of PRL.

There are, however, many other allegations where the C-22 found factual basis for criticizing RT's work, blasting it actually, but said that the specific circumstances did not meet the standards of research fraud under the federal regs. I agree. And since I was one of perhaps a dozen people on the committee that drafted the federal rules, I think I know what I'm talking about. However, a big however, taken together those actions cast very serious doubt on RT's competent performance of his experiment, and absolutely demonstrated that Xu Yiban did not do his"confirmatory" experiment independently. Rather, he used RT's apparatus and had RT, his former PhD adviser, looking over his shoulder and Xu knew what results were expected.

I am conflicted on this one because one of RT's collaborators worked long hours and months with me on a major project, and I found him clear headed, smart, honest and very competent. Because of our collaboration, for 2+ years I heard a lot of the gossip from inside the RT group. He still thinks they showed fusion. I do not because, as the C-22 report showed, the RT group did not have a clue how to measure small neutrons or neutrons to high precision and made elementary experimental errors.

There is no grand conspiracy here; just a nasty debate between RT and his two students on the one hand and several very competent external scientists on the other hand.

-pz

I think Putterman & I overlapped at UCLA 35 years ago; we were not close, but he was held in extraordinary esteem for a young man.

*********************
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:12:14 -0800
To: hydrino@yahoogroups.com
From: web1 <web1 >
Subject: Re: HSG: Re: Sonofusion back in the news

Peter Zimmerman,

Have you carefully reviewed the so-called evidence (Butt's statement) on which you and others are using to allege fraud?
Have you noticed that no signed statement by Adam Butt seems to exist?
Have you noticed that the New York Times reported a signed statement by Adam Butt however the one on their site is unsigned?
Have you noticed that the statement allegedly written by Butt does not affirm that it was written willingly and without undue influence?
Have you noticed that the circumstances in which this document was allegedly created, so far, have not been reported?
Do you know if those circumstances were legal or illegal?
Do you know if those circumstances might have been coercive?
Do you know for sure that Butt was not competent with bubble fusion any more than a clerical assistant would be? If so, how do you know this?
And lastly, on what basis do you feel competent to "spout" (your word) that the Butt document was sufficiently legitimate to incarcerate Taleyarkhan?

Steven Krivit

> At 11:24 PM 7/28/2008, Peter Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >I'm afraid the situation is not as clear cut and pro Taleyarkhan as
> >Wagner or Krivit assert. Indeed, I think truth lies far more on the
> >side of the C-22 panel.
> >
> >Let's ask just what it found: on two counts the panel has Taleyarkhan
> >dead to rights with research misconduct. Unfortunately -- and this is
> >what allows Krivit to spout -- those were less serious offenses for
> >which punishment is likely to be pretty mild. RT put the name of Mr.
> >Adam Butt on a paper to dispel one referee's blunt criticism that the
> >paper had been done entirely by Yiban Xu (or Xu Yiban, properly). That
> >referee said there was no way a single individual could have done the
> >work, so RT had Butt added even tho' Butt was a masters student and not
> >competent to be much more than a clerical assistant. That's fraud.

*********************
Delivered-To: mailing list hydrino@yahoogroups.com
At 09:27 AM 9/11/2008, Peter Zimmerman wrote:

Is it necessary to find a signed statement? Most of the time when reports are made the statements included are merely typedset copies and not photocopies of the original.

Do you know the English language? "Incarcerate" means to be put in jail. So far I doubt anybody is asking that RT be jailed, or do you know differently? Know. Not just have heard through a rumor mill.

I'm actually stunned at what's playing out on HSG about sonofusion. It's really straight-forward physics. Neither Taleyarkhan nor anybody else contends that the supposed neutron production requires any new physics for its explanation: it's just a result of very high compression of a plasma in a collapsing bubble. The argument is simply over whether or not Taleyarkhan and his colleagues did a difficult experiment correctly or whether they screwed up. Others with better reputations in the community for doing difficult experiments correctly have tried to reproduce Taleyarkhan, /et al./, but have failed. The obvious conclusion is that RT and his group screwed up somewhere. My bet is that their neutron detectors were sensitive to the vibration (called 'microphonics' and familiar to anybody who built tube-type amplifiers from Heathkits back in the 60s) from the bubble collapses. But I could be wrong. There are other problems, and counting neutrons is a really tough job.

