HOME ABOUT CONTACT NEWS SITE LENR News Index Search Site ----

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

New Energy Times(tm) gratefully acknowledges the generosity and support of:

The New Energy Foundation
Mr. Charles Beaudette  

__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
EDITORIALS AND OPINION
1.   From the Editor
2.   To the Editor
NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
3.   Bridging the Gap - The 12th International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Systems
4.   Bridging the Gap - In Germany and Malaysia and the U.S.
ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES
5.   Journal of Scientific Exploration Reviews The Rebirth of Cold Fusion by Krivit and Winocur
6.   1993 Cold Fusion Report from Richard Garwin and Nathan Lewis on SRI International Research
7.   1991 Cold Fusion Report from Alan Bard on SRI International Research
BITS AND PIECES
8.   Bubble Fusion Takes Next Hurdle by Haiko Lietz
9.   EarthTech International Inc. Announces the "Mother of All Calorimeters"
10.  Speakers Available - Experts on the Subject of Cold Fusion
11.  Updates to the New Energy Times (tm) Web Site
12.  Support New Energy Times (tm)
13.  Administrative

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

All things are possible until they are proved impossible. And even the impossible may only be so, as of now.

--Pearl S. Buck

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

EDITORIALS AND OPINION

1. From the Editor 

It is a rare day when I am astounded by pure, unadulterated truth in advertising. It is an even rarer day, when, in mid-2005, I see any mention of the peak oil problem, named or unnamed, in the conventional media, let alone in an advertisement from an oil company. This rare day arrives courtesy of a widely-appearing advertisement from Chevron Corp. For readers new to the matter of peak oil, please read "A Conversation About Peak Oil with Colin Campbell" at http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/NET9.shtml .

What is this interest and attention to oil companies in New Energy Times, you ask? Haven't the oil companies conspired to suppress cold fusion?

We reasonably can assume that executives at Shell and Amoco knew there was validity to cold fusion as early as 1989. The Amoco report by Lautzenhiser, Phelps and Eisner states, "This experiment yielded a 30% energy gain ... At this point the work was disclosed to Amoco TRC management." (http://newenergytimes.com/reports/amoco.shtml).

Jacques Dufour, director of scientific relations for Shell, now retired, reported positive signs of cold fusion last decade, as well. Dufour, however, sees cold fusion as a difficult problem, which offers hope, yet no certainties about a new source of energy. Other cold fusion scientists are far more certain about cold fusion's potential, but let me not belabor that point here.

The point, whether the oil companies ignored cold fusion, is immaterial. Certainly, they may have chosen to ignore it, though far-sighted individuals in those companies would have been unwise to do so. Regardless, no one has shown me any evidence that they actively suppressed and attacked cold fusion.

It is a far different story, however, for the representatives of the American physics establishment and scientists whose careers and funding were threatened by a better way to do fusion. Certainly Fleischmann, Pons, University of Utah administrators Chase Peterson and James Brophy can be faulted for numerous errors in judgment. I don't think this compares, however, to the shameful behavior of their attackers who "turned the scientific community away from its duty to evaluate what was claimed and redirect its interests to the mean practice of politics," as Charles Beaudette wrote in Excess Heat.

Before we focus our attention on the Chevron advertisement, let's look at the drivel from some of the other oil companies.

The latest ConocoPhillips advertisement promises "Cleaner fuels. Advanced fuels. Liquefied natural gas ... ultra-deepwater drilling and production technology ... Because at ConocoPhillips, discovering and innovating new technologies is just another way we elevate."

The only elevation I see here is the propagation of the myth that natural gas is any more plentiful than oil.

BP, formerly British Petroleum, now tags itself as "beyond petroleum." Its Web site proclaims, "Our plan to generate electricity from hydrogen and capture carbon dioxide could set a new standard for cleaner energy." Its print ad states that "BP continues to develop alternative energy sources like hydrogen." One little problem. Hydrogen isn't an energy source; it's an energy carrier, a storage medium. Hydrogen doesn't exist all by itself. If someone would kindly tell me where BP intends to get the energy to make its hydrogen, I'll consider this more seriously. The only new standard I see being set here is a low point in marketing integrity and corporate ethics.

BP, interestingly, has inherited Steven Koonin from Caltech and positioned him as its chief scientist. Koonin is best remembered for his entertaining remark "It’s all very well to theorize how fusion might take place in a palladium cathode. … One could also theorize about how pigs could fly if they had wings, but pigs don’t have wings," and his ugly and ungentlemanly characterizations of Fleischmann and Pons as incompetent and delusional.

And now, for a breath of fresh air, ladies and gentlemen, please listen to the leader of Chevron Corp., David J. O'Reilly, in a full-page ad appearing nationwide for the last few weeks:

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

"Energy will be one of the defining issues of this century. One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over. What we all do next will determine how well we meet the energy needs of the entire world in this century and beyond.

Demand is soaring like never before. As populations grow and economies take off, millions in the developing world are enjoying the benefits of a lifestyle that requires increasing amounts of energy. In fact, some say that in 20 years the world will consume 40 percent more oil than it does today. At the same time, many of the world's oil and gas fields are maturing. And new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract, physically, economically and politically. When growing demand meets tighter supplies, the result is more competition for the same resources.

We can wait until a crisis forces us to do something. Or we can commit to working together, and start by asking the tough questions: How do we meet the energy needs of the developing world and those of industrialized nations? What role will renewables and alternative energies play? What is the best way to protect our environment? How do we accelerate our conservation efforts? Whatever actions we take, we must look not just to next year, but to the next 50 years.

At Chevron, we believe that innovation, collaboration and conservation are the cornerstones on which to build this new world. We cannot do this alone. Corporations, governments and every citizen of this planet must be part of the solution as surely as they are part of the problem. We call upon scientists and educators, politicians and policy-makers, environmentalists, leaders of industry and each one of you to be part of reshaping the next era of energy.