It is distressing to see RT and Co. press this (a) as if they had the key to a major source of energy, (b) as if they were being persecuted, and (c) they had done the experiment correctly, and that Putterman, /et/ /al./, were screw-ups. I've worked with Richard Lahey, one of RT's collaborators. He is a good and honorable scientist, but he's not infallible; none of us is.

Now, as to the investigations: they've focused on whether or not RT operated transparently, whether he knew or had reason to know that a claimed independent replication was not independent (and even whether or not he participated in it), and whether or not he plagiarized other people's work. He was cleared on the plagiarism charges.

Why, Steve, do you think there was something sleazy about the investigation? You sprinkle a lot of innuendo on your e-mail, but no facts.

I formed my own opinion by reading the sonofusion papers, pro and con. Can you read those papers in the "original physics", or have you been working "in translation?"

--pz

*********************
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:58:36 -0800
To: hydrino@yahoogroups.com, "peter.zimmerman-kcl.ac.uk", Rusi Taleyarkhan <rusi >
From: web1 <web1@newenergytimes.com>
Subject: Re: HSG: Re: Sonofusion back in the news

Peter Zimmerman,

You asked "Is it necessary to find a signed statement?" with regard to the Adam Butt letter and the allegations of misconduct against Rusi Taleyarkhan.

I suppose it is only necessary if you want to want to be careful about making any public accusations of fraud. Or it might be necessary if you were concerned about the facts, or if you wanted to be careful and considerate before stating your opinions or judgments publicly. Other than those matters, no, I don't see that it is necessary.

I asked you nine questions. I has not escaped my attention that you deflected and failed to answer all but the last.

Question 9 was "On what basis do you feel competent to spout that the Butt document was sufficiently legitimate to [incriminate] Taleyarkhan?"
To this, you replied, "I formed my own opinion by reading the sonofusion papers, pro and con."
That is a very interesting process of evaluation, I will make note of it.

You asked, "Why, Steve, do you think there was something sleazy about the investigation? You sprinkle a lot of innuendo on your e-mail, but no facts."

I am collecting data and viewpoints and opinions at this time. These data, and these opinions will be published in the future.

Thank you.

Steve

*********************
[Not sent to mailing list hydrino@yahoogroups.com, sent only to Krivit]

At 01:50 PM 9/11/2008, Peter Zimmerman wrote:
Naughty, naughty.  The man is threatening me.  I shall save this e-mail, and if you publish one word of what I wrote to HSG in any way that is detrimental to me, you will hear from me, and maybe from my attorney.

-pz

*********************
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:12:36 -0800
To: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman@kcl.ac.uk>
From: web1 <web1@newenergytimes.com>
Subject: Re: OFF THE RECORD Re: HSG: Re: Sonofusion back in the news
Cc: hydrino@yahoogroups.com, Rusi Taleyarkhan <rusi@purdue.edu>

Peter Zimmerman,

1. You and I have no pre-arranged agreement to communicate privately, confidentially or "off-the-record." 

2. On July 28, 2008, you made a public accusation of fraud against Rusi Taleyarkhan in a message sent to the Hydrino Study Group Internet e-mail list.
In this message you cited an alleged statement by Adam Butt as the basis for your allegation.

On Sept. 10, in an e-mail message I sent to the HSG list, I asked you some questions regarding the validity of the alleged statement by Adam Butt.

On Sept. 11, you responded by asking me why it might be necessary to verify facts, that is, to find a signed statement by Adam Butt.

On Sept. 11, I answered your questions.

3. I plan to publish the facts, as they have been stated. I will also note that you have attempted to interfere with the journalistic process and intimidate me. My sole intent is to publish the facts. If you are aware of any violation of law that I would be guilty of in doing so, speak now, or have your attorney speak for you. I plan to publish in 48 hours.

Thank you,

Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

*********************
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:50:40 -0800
To: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman@kcl.ac.uk>
From: web1 <web1@newenergytimes.com>
Subject: Re: Sonofusion back in the news
Cc: hydrino@yahoogroups.com, Rusi Taleyarkhan <rusi@purdue.edu>

Peter Zimmerman,

To add to the anomalies of the alleged Butt letter:

Did you notice that the first part is written in third person and the second part is written in first person?
Did you notice that the first part refers to Professor Taleyarkhan and the second part refers to "Prof. T."?

Just a bit suspicious, don't you think?

Steven B. Krivit

*********************
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:12:03 -0400
From: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman@kcl.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
To: web1 <web1@newenergytimes.com>
Subject: OFF THE RECORD  Re: Sonofusion back in the news

I HAVE NO ACCESS TO THE "BUTT LETTER."  I told you that.  I asked you for a reference to where I could find it, and you have declined to provide such a citation If you have a copy, you should send it to me.

Peter D. Zimmerman
Emeritus Professor of Science & Security        
War Studies Department

Please e-mail to obtain phone number in the US.
No UK phone number is available.

*********************
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:22:33 -0800
To: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman@kcl.ac.uk>, "hydrino-yahoogroups.com" <hydrino@yahoogroups.com>, Rusi Taleyarkhan <rusi@purdue.edu>
From: web1 <web1@newenergytimes.com>
Subject: Sonofusion back in the news

Peter Zimmerman,

At 04:12 PM 9/11/2008, you wrote:
I HAVE NO ACCESS TO THE "BUTT LETTER."  I told you that.  I asked you for a reference to where I could find it, and you have declined to provide such a citation If you have a copy, you should send it to me.

The Butt letter, both that obtained by New Energy Times, and that obtained by The New York Times, can be found at this Web address http://newenergytimes.com/bubblegate/BubblegateAffidavits.shtml


Steve

*********************
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:07:39 -0400
From: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman@kcl.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
To: web1 <web1@newenergytimes.com>
Subject: Re: OFF THE RECORD Re: HSG: Re: Sonofusion back in the news

Naughty, naughty.  Do you think anybody cares much if you publish in NETimes?

"Interfere with the journalistic process"?  Jeez what an arrogant chump you are. 

We do now have an agreement to off the record communication in that I stated to you that my previous e-mail was off the record.  You have no right to quote from that.

*********************
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:43:35 -0400
From: Rusi Taleyarkhan <rusi@purdue.edu>
To: web1 <web1@newenergytimes.com>, peter.zimmerman@kcl.ac.uk,
hydrino@yahoogroups.com, Colin/Suzanne West <herderwest >, Robert Nigmatulin <nigmar >,"Dr. Richard T. Lahey" <laheyr >, JaeSeon Cho <jaeseoncho >, rusi, Yiban Xu <yiban >

Subject: Re: HSG: Re: Sonofusion back in the news (rpt->P.Zimmerman, et al., 9.11.08)

Gentlemen:

With due respects to all and to Prof. Zimmerman, I respectfully offer a few notes and comments to correct the record associated with the science and technology of bubble (acoustic) nuclear fusion as published by myself and my colleagues (Dick Lahey, Bob Block, Colin West, Robert Nigmatulin, JaeSeon Cho).

I leave it to Steve and others in the Press to collect the data Steve writes about along with viewpoints. It may be useful for individuals like Prof. Zimmerman to review Steve Krivit's Special Report on Bubble Fusion to better appreciate the human dimension, although much remains undisclosed.

1) Regarding the bubble fusion papers by Taleyarkhan, West, Cho, Lahey, Block, Nigmatulin and Xu

- The fusion signal detectors we used were not only the active (electronic-based) types but also passive neutron track variety. In fact, the PRL study used 4 separate detector types (three for neutrons, one for gamma signals).

- Control experiments were conducted in each case keeping the same detectors, the same acoustic drive trains, etc. but only changing one parameter; viz., change the H bearing liquid to a D-bearing liquid. Additional experiments were also conducted for each H and D bearing liquid without acoustic drive. Only when the liquid was D-bearing did the data provide 17 to 20+SD statistical significance measured values.

- Not only were (17-25+ SD) 2.45 MeV neutron emissions measured but these were measured in time correlation with SL light flashes.

- Gamma emissions (of much lower amount than neutrons) were also measured which occurred in between the neutron and SL bursts (as would be the case after slowing down and capture in H or other elements like Cl since D-D fusion does not produce gamma photons.) Gamma photon energy is consistent with expected energies of n capture in H, Cl, etc.

- Tritium (in statistically significant quantities ~4 SD) was also measured in addition to neutrons and gamma signals and was only measured when the test liquid was deuterated, while it was cavitating and when the thermal hydraulic conditions were in the specific range; tritium generation and monitoring is something that has no bearing on acoustic drive related interference. Control conditions did not result in tritium. Tritium emissions are consistent with neutron emission levels within experimental error.