David J. O'Reilly
Chairman and CEO
Chevron Corporation

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

New Energy Times offers this public letter to Chevron in response:

Bravo to Chevron and Mr. O'Reilly! Bravo for speaking the honest truth about our worldwide energy situation. Bravo for informing the American and world public of the impending conflicts between supply and demand. (The real conflicts have not even started). And bravo for alerting the world to the necessity to join together and be part of the solution.

I would like, therefore, to take this opportunity to invite you to take a look at those who have been unfailingly dedicated to the field of cold fusion research. The debate, the argument, by the way, over cold fusion's scientific validity is over, though many people remain uninformed and out of date. The only remaining uncertainty is whether the small effect seen in laboratories can be scaled up to useful power levels.

Researchers working in the cold fusion field do not do so because it is fun, easy, appreciated or financially rewarding, though those aspects may come in time. They do so because they share your concerns about society. They do so because they are alert to the facts behind this science. And they do so because they recognize the potential of a highly energetic reaction in a very small footprint without commensurate radiation, devoid of greenhouse gasses.

Won't you join them and show your support?

Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
Executive Director, New Energy Institute Inc.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

2. To the Editor
(Letters may be sent to "letters" at the New Energy Times domain name. Please include your name, city, and state or province.)
 
To the editor:
 
Back in the late 1960s, I had the good fortune to work as a consultant in Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's New York office. The experience illuminated the fact that while there are some true public servants in government employ, they are far outnumbered. One of the best, a senior official who became a good friend, once surprised me, when I mentioned the then current notion that "Small is Beautiful", by pointing out that large private business was urgently required, to offset the inevitable abuse and failings within the Federal government. The many contacts I have had with officials in government agencies including the national labs, have convinced me he was, sadly, correct.

Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Hydrinos, and Zero Point Energy, et al, are all examples of technologies that urgently need support, especially in light of the article titled "Ticking Time Bomb," that appeared in the Baltimore Sun last December 15. If Jones Beene, a writer with an exceptionally strong science background, is correct, and John Atcheson, the geologist who wrote the article agrees with him, we have 15 to 25 years before mammalian life in the arctic begins being snuffed out by methane clouds. These will then move south, threatening all human life on earth.

Natural gas supply, according to Matthew Simmons, and Atcheson agrees, is likely to "fall off a cliff" in North America no later than 2007. Oil prices, Simmons states, will reach $100/barrel in about 5 months.

With all the governments's failings, the only hope is rapid private-sector funding and development. This is slowly, much too slowly, beginning to occur. Perhaps it will speed up considerably over the next year as the latter two events begin to penetrate the sad state of media coverage of these monumental problems.

If a working example of promising new energy technology can reach the market sometime next year, it may bring attention to all of these issues. That is my personal goal. I have no illusions regarding the likelihood of a rapid change in public understanding and support, but it is not impossible. No more so than the technological breakthroughs that have occurred thus far. As the CoEvolution Quarterly used to be titled: What is needed is "Difficult but Possible."

Keep plugging,

Mark Goldes
Chairman & CEO
Magnetic Power Inc.
Room Temperature Superconductors Inc.
Sebastopol, CA

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
 
3. Bridging the Gap - The 12th International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Systems
 By Steven Krivit

Two weeks ago, on Aug. 26, several researchers active in the cold fusion field, as well as myself, presented a well-rounded introduction of the field to the 12th International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Systems. 104 people from 20 countries participated. The cold fusion presentations were received well by the audience, which comprised mostly researchers in the nuclear fission power industry as well as those working to develop the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the world’s largest hot fusion experiment.

The conference, which occurs every two years, was hosted this year by the Belgian Nuclear Research Center and was held at the Hotel Metropole in central Belgium. The 110-year old hotel has been the host of several historic science conferences, including the first Solvay Physics Conference in 1911 with physics luminaries such as Max Planck, Ernest Solvay, Hendrik Lorentz, Marie Curie, Ernest Rutherford and Albert Einstein.

Italian theoretical physicist Fulvio Frisone, limited by a physical disability, presented his model for cold fusion with the help of an aide. A caring and endearing team including his mother, Lucia, facilitated Frisone's participation in the conference.

Mike McKubre of SRI International in California presented a short overview of some of his labs' many replications as well as an assortment of others under investigation at SRI. He hopes to have new results to present in November at the 12th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, in Yokohama, Japan.

Italian experimental physicist Antonella De Ninno presented a paper written with Martin Fleischmann, Emilio Del Giudice and Antonio Frattolillo. Their unique set of experiments, under specific conditions which include an environment of high concentration of deuterium in palladium, demonstrated unusually high temperatures along with the simultaneous production of helium-4.

De Ninno works at the Italian Agency for New Technology, Energy and Environment. In this experiment, sufficient anomalous energy was produced to melt the palladium wires used as the cathode.

“We know it did not melt as a result of Joule heating,” explained De Ninno, “because there was only a few milliwatts of current. Furthermore, a new element, helium-4 was produced during the experiment. The explanation of this effect requires a deeper insight of our description of condensed matter.”

Because De Ninno's work received praise from Nobel-prize winner Carlo Rubbia, it attracted the attention of the French Atomic Energy Commission two years ago, and she was invited to Paris to deliver a briefing to René Pellat, former director of the French Atomic Energy Commission.

Antonella De Ninno (Photo by Mark McGlaughlin)

After the researchers presented their talks, I presented a brief overview of my investigations from the past five years. With the assistance of several helpful sources, as well as author Charles Beaudette, I have been able to uncover several significant and unreported studies of positive cold fusion experiments, as well as surprising information about the early so-called replication attempts by the scientists who asserted no evidence for cold fusion. Even the lead scientist at Caltech, Nathan Lewis, one of those who was unable to see any positive signs of cold fusion in his lab in 1989, witnessed such in 1993 at SRI International.