- Theoretical simulations of the conditions of the Science(2002) and Phys.Rev.E(2004) papers by Nigmatulin et al. (Phys.of Fluids, 2005) have provided physics-based backing for the potential for attainment of thermonuclear fusion conditions at the rates measured in the Science(2002) and Phys.Rev.E(2004) publications. The same theoretical framework furthermore, provided input on when to not expect success - something which was then found experimentally and published in the group's 2006 PRL publication.

- The egregious charges related to fraud/fabrication that were announced in 2006 Nature (E.Reich) based on a single, non-peer reviewed web-posting of a UCLA researcher have been looked into and rejected by the 3 investigation committees over the past 3 years as without any merit. Note: 34 allegations were received over the past several years and all 34 (including the ones on fraud/fabrication) have been rejected. Unfortunately, the Purdue C-22 Inv.C report does not include this revelation since the balance of charges were already dismissed by earlier committees and which DoD's ONR has formally accepted.

- The charges of use of Cf-252 made by UCLA researchers has also been addressed scientifically in the Taleyarkhan et al. group's recent manuscript published in NED (see attached paper). This is besides the obvious flaws that were explained already in the published rebuttal to UCLA in PRL in October, 2006.

- Finally, in this arena, Prof. Zimmerman misconstrues the 2008 Inv.C report's statements related to expertise in neutron monitoring by Taleyarkhan, Block,.. The statements made in the Inv.C report deals not with the work presented in the group's published papers but for a single occasion when an ORNL group visited Purdue at Purdue's invitation in their initial stage (2003) of getting up to speed to conduct tutoring studies in Purdue's laboratory environment. Scoping trial experiments were done for neutron measurements without the usual precautions and time-bearing steps for careful calibrations, etc. Those specific data were never intended for publication since such would require careful screening for background noise, etc. effects which would also require control experimentation. The Inv.C Report mentions and acknowledges this aspect.

The neutron and tritium monitoring methodology and approaches as used for deriving the published data in Science(2002), Phys.Rev.E(2004) and Phys.Rev.L(2006) has been reviewed in person by recognized stalwarts and pioneers of the field such as Jack Harvey/ Michael Murray/ William Bugg/Bob Fleischer and other modern day practitioners such as Larry Miller of UTK as well as people like Glenn Young (physics div. director-ORNL). This is in addition to the neutron monitoring expertise possessed by the group's own Bob Block (previously of ORNL) and others like Colin West. All concerns related to neutron PSD work as published by the group in Science(2002) were addressed in later publications and there has not been any technical challenge since in relation to neutron-tritium measured data as published by our group.

2) Confirmation Studies (successful and not)

- For the one situation where Putterman et al. failed in their attempt, there are others which were indeed successful and which have been entered into the public domain (with signed testimonials and affidavits):

i) 2005 NED paper by Xu/Butt
ii) 2005 NURETH-11 Proceedings paper by Xu/Butt/Revankar
iii)) 2006 paper (Proc. Intl. Conf. Fusion Energy) by E. Forringer et al.
iv) 2006 paper (Proc. Intl. Conf. Fusion Energy) by E. Forringer et al.
v) Report to Purdue University of successful replication experiments of the 2006 PRL paper -by William Bugg (retd. Head of Physics Univ.Tenn,Knoxville, presently, Research Prof. Stanford University)
vi) Testimonial of successful public demonstration-1 (2006)
vii) Testimonial for successful public demonstration -2 (2006)

- It is true that the Putterman et al. group published a paper in PRL declaring they could not reproduce the data as published in Science(2002) and Phys.Rev.E(2004). This is traced to non-attainment of the experimental conditions that were so in the successful studies [Science(2002), Phys.Rev.E(2004), PRL(2006)]. The mode of SL production, degassing, acoustic profiles and importantly, the shape and rate of bubble clusters were completely off-base. Video records were transmitted to Taleyarkhan et al. group from UCLA/UIUC for which feedback was provided to them to advise them to not expect success under these circumstances (i.e., bubble cluster shapes in the UCLA expts. were elongated and nonspherical and they deliberately added non-condensible gases to increase SL emission levels, opposite of that utilized by Taleyarkhan et al.). Indeed, in the 2005 NED/NURETH-11 papers by Xu/Butt/Revankar they specifically demonstrate that under the UCLA expt. conditions, successful D-D bubble fusion will not occur. This is not to say that Putterman et al. are poor scientists; this has never been stated by any of Taleyarkhan's co-authors. Just that Putterman et al. did a different experiment. Their expertise base has been developed around single-(gas) bubble sonoluminescence not in on-demand nuclear scale nucleated bubble clusters in degassed liquids.

- Yes, a scoping attempt was also made in early 2001 while Taleyarkhan was at ORNL by physicists Shapira and Saltmarsh to measure nuclear emissions. Note: Shapira/Saltmarsh did not run their own experiements over several months or even days. What is not appreciated is that Shapira /Saltmarsh made a single measurement using a different LS detector on a single afternoon over the period of ~1 hour alone in Taleyarkhan's laboratory and a statistically significant result for nuclear emissions was was indeed obtained by them for excess nuclear emissions time correlated with the region of time when deuterated bubble clusters were imploding. Shapira nor Saltmarsh did not investigate for tritium nor did they conduct control experiment related measurements with non-deuterated liquid. Due to the x30 large size of their detectors used there were electronic issues related to gamma saturation in some time regions. A review of the raw data has already been published as a reference in the Science (2002) paper. However, the media has distorted this scoping attempt by Shapira/Saltmarsh - both accomplished scientists in their own right. The data obtained by the discovery team were reviewed at length by ORNL management taking assistance from resident expertise and eventually after many tens of in-depth assessments (and also taking into account for due diligence the Shapira/Saltmarsh scoping attempts not at experimentation) decided that the work and data obtained were on solid ground (see comments from Glenn Young - Director of Physics Div.,ORNL of 2004 to NYTimes as also the ORNL position statement in consultation with Prof. Lee Riedinger, Exec.VP for Science/Technology, ORNL both of whom participated in indepth reviews and audits).

Yes, neutron detection is non-trivial. The same goes in spades and more so for conducting bubble fusion experimentation and controlling the shape and implosion of not one but cluster of hundreds of bubbles.

In no instance that I am aware of, have either Taleyarkhan or any of the co-authors ever mentioned that this method for attaining bubble fusion in deuterated liquids is ready for immediately resolving the world's energy problems. Many issues will need to be confronted and overcome in terms of scaling to breakeven, before one is confident enough to make such claims. Unfortunately, the simplistic sound-bites of the press provide a distorted view of reality.

3) Regarding the work of Xu/Butt/Revankar

- Yiban Xu was NOT a doctoral student of Rusi Taleyarkhan (as mentioned by Prof. Zimmerman), nor his major advisor (who was M. Ishii). Taleyarkhan had a courtesy, last-minute impromptu appointment on Xu's thesis defense committee - something requested of him by Xu's major professor Ishii and constituted nothing more than to review his PhD thesis, give comments for completeness and hear his defense. The rebuttal to the C-22 Inv.C Report includes this clarification but Purdue has not corrected their report after release. During the time Xu conducted his studies, he was under direction and sponsorship of Tsoukalas (who served as PI and paid for XU's salary from external sponsored funds).

- The laboratory where Xu worked (under direction of Tsoukalas), the test cell equipment, the mode of nucleation, the protocol for nuclear emission detection, the test fluids, the drive train, the calibrations, the detection equipment, the thermal hydraulic enclosure that were used by Y. Xu were all different and in some cases radically so from the ones used at Oak Ridge. Taleyarkhan nor anyone else from the original team participated in any of the experiments, nor in the data analyses, nor in drawing of conclusions, nor in the drafting of the manuscript of Xu, Butt and Revankar. Yes, initial consulting was provided to Purdue from Oak Ridge and that was acknowledged by Xu/Butt/Revankar in their publications. Xu and Revankar both have issued and signed a sworn affidavit to this effect. Every investigation committee that has looked at the facts and evidence have come to this conclusion.

- The only statement made in the Taleyarkhan et al group's 2006 PRL paper as related to the Xu/Butt/revankar paper was: these "observations" have now been independently confirmed. The observations indeed were independently confirmed by Xu. The entire author team felt this was legitimately the case and maintains this till today. All co-authors have sworn statements to this effect and see nothing wrong. These facts were omitted in the C-22 Inv.C report but are present in the Rebuttal correction which has not been publicized.

- According to sworn affidavits of Xu, Revankar and several others, Xu worked over several months with Butt on conducting sonofusion studies. It was Xu's initiative to respond to a referee's comment that the work be looked at by a separate person upon which Xu took the initiative to request Butt for his participation; Butt was asked by Taleyarkhan if he would like to do so and upon agreement, Butt then worked with Xu to perform cross-checking, re-analyses of data/drawing of conclusions, etc. to Xu's satisfaction not Taleyarkhan's. The affidavits of Mize and several close observers shed light into the dynamics of the generation of Butt's statement.