The cold fusion experiments by Amoco and Shell are significant, not so much because of their potential interest in a competing energy source but because their experiments, like many performed at SRI International, were well-funded and unhurried. The experimenters at Amoco and Shell worked for many months on their projects, far beyond the 40 days taken by Caltech and MIT to hastily conclude there was "nothing" to cold fusion.

I also presented a summary of eight retrospective studies which audited the work at Caltech, MIT and Harwell. All of these studies found evidence of major errors, as well as possible excess power in each of the labs, which were previously reported to have disproved cold fusion.

My talk was well-received by the audience as well as by conference chairman Hamid Aït Abderrahim and conference coordinator Bernard Verboomen. Both researchers work at the Belgian Nuclear Research Center in conventional nuclear power research. Verboomen commented that my talk was well-structured and very appropriate for this audience because they didn't know much about cold fusion. Time was permitted for two questions or comments from the audience.

The first comment pertained to the interviews given by Nathan Lewis of Caltech and Ronald Parker of MIT to the New York Times where they reported 'no evidence' for cold fusion.

The audience member stated "I think it is a very bad idea for scientists to deliver messages to newspapers before they actually publish papers in peer-reviewed journals. That whole discussion was extremely emotional between those people."

This audience member was correct. It was several months later that Caltech and MIT would publish their papers. Some critics of cold fusion scoff that the University of Utah disclosed the findings in a press conference. Their use of the media to deliver scientific messages was not unique. In fact, an ugly and massive communication failure in the field of science occurred across the board.

The second member of the audience to comment was Paul Vandenplas, the former head of the Belgian hot fusion program and a member of the European ITER negotiating team.

"First, one small statement," Vandenplas said. "It's a fact that Pons and Fleischmann were wrong, the scientific report of the work they have done. It has been proven that the theory, the nuclear theory on which they explain their results was incorrect. And so, of course, this placed the whole debate in a very grave way and the answer was: They're wrong."

Vandenplas delivered his comment with a strong tone, as was typical of the early debates of cold fusion. I had just finished a presentation in which I conveyed not only where history proved Fleischmann and Pons correct, with the claim of excess heat, but also where they were shown to be incorrect, with their early claims of nuclear products. Even though I agreed with Vandenplas' comment, his point was not initially clear to me. Had the day's communications from the cold fusion community fallen on deaf ears?

I realized afterward that I had not acknowledged the depth of the errors of Fleischmann and Pons, from this hot fusion physicist's perspective, to his satisfaction. In retrospect, I remember Charles Beaudette's eloquent related comment several years earlier, in an interview on radio station KUER.

"Their theory of what might happen, and why, was all wet, very much like Columbus going west to find India. That was all wet, too. But still, great discoveries come out of these things," Beaudette said.

Physicist Peter Hagelstein, with MIT, recalled his initial perspective on the historical cold fusion announcement. Fleischmann and Pons' theoretical explanation was "reproduced in all the papers, magazines, and other media outlets in 1989 following the initial press conference," Hagelstein said. However, there were obviously major problems with the theory.

"That Fleischmann gave such an explanation completely destroyed his credibility in the eyes of the physics community, since it was completely obvious that it was wrong," Hagelstein said.

Fortunately, once Vandenplas' preamble was heard and acknowledged, he continued, "Now, it seems today, that it appears that there might be evidence in the SRI results, production of energy which are not far from being understood."

This was most inspiring to hear. Finally! A genuine dialogue about the science is starting to occur.

Those attending the International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Systems were an important group of people. They, perhaps more than anyone, know the tremendous potential of nuclear energy. And many of them seemed to care less whether is was fission, hot fusion or cold fusion. They just want to see humankind have the capacity to survive and thrive and make it through the coming energy transition. They share the common understanding that nuclear energy is the only type of energy known to humankind that has the large-scale capacity to replace fossil fuels.

I, for one, learned quite a few new things about conventional nuclear energy. Fission technology, for example, has more than its share of myths and urban legends, though perhaps not as many as in cold fusion. But certainly, I was impressed with the knowledge and safety and design considerations demonstrated by these experts.

Overall, the day yielded an excellent exchange of information. The only question Alistair Miller, senior scientist with the Chalk River Laboratory of Atomic Energy of Canada, asked of McKubre was, "How soon do you think we will see commercially viable technology?" This is the question on everyone's minds. McKubre replied that it could be a few years.

Steven B. Krivit (Photo by Haiko Lietz)

RESOURCES:
"How Can Cold Fusion Be Real, Considering It Was Disproved By Several Well-Respected Labs In 1989?"
Presented at the 12th International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems Bruxelles, Belgium, Aug. 26, 2005
Paper: http://newenergytimes.com/library/2005KrivitS-HowCanItBeReal-Paper.pdf
Presentation: http://newenergytimes.com/library/2005KrivitS-HowCanItBeReal-Presentation.pdf
Audio Recording: http://newenergytimes.com/audiol/2005KrivitS-ICENES-2005.mp3

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

4. Bridging the Gap - In Germany, Malaysia, and the U.S.

Naturwissenschaften, a well-respected German journal of general science, published "Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in The Palladium Lattice," by Stanislaw Szpak, Pamela Mosier Boss, Charles Young, Frank Gordon, U.S. Navy, SPAWAR San Diego in August. Congratulations to this team for their patience and persistence!
http://newenergytimes.com/library/2005SzpakS-EvidenceOfNuclearReactionsPdLattice.pdf

Akito Takahashi of Osaka University alerted the physics community to the rebirth of cold fusion in his paper "Condensed Matter Nuclear Effects," in a plenary talk at the International Meeting on Frontiers of Physics (IMFP 2005) on July 29, 2005 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The conference was organized by the Malaysian Institute of Physics and Physics Department, University of Malaya. Takahashi reports that his talk was enthusiastically received and that the editor of a major U.S. physics journal was also present to hear his update. I hope we can start to see some enlightened editorial leadership as a result.
http://newenergytimes.com/library/2005TakahashiA-CondensedMatterNuclearEffects.pdf

New Energy Times contributor Peter Gluck brings the following paper to our attention: "Re-Evaluation of the Pons-Fleischmann Experiment In Light of Cold Fusion Reactions," presented at the 230th American Chemical Society national meeting, in Washington, DC, Aug. 29, 2005 by Jan Marwan.