- The lack of neutron detection capability for monitoring fast neutrons with PSD (gating of gammas) is issued in the 2008 Inv.C report in relation to the expertise of Y. Xu prior to undertaking his confirmatory studies. Yes, he did not have that specific expertise prior to his attempts but he was a 15y veteran nuclear engineer from his days in China as an Asst.Prof. from Tsinghua Univ. and then at Purdue and he picked up what he needed to learn from various individual faculty at Purdue (not just from Oak Ridge) as well as learning from Oak Ridge expert on tritium monitoring. This lack of prior expertise in these specific areas of neutron-tritium detection that is taken out of context. It is not what a person knows but what he/she accomplishes after several months of full-time work with assistance/counsel from others and then describes in a manuscript which then gets reviewed for attaining of standards of scientific merit by experts chosen by the editor of a respected journal. No one has questioned the technical merit of the Xu/Butt/Revankar technical publications. It is unfair to judge someone for their past alone.

4) Final notes

It is to be noted that the 2 charges for which Taleyarkhan has been sanctioned are not present in any of the 34 allegations made for this round of investigations initiated by Congressman Miller in early 2007. These two were entered against the specific instructions and charter.

The same 2 charges that were entered into the final report (against all rules governing the process of investigation) were already ruled upon in 2006 by a duly appointed committee of distinguished peers - looking at the same facts and evidence. That review/investigation of facts, without political pressure from Congress, had exonerated Taleyarkhan.

Perhaps at some point Steve Krivit or some other reporter will also reveal to the public that Taleyarkhan received threats of punishment in early 2008 (once also left from the attorney as a voice-mail message) that were to be commensurate with the degree of cooperation with Purdue in their dealings (with the federal govt.) in which issues of outright fraud, discrimination, reprisal as brought up not by Taleyarkhan but by several other employees of Purdue were not included. Affidavits of Jenkins and Mize and Timmerman among others from students are testimony to this. If this all sounds egregious and amazing and unworthy of occurrence, I concur also but have been so amazed at the twists and turns of the past several years that I leave it up to others to help set the record straight. As things stand, I bear the main brunt of sanctions.

Only one subject to such experiences can appreciate the toll it takes on family, health, finances and to the science.

I include my co-authors on cc list so they may comment as appropriate and correct the above clarifications and notes for the record.

Respectfully submitted,

Rusi Taleyarkhan

--

Rusi P. Taleyarkhan, Ph.D., M.B.A
Professor
400 Central Drive
College of Engineering
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1290
Telephone: (765)-420-7537
Email: rusi@purdue.edu

*********************
----- Forwarded message from peter.zimmerman -----
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:06:42 -0400
From: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman >
Reply-To: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman
Subject: Re: Sonofusion back in the news
To: Rusi Taleyarkhan <rusi@purdue.edu>

I would feel more comfortable discussing things with you if you did not cc the HSG group. Sonofusion and Mills's "classical quantum mechanics" and hydrinos have nothing whatever to do with whether or not you
produced some neutrons in deuterated solvents.

I will not respond to any e-mails copied to HSG or to Steve Krivit in the future.

-pz

*********************

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:57:57 -0400
From: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman@kcl.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
To: Rusi Taleyarkhan <rusi@purdue.edu>
CC: web1 <web1@newenergytimes.com>, Robert Nigmatulin <nigmar >, "Dr. Richard T. Lahey" <laheyr >, JaeSeon Cho <jaeseoncho >, Yiban Xu <yiban >

Subject: Re: HSG: Re: Sonofusion back in the news (rpt->P.Zimmerman, et al., 9.11.08)

I will review your papers and that of Putterman, et al. when I have time. As I said, I do not understand the attitude of the "free energy" community (eg, Krivit) that sonofusion is some mysterious sound-mitigated new physics. It has always been within the realm of possibility that fusion conditions could be achieved in the collapse of a bubble containing deuterium from a large enough to a small enough diameter; after all, it works in the sun and in hydrogen bombs, although the size scales are much larger.