This is the first we have heard of Marwan, though the paper caught our interest, considering the scarcity of cold fusion papers presented at American Chemical Society meetings. If you are interested in the paper, please check back with New Energy Times in a few weeks to see whether we have been able to obtain it. The abstract follows:

Jan Marwan, Research Laboratory, Dr. Marwan Chemie GmbH, Drossener Strasse 2A, Berlin, 13053, Germany

Electrochemical deposition of metals from liquid lyotropic crystalline phases produces metal films with unique ordered nanostructure in which the cylindrical pores running through the film are arranged in hexagonal arrays. With the use of nanotechnology we are able to resolve the hydrogen region of palladium clearly in the cyclic voltammetry. The permeation of hydrogen and deuterium into the metal lattice occurs with fast kinetics without passing through the adsorbed state in the presence of adhered surface species. Proof of significant excess heat and nuclear transmutation is given after electrochemical insertion of deuterium in the subsurface layer of the metal system. Reproducibility of low-temperature nuclear reactions is associated with the special preparation of the metal electrode, the loading of heavy water and the understanding of the palladium surface electrochemistry. With these experimental findings we are in need to give reasonable explanations, summarizing the facts to a conclusive theoretical model.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES
 
5. Journal of Scientific Exploration Reviews The Rebirth of Cold Fusion by Krivit and Winocur

Journal of Scientific Exploration, 19.2 Summer 2005
BOOK REVIEW
THE REBIRTH OF COLD FUSION
BY STEVEN KRIVIT AND NADINE WINOCUR
PUBLISHED BY PACIFIC OAKS PRESS
LOS ANGELES, CA, 2005, $25.95

A great deal of misunderstanding about the New Science of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science has been caused by the early - and partly erroneous- name: Cold Fusion. It is true that the phenomenon upon which so much attention has been placed - heat produced in a system in which deuterium is transmuted under electrochemical conditions into helium, (He 4) works by the fusing of two D atoms, but it has transpired that this is one of a series of nuclear reactions which can be stimulated to occur in solids and some of these involve fission rather than fusion. Physicists who were first appraised of the discovery of a method of producing nuclear heat at an electrode-solution interface at room temperature had expectations which they derived from a theory based on the happenings in plasmas at solar temperatures. For example, when told of the heat being claimed by the electrochemists, they calculated that such a heat would produce a neutron stream fatal to its recipient. Only gradually and grudgingly, did it have to be admitted that nuclear phenomena were occurring in this very simple electrochemical system and that the equations and mechanisms arising from the theory of fusion in plasmas did not apply.

It has been a doleful exhibition not only of slowness of comprehension on the side of the classical nuclear physicists (facing a revolutionary change introduced by two chemists) but there has been mixed up in the gory mess a great deal of hubris, and a stubborn resistance to recognize new experimental facts being replicated the world over and published to the extent of several thousand papers. It seems that what has happened, essentially, is a stunning example of copying the ostrich, which, when threatened, is known to make a hole in the ground and put its head therein, thus shutting out ugly reality.

Krivit is a journalist and Winocur a psychologist. They have demonstrated a superb example of journalistic investigation in bringing to any member of the reading public the facts of a new branch of science, as yet little explored because the reigning nuclear physicists advised government fund givers that the new facts were due to misunderstanding among unwelcomed newcomers to nuclear science.

The book divides the material into four parts. The first is called Global Energy and brings out the parlous position the world is in with respect to its oil-based energy supply. The closeness to the maximum of the rate of supply of world oil (which has been increasing exponentially) has brought no visible reaction from the present administration which seems to act as though protecting the dwindling oil supply is the important thing. Nuclear energy from fission reactors is referred to briefly - a more than doubtful alternative in view of terrorist threats on the reactors. The continued promises of the hot fusion workers is diminished in importance because of repeated promises that success is only 20 years away. The authors call hydrogen “the limited promise” because they imagine hydrogen, meant to cure pollution because the product of its combustion is only water, is itself made (at present) from natural gas with co-production of CO2.

Part Two enters into the dark forest of the U.S. physicists and all they did to try to show that what had been discovered was bogus. If we manage to overcome world devastation by rising temperature, melting ice, and worldwide coastal inundation, there will surely never be again such a dreadful picture of scientists suppressing new facts and persecuting those who gave rise to them, thereby delaying the development of SOLID STATE NUCLEAR SCIENCE by at least 15 years. The evidence of bias and attempts to win by ridicule is laid bare. A feeling of horror comes over me when I look back on those awful days of 1989 to 1990. There was the ridiculous attempts of the head of DOE, handing out a command to the government labs to replicate the Fleischmann and Pons electrochemical experiments. This meant that hundreds of physicists, totally ignorant of electrochemistry, attempted to build electrochemical cells and operate them. They stuck neutron counters near the apparatus to detect the expected stream of neutrons which their plasma theory of fusion predicted. When none was observed, the conclusion was: No Fusion. In the famous McNeil-Lehrer announcement, Fleischmann (one hopes accidentally) had left out a vital fact: You have to wait. Indeed, with the wire electrode then in use, you might see nothing nuclear for 100 hours or more.