I would be more inclined to believe that fusion conditions were achievable had the acetone been D and T doped. The threshold is much lower; I have not worked with large quantities of tritium myself, but have worked in labs where others did; I do not underestimate the added difficulties.

pz

*********************
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:16:33 -0800
To: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman >, Rusi Taleyarkhan <rusi >, "hydrino-yahoogroups.com" <hydrino@yahoogroups.com>
From: web1 <web1@newenergytimes.com>
Subject: Re: HSG: Re: Sonofusion back in the news (rpt->P.Zimmerman, et al., 9.11.08)
Cc: Robert Nigmatulin, "Dr. Richard T. Lahey", JaeSeon Cho, Yiban Xu

Peter Zimmerman,

This thread started with your public statement that Taleyarkhan had committed fraud. Are you still so certain of that?

Steve Krivit

Editor, New Energy Times

*********************
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:09:41 -0400
From: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
To: web1 <web1@newenergytimes.com>
Subject: Re: HSG: Re: Sonofusion back in the news (rpt->P.Zimmerman, et al., 9.11.08)

I will have some interesting info you can quote if you will agree to go off the record on some other stuff. How say you?

pz

*********************
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:51:50 -0800
To: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman>
From: Steve Krivit <stevek@newenergytimes.com>
Subject: Re: HSG: Re: Sonofusion back in the news (rpt->P.Zimmerman, et al., 9.11.08)

pz

I'm not sure why I want to go off the record with you or why you are averse to being quoted.

But I will try to work with you.

Let's do this one step at a time.

Send me ONE message. I will agree to receive that ONE message OFF RECORD. If I want to continue an off-record conversation with you, I will reconfirm my willingness to do so.

sk

*********************
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:55:08 -0400
From: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman@kcl.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
To: web1 <web1@newenergytimes.com>
Subject: OFF RECORD in part. Re: HSG: Re: Sonofusion back in the news (rpt->P.Zimmerman, et al., 9.11.08)

I will stick with the following:

[ON the record] Assuming that the statement of Adam Butt is correct, then there was some research misconduct.  

The above line can be quoted, if quoted completely.

NOW going OFF the record:

[off-record comments redacted]

*********************

[Note: I did not find anything useful in Zimmerman's off-record message to me, to the contrary, it convinced me that it was not worthwhile to develop a confidential relationship with him, and, in fact, it might have been harmful to me had I done so.]

*********************
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:31:38 -0800
To: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman@kcl.ac.uk>
From: Steven Krivit <steven1@newenergytimes.com>
Subject: Sept 13 Letter to Peter Zimmerman
Cc: Rusi Taleyarkhan <rusi@purdue.edu>

Peter Zimmerman,

On Sept. 12, you wrote, "I will have some interesting info you can quote if you will agree to go off the record on some other stuff.  How say you?" As you know, I agreed to receive one off-the-record e-mail from you.
On Sept. 13, I received your off-the-record e-mail message. I appreciate and thank you for your off-the-record reply. I appreciate hearing your private views about some of the Purdue matters. The insight is helpful to me.
In your June 28 e-mail to the Hydrino Study Group e-mail list, you stated that you are "one of perhaps a dozen people on the committee that drafted the federal rules" on the standards of research fraud.
Please send me one more off-the-record or on-the-record reply to the following questions about your June 28 e-mail.
1. Why were you were so confident that the Adam Butt document provided proof of fraud on the part of Rusi Taleyarkhan, although, according to your Sept. 11 e-mail to me, you had "no access" to the Adam Butt document? 
2. You wrote that Taleyarkhan intended to "deceive the editors of Physical Review Letters." Do you want to remain on record as making this statement?
3. You wrote that the Purdue C-22 research misconduct investigation committee "found factual basis for criticizing Rusi Taleyarkhan's work" and that this "cast very serious doubt on Rusi Taleyarkhan's competent performance of his experiment."

As I recall, one of the main pieces of information used for criticizing Rusi Taleyarkhan's work was the alleged replication work performed at UCLA by researchers Seth Putterman and Brian Naranjo. In that experiment, the UCLA team deliberately added noncondensable gases to the experiment. I understand that this guarantees a failure to replicate the Taleyarkhan effect.

This fact - and others like it - was in the public record. As Taleyarkhan wrote to you on Sept. 11, "in the 2005 [Nuclear Engineering and Design and the Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics conference] papers by Yiban Xu, Adam Butt and Shripad Revankar, they specifically demonstrate that, under the UCLA experimental conditions, successful deuterium-deuterium bubble fusion will not occur." I also published these facts on July 10, 2007, in my "New Energy Times Special Report on Bubble Fusion/Sonofusion."

Do you want to remain on record as making the statement (shown above) regarding "factual basis for criticizing" Taleyarkhan's work and competence?

4. You wrote that the C-22 report "absolutely demonstrated that Yiban Xu did not do his 'confirmatory' experiment independently. Rather, he used Taleyarkhan's apparatus and had Taleyarkhan, his former PhD adviser, looking over his shoulder and Xu knew what results were expected."

Have you, to your satisfaction, verified that the C-22 investigation was performed properly? More important, do you believe that the existing state and federal guidelines and laws pertaining to investigation of research misconduct provide sufficient and effective guidance for matters like this? Do you believe that the federal guidelines provide sufficient due process? Do you believe that the federal guidelines for standards on research fraud provide sufficient protection from abuse?

5. You wrote that the "Taleyarkhan group did not have a clue how to measure small neutrons or neutrons to high precision and made elementary experimental errors." After reading the e-mail Taleyarkhan sent to you on Sept. 11, do you want to remain on record as making this statement?

Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
Executive Director, New Energy Institute Inc.
NEW ENERGY TIMES
Original reporting on leading-edge energy research and technologies
369-B Third Street, Suite 556
San Rafael, California, USA 94901
www.newenergytimes.com
Office Phone: (310) 470-8189

*********************
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:25:30 -0400
From: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman >
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
To: Steven Krivit <steven1 >
Subject: Re: Sept 13 Letter to Peter Zimmerman

Stephen Krivit:

You have given me much to chew on and a need to check physics journal articles by teams that do not include Taleyarkhan or any of his collaborators.  [Three sentences redacted. Zimmerman stated that he had back problems.]

pz

*********************
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:24:11 -0800
To: Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman@>
From: Steven Krivit <steven1>
Subject: Re: Sept 13 Letter to Peter Zimmerman

Peter Zimmerman,

I look forward to hearing back from you after you do further reading. Our entire thread, in sequence and context, sans off-record communication, is now online at http://newenergytimes.com/bubblegate/PeterZimmermanBubble.shtml.

Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

*********************
Note: I do not know why, at the end of this exchange, Zimmerman decided to tell me about his back pain, with no indication of its being off-the-record. Maybe he was consciously or unconsciously trying to get me to go soft on him and not publish our exchange.

I do not have a personal relationship with Zimmerman, let alone a friendship. Our interaction was solely about my journalistic questions to him about his public allegations of fraud, deceit and incompetence on the part of Rusi Taleyarkhan.

I was holding Zimmerman accountable for the things he said publicly about Taleyarkhan that were damaging to Taleyarkhan's reputation and, most likely, false. When I questioned Zimmerman, he was unable to defend any of his statements, in my opinion. In the end, he said that he has to do more reading and that he is having health problems.

*********************

THE AFTERMATH:

On Sept. 13, I asked Zimmerman the following question:

" You wrote that Taleyarkhan intended to "deceive the editors of Physical Review Letters." Do you want to remain on record as making this statement?"

On Sept. 14, Zimmerman responded:

"You have given me much to chew on and a need to check physics journal articles by teams that do not include Taleyarkhan or any of his collaborators.

I never heard back from Zimmerman. However, 10 days later...

On Sept. 24, 2008, Daniel Kulp, Editorial Director of the American Physical Society, (publisher of Physical Review Letters) prepared to publish notes stating that Taleyarkhan intended to falsify and distort the research record. The draft note states that the Taleyarkhan group paper contained an inaccuracy.

On Sept. 24, 2008, Physics Today/Barbara Gross Levi initiated an article regarding the Purdue sanction against Taleyarkhan.

On Oct. 7, 2009, Taleyarkhan provided substantive facts to Physics Today/Barbara Gross Levi, in response to her request for comment.

On Nov. 8, 2008, Physics Today/Barbara Goss Levi published "Bubble Fusion Scientist Disciplined" and failed to report substantive facts provided by Taleyarkhan.

Throughout these months, the Taleyarkhan group and Krivit provided substantive facts to Physical Review Letters/Daniel Kulp. (See Record of Communications listed at Dec. 12, 2008.)

On Nov. 8, 2008, Physical Review Letters/Daniel Kulp published an editorial note that does not mention Taleyarkhan, let alone state anything derogatory about him. The note also failed to mention anything about an inaccuracy. Instead, the note mentioned the actions of the Purdue investigative committee action. In a personal message to Taleyarkhan, Kulp dismissed the Purdue matter as "hubbub."