Krivit and Winocur pick out the American Physical Society’s meeting on May 1, 1989, as the lowest point of the behavior of the physicists. They cite William Happer of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory as a leader of the demeaning physicists. He is quoted as saying, “Just by looking at these guys on TV, it is obvious that they were incompetent boobs.” (Fleischmann - among many other achievements, - is a fellow of the Royal Society and a Director of the Max Planck Institute in Berlin.) I am quoted as reporting my observation of Nathan Lewis (Caltech) changing color in fury at the suggestion that the heat produced under certain condition was nuclear in origin. Caltech’s Steven Koonin, Krivit and Winocur say, likened the claims of those reporting nuclear heat to pigs flying. “We are suffering from incompetence and perhaps delusion from Fleischmann and Pons,” Koonin is reported as saying.

A whole chapter is given in the book to the Department of Energy’s committee sent out to investigate Cold Fusion as it stood in November 1989, a mere eight months after the discovery. I was one of those “investigated” and, I must say, the attitude of those doing the interviewing was similar to that of police questioning a suspected miscreant. Bias was clear and extreme. It seemed that the investigators, - and they included electrochemist Alan Bard, saw that a Big Discovery was possible, and did everything to prevent its progress.

There are other events of dishonor which Krivit and Winocur are brave enough to reveal. Thus, one Lawrence Livermore physicist reviewed a Cold Fusion paper, rejected it, i.e., blocked its publication, and then sought government funds to start work on Cold Fusion himself!

Of course, once one gets away from the entrenched nuclear physicists, a sense of (scientific) objectivity and normal behavior is re-established. Already by 1991, a group of scientists from the Naval Weapons Center at China Lake pointed out that an examination of the anti-cold-fusion experiments from Caltech and MIT “contained serious errors.” But we again come up against unethical behavior when he who was at the time the American associate editor of Nature, submitted a paper sent to Nature, which showed up the errors in the Caltech work, to ardent cold fusion attacker Nathan Lewis as referee! The refusal of Nature and Science to publish positive Cold Fusion work is well-known. In fact, Maddox, for long the editor of Nature, told me he wanted to give Cold Fusion “a good thumping” in his editorials.

Perhaps the principal piece of misinformation used to discredit the existence of the new field arose from prestigious MIT. Krivit and Winocur quote Ronald Parker, a key figure in MIT’s anti-Cold-Fusion activity:“ Everything I’ve been able to track down has been bogus, and I think we owe it to the community of scientists to begin to smoke these guys out.” It was Gene Mallove, formerly chief science writer at MIT, who did the smoking out. As told in the book, he got the raw data from the MIT experiments and compared it with what had been published. The raw data showed the excess heat, but this published data had been changed to show “no heat.”

One of the best features of this book is the strong use of quotations from the dramatic personae. William Happer was one such. (Krivit and Winocur had quoted him as referring to Fleischmann and Pons as “incompetent boobs.” Under questioning from Krivit, it turns out that Happer cannot name any cold fusion papers which he has read. Part two ends with a brief statement about 15 years of progress in the new field, 3,000 and more papers; cold fusion has been tested with confirmation of heat in most of the technologically active countries of the world; the nuclear character of this heat has been multiply proven by measurements of tritium and helium accompanying the heat.

The first and second part of this book (energy situation and refusal of U.S. physicists to investigate the new results) takes up about half the book. Part III (“Discoveries and Mysteries”) brings out the progress made and problems yet to be solved. An interesting table on page 263 gives 13 U.S. universities involved, 21 in other countries. Government support is in 16 laboratories abroad but only three in the US. In terms of the number of researchers, Japan and Italy tie at 31 each although Krivit and Winocur claim 46 in the United States (31 being “private"). I found this figure much bigger than my own estimate but the “military” division at 11 may well have grown, and the “private” one is difficult to estimate.

Chapter 4 is devoted to the knotty subject of reproducibility. In the early years, one was happy if one experiment in five “worked.” Things have got a lot better, and four laboratories are claiming to have reproducible results. It’s clear we are in the middle of a battle to find out just what does happen at the surface of metals to initiate spots of nuclear reactivity. Also, some clearer definition of “reproducibility” is needed. For example, it has been established that, if the D/Pd concentration ratio exceeds 0.9, excess heat is reliably produced. Reproducibility? Not really, because many experiments do not reach 0.9. What can be said is that the phenomena are repeatable, i.e., the same results are observed world wide although, the ability to produce those results on a given day may still be in doubt.

Finding tritium formation is the easiest sign that a nuclear reaction is occurring, and when that was all in doubt (till 1992), it was the most appealing experiment. Tritium detection is easy because tritium is radioactive. A much more difficult experiment is Helium detection and measurement, and whereas tritium was first reported in a refereed paper in 1989, it took until 1992 for a reliable experiment to indicate Helium, which, however, turned out to be the main product of D+D reaction in the palladium surface. (Joyfully received, for helium is a benign element and hence a wonderful waste material should the process be developed on a large scale.)

The sad story of journalist Gary Taubes and his book on Cold Fusion (“Bad Science’) is told in detail. Taubes set out to bring evidence which he thought would show that the first measurement of tritium, made in my laboratory at Texas A&M, was fraudulent and had been contrived by the graduate student who made the measurements (adding tritiated water to his cell). The outcome of Taubes’ investigation led to an article accepted by Science without my being asked to comment on the contents. The article clearly infers that I (the supervisor) was an ignorant fool or took part in a fraud. Even sadder is that a member of the Cyclotron Institute at Texas A&M took part in the accusation. Seeking redress, as was multiply pointed out to me, would be pointless. The only point was, would tritium also be found by other laboratories. (I stopped counting replications at 47). The last straw in this part of the story was a letter sent by Dr. Ed Storms of the famous government laboratory at Los Alamos to Science, describing a diagnostic experiment which distinguished between tritium put in the cell from tritiated water and tritium produced in the electrochemical cell. Although Storms’ experiments clearly proved that the latter was occurring (invalidating Taubes’ article), Science refused publication of Storms’ letter. The account of all this in the book (19 pages) has many quotations of several of those involved.

A quantitative measurement of helium by Miles at China Lake is described in some detail. Helium, atomic weight 4, may be confused with deuterium, molecular weight 4, and the distinction needs very sensitive mass spectroscopy. The importance of the quantitative measurement in the gas phase (compared with Texas A&M’s earlier 1992 paper establishing helium in electrodes which had been evolving deuterium) is that the amount of helium produced matched the requirement of a D+D>He reaction and thus established that, in this case, it is indeed Cold Fusion.

Theoretical developments of these nuclear reactions in solids has not yet led to a consensus and the Krivit and Winocur Chapter 25 on this is correspondingly weak. Reading it does not really enlighten once about how two deuterium ions can get close enough to fuse (Coulomb Barrier).

Weaker still is the section on transmutation of metals. This is because the material in the book concentrates on the Japanese work and Mitsubishi’s remarkable results (e.g., cesium to praseodymium). But I was disappointed that the work originally done at Texas A&M (H in Palladium > numerous new nuclei, and its confirmation by Miley at the University of Illinois and by Mizuno at Hokkaido was left out of the review. Such work, which had to overcome yet another prejudicial shouting of “Alchemy!” - could be the basis of a new and powerful method in metallurgy apart from the work already reported by Gleason and by Fox on the results of the treatment of nuclear wastes.

In Part IV, the authors sum up . The first point must necessarily be the threat to academic freedom. The disgusting affair of the attacks made upon me by my peers in the Distinguished Professor group at Texas A&M is related in detail and includes a letter I had not seen before describing pressure brought upon those who refused to sign a petition asking for my demotion for having carried out research on this cold fusion "caper."

A powerful Chapter is No. 30 and reflects on the threats to national security which exist when the US Government refuses to grant support to the new science, while in Japan, Italy, France, China, and Russia this support is being given.

What has been learned? It is firstly that science is a changeable body of knowledge. The rate of change in most areas is such that what is right in one generation is often nonsense for the next. Correspondingly, it has been learned that progress comes with the investigation of anomalies. I suppose a third and doleful conclusion is that our greatest institutions (MIT, Cal Tech) are not capable of adjudicating anomalous results. They flee from the challenge and support the old story.

The last chapter (speculations about the future) dwells on power density and mind boggling numbers are given, e.g., 10^4 watts per cm 3 from Fleischmann and Pons and 10^ 5 from Preparata. But these numbers are not worth as much as the authors infer. Heat in Cold Fusion is given in bursts and of course it is steady power delivery that is sought. Again, the watts per cc may not be the thing to watch. It is clearly a surface phenomenon and watts per cm ^2 is more relevant. Most would admit reproducibility is still wobbly.

In summarizing what I think of this book, one has to have a comparison standard. The only competitor is Beaudette’s “Excess Heat and Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed.” Both books are very good in shining a strong light in what must surely be the worst period ever in American physics. But I think Krivit and Winocur take the lead in lucidity. There is very little in the book which could be said to be difficult to understand by any member of the reading public. Were I to seek faults, I see only two. The concentration is predominantly on the United States and its work. Japanese work is touched upon (Mizuno and Iwamura) but the Japanese have been outstanding in their government supported contributions. The copious Russian work is hardly mentioned. Again, although most would agree with the concentration on heat from D-Pd, I personally would like to have seen more on transmutation and on the edge area which is so counter intuitive that many in the field don’t talk of it. I refer to the evidence for nuclear reactions in biology.

Anyway, there is no doubt that this is the book for all who value freedom of thought and who appreciate an exciting and lucid account of the greatest development in experimental science in the latter half of the 20th Century.

John O’M. Bockris
10515 S. W. 55th Place
Gainesville, FL 32608

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

6. 1993 Cold Fusion Report from Richard Garwin and Nathan Lewis on SRI International Research

This report, 12 years old by now, is not, by any means, demonstrative of any sort of technological breakthrough in cold fusion. It sheds no new light on the mysteries yet to be revealed by nature, and experiments since this report has progressed many-fold. Why, then, publish such an outdated report? For one, it has never been published to the general public. It was initiated by, and paid for by the Pentagon (which also means it was paid for by U.S. taxpayers). More important, it demonstrates that the chief characteristic of cold fusion, excess heat, was known very early on in cold fusion's rocky introduction to the world. This report demonstrates that no other explanation was observed that could explain the excess heat. It also is evidence that "experimental error" could not be blamed for this new scientific observation.

Sadly, the report also shows that those scientists who so vigorously argued against the existence of excess heat and commandeered the news media to "smoke out" Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 lacked either the courage to admit they were wrong in 1993 or the objectivity to realize the significance of what they "held in their own hands."

For progress reports from SRI International since 1993, please go to the http://www.lenr.org/ Web site and search on "McKubre."

This Garwin/Lewis report is published with the permission of the Electric Power Research Institute, the funder of this research project. Cover letters from Tom Passell, the program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute, and Richard Garwin precede the report. New Energy Times wishes to thank Nick Palmer for his assistance to prepare this text.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 
EPRI
Electric Power Research Institute
January 11, 1994

TO: Kurt Yeager, John Taylor, Robin Jones

FROM: Tom Passell

SUBJECT: Report of Richard Garwin re/SRI Deuterated Metals Project

Enclosed is a draft of Dr. Richard Garwin’s report from his full day review of SRI Project 3170-23 conducted by Dr. Nathan Lewis and himself on October 19, 1993. As you may know, Dr. Lee Hammarstrom of SAF/SS in the Pentagon requested a review of the SRI work on Deuterated Metals by the JASONS, a group of consultants chaired by Garwin. Initially, Dr’s Michael McKubre and Steven Crouch-Baker briefed a subcommittee of the JAONS in a 3-hour session in La Jolla, CA on July 14, 1993. The laboratory visit and full day review was a follow-up to the shorter session at the invitation of McKubre. Also enclosed are McKubre’s comments on the draft. Overall, having been present all day at the visit of October 19, I believe Garwin’s draft report marks a major shift in thinking by critics of the SRI work and is a credit to the investigators at SRI under McKubre’s leadership.

TRS: 9022.M
__________________________________________________________________________________ 

Richard L. Garwin
IBM Fellow Emeritus
Thomas J. Watson Research Centre
P.O. Box 218
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598-0218
(914) 945-2555
Fax: (914) 945-4419
Internet:RLG2 at Watson.ibm.com

December 23,1993
(Via FAX to 9 (415) 859-4286)

Dr. Michael C.H. McKubre
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025

Dear Mike,

Sorry to have taken so long with our brief report designated nominally for Lee Hammarstrom, but here it is.

Actually, I have talked with Lee a couple of times in the interim, so this would come as no surprise to him. In fact, he is not anxiously awaiting the report, in view of our oral communications.

Please give me a call today if possible, or sometime soon to let me know if there are any errors in our presentation. I would also like to hear from you of progress or lack thereof since our visit two months ago.

Very best regards for the holiday season.

Sincerely yours,

Richard L Garwin

Encl:

12/23/93 Draft LTR RLG to L.M. Hammarstrom. (122393.LMH)

cc:

> N.S. Lewis, Caltech. (Via E-mail to nalewis at juliet.caltech.edu)

RLG:jah:9357MCMK:122393MCMK

Richard L. Garwin
IBM Fellow Emeritus
Thomas J Watson Research Centre
P.O. Box 218
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 - 0218
(914) 945-2555
Fax: (914) 945-4419
Internet: RLG2 at watson.ibm.com

December 23, 1993
(Via FAX to 9 (703) 267-4123)

Dr Lee M. Hammarstrom
SAF/SS
4C-1052 Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330/1670

Dear Lee,

This is a brief informal report from Nate Lewis and Dick Garwin on the basis of our visit to SRI International Tuesday, 10/19/1993. We regret that you were unable to attend, but we hope that this will provide you with the information you might have obtained had you been there.

In addition to the two of us and Mike McKubre, McKubre’s colleagues (Stewart Smedley, Fran Tanzella, Steve Crouch-Baker) participated fully, as did Robin Jones and Tom Passell from EPRI and David Golden of SRI. We met from about 0900 to 1730, with a full and frank exchange of views, knowledge, opinion, and analysis.

Description.

The SRI project was begun by Tom Passell (to create a hydrogen sensor and to study catalysis) before there was any suggestion of cold fusion or excess heat. Understandably, he has maintained a strong interest in the program. Of course, all of us would be fascinated and would feel great admiration if it were possible reliably to produce excess heat. The same would be true of a new way of producing nuclear particles under such circumstances, even modest numbers of neutrons, x rays, or gamma-rays.

Neither Nate Lewis nor I has any reluctance to entertain and recognize a purely experimental discovery. We don't need a theory to make us believe our eyes. But we do need a significant, reproducible effect, and that is what McKubre and his colleagues are attempting to produce.

We had a good deal of discussion of the new type of cells L1- L4 which have been running since April; we held one in our hands and are now quite familiar with its construction. We also had extensive discussions of data from one of these cells, which according to a summary chart has provided about 3% excess heat. This is not a derived kind of excess heat, related to the minimum electrochemical energy required to electrolyze water to produce dihydrogen(g) and dioxygen(g), but an honestly phrased fractional excess over the total power delivered to the electrochemical cell itself.

The electrochemical cells sit in a thermostated water bath. Typically, two cells are run at the same time, with constant current provided by a regulated power supply. An isothermal-flow calorimeter is used to determine the power dissipated in the cell. Crudely put, a constant-displacement pump provides a flow of the calorimetric fluid (water in the most recent experiments) so at a rate of about 1 ml/s, but the actual water flow is measured much more accurately than the constancy of the pump by having the water delivered to a beaker that rests on the platen of an electronic scale, so that over almost all measuring intervals the mass of the water is measured accurately. An automatic “siphon” occasionally empties the beaker, so that the measurement is inaccurate over a small fraction of the intervals.

From the mass flow and the known specific heat of water, the power transferred to the water could be calculated if one knew the temperature rise. This is determined by measuring the inlet temperature with two platinum resistance thermometric devices (RTD) and measuring the outlet temperature within the calorimeter housing by two additional RTD. To minimize heat transfer to the surrounding thermostated bath, the calorimeter is immersed in a single-ended metal Dewar flask. Water from the thermostatic bath enters and descends along the inner wall of the flask, entering the calorimeter at the base and having the temperature measured by two RTD at that point. After passing outside the coiled compensating heater which encloses the electrochemical cell, the water begins its exit from the cell through a small venturi aperture, in order to mix the streamlines, and has its temperature measured by two additional RTD at the exit.

A sensing current of 0.5 mA is fed to each RTD for a couple of seconds every four minutes. All measurements are taken by a Keithley digital multimedia. The multimeter was time shared to measure all of the parameters electrically.

In the absence of excess heat, the energy communicated to the electrochemical cell would be determined by the product of the known magnitude of stabilized current supplied, and the voltage measured at the base of the electrochemical cell. Because that voltage fluctuates with time and with current density, the experimental configuration has been designed to reduce the dependence of the entire calorimeter upon the linearity of the individual calorimetric measurements. This has been achieved by modifying the power to the compensating heater in each interval, so that a desired total power is achieved through the sum of the power input to the electrochemical cell and that input to the compensation heater. This is done by averaging the Pd/Pt cell voltage over a brief interval during the previous 4-minute measuring period, and then commanding the heater current to provide a value of supplementary power that is sufficient to obtain the nominal 12 W (or 30 W) or whatever is the target total power for the next 4-minute portion of the experiment.

Therefore, the output temperature should be nominally constant. More particularly, the measured total power (cell plus compensating heater), as determined by the measured calorimetric fluid mass flow and temperature rise, should be constant with time, except for the 4-minute delay in compensating power. Measurements of excess power are therefore in principle straightforward, based on the value of the power required from the compensation heater in order to obtain the desired total power delivered to the calorimetric fluid.

The situation is complicated by the fact that the electrochemical cell generates hydrogen and oxygen, approximately according to the electrochemical process that requires 1.53 volts drop in near-equilibrium. Thus, the gas which is catalytically recombined within the electrochemical cell produces a very substantial amount of recombination power (typically 4-6 W) at the top of the cell, well above the compensating heater. A primary criterion of the cell design is to ensure that essentially the only place for this heat to go is into the calorimetric fluid, and the purpose of the venturi is to ensure that the RTDs are sensitive only to total power and not more sensitive to power produced at one point in the cell than at another.

Only certain cells provide excess heat, and those are stated to be ones in which the cathode surface is treated appropriately, either by minor chemical constituents in the electrolyte (Si or Al), or by ion-beam bombardment. Furthermore, it is thought that one batch of cathode Pd works, and another does not produce excess heat. We were told that the silica rods that support the anode are essential to observe excess heat - presumably because of silica dissolution in the electrolyte. So many influences are thought to be at work that it would be easy enough to excuse the lack of excess power in a particular cell.

In any case, it takes hundreds of hours of conditioning of the cell before a reduction to near-zero current and a subsequent ramp up of current appear to yield some excess heat. The magnitude of excess heat is deduced by subtracting from the measured calorimetric power the sum of the heater power and the electrochemical cell power (I x V).

The uncertainty in excess power measurement is about 50mW, but the excess power appears to be on the order of 500 mW or even 1 W peak. However, excess power is still a deduced quantity and depends upon the calibration of the calorimeter.

A desirable feature of the experiment is that the calorimeter is to a considerable extent, self calibrating. That is, if it were possible to maintain the total power within the calorimeter the same, the output temperature (or temperature rise times flow rate) should be constant, and RTD and mass measurements are near enough absolute that there is little chance for error there. An additional complexity comes from heat leakage from the calorimeter to the bath, which is determined routinely by the difference between the heater input (in case of no or insignificant power to the electrochemical cell) and the measured flow calorimeter power. A small complication enters because it is important to keep the cathode from “de-loading,” and that requires the continued passage of some minimum current through the cell.

The temporary detection of excess power (particularly if it returns to zero after a period, and never goes negative) can be measured quite sensitively. However, there are a number of potential confounders (dirt effects) that could mimic such an excess power. One would be an increased apparent temperature of the output RTDs, which are nominally 100-ohm platinum resistors.

The single digital meter used to measure all of the parameters of the experiment, steps from one to another within a 4-minute measuring interval. To a considerable extent (particularly with the RTDs), the use of a single meter reduces substantially the prospect for error. However, because some of the measurements are far more susceptible than others to corruption, the use of a single meter does not totally eliminate the possibility of measurement error. For instance, with a one per cent effect on a 12 W power level, the total temperature span is about 3 K, and the one per cent about 30 mK. An RTD has a resistance proportional to temperature, so that the detection of 20 mK out of 300 K is about 70 ppm, or about three microvolts out of the total RTD voltage of about 50 mV, with a current of about 0.5 mA. More precisely, with the stated temperature coefficient of 0.385 ohm/K, the voltage represented by 20 mK is 3.85 microvolts.

A false signal of this magnitude would be produced by a shunt resistance of some 1.5 megohms, or a current leakage into the resistor itself of some 30 nanoamperes.

Discussion.

Concentrating on cells L3 and L4, we note that a chemical reaction involving the Pd at perhaps 1.5 eV per atom would correspond to about 3.5 kJ of heat; this is to be compared with the 3MJ of “excess heat” observed, so such an excess could not possibly be of chemical origin. If it were to be related to the electrolysis of water at 1.5 eV per hydrogen (3 eV per mole of water) it would correspond to the electrolysis of some 10 moles or 180 g of water.

The current experiments are being done at near-atmospheric pressure and room temperature, in view of the greater difficulty and hazard of working at high pressure as was done for awhile in this program. However, work done by others has the characteristic that the longer it is pursued and the better the circumstances, the smaller the effect. This “quit while you are ahead” trait does not give confidence that theirs is a real effect; quite the contrary.

We are concerned about a number of possibilities for producing apparent excess heat where none exists. The excess seems to be proportional to the current, when conditions are “right” for it to manifest itself. If the multimeter would read low while measuring the cell voltage, this would be the sign of the effect. That it does not occur until after “conditioning” takes place may simply mean that it doesn't occur until a while into the experiment, although time alone is not enough for every cell to exhibit the excess heat.

We believe that there are a few things (probably irrelevant) not very well understood by the experimenters. One is the magnitude of the heat loss by evaporation from the warm bath, although this would seem to have no impact at all on the analysis. Furthermore, bringing all the experimental circuits to the same plastic Jones barrier strip, itself mounted on a plastic panel, is asking for trouble. If the sensing leads from each of the circuits were brought to a separate two-bar Jones strip mounted on a common grounded metal panel, this would eliminate the potential for leakage along the plastic panel or the plastic of the Jones strip.

Although the cells are operated “closed,” they are not in fact totally closed from the beginning of the experiment, since the cell volume is not adequate to contain the amount of hydrogen that must be absorbed in “loading” the cathode. Under existing safety regulations, the gas lead to the cell consists of two concentric tubes, so that one can actually FLUSH the cell. Previously, with only a single tube, the following would appear to happen as the cell was electrolyzed at the beginning of the experiment:

****

As current was passed through the cell in order to produce hydrogen on the cathode, the absorption of hydrogen into the cathode would yield an excess of oxygen in the cell. The catalytic recombiner within the cell would do its best, but there would be an oxygen-rich atmosphere within the cell. At a 1:1 loading of hydrogen atoms in the Pd, the 3 cm rod of 0.3 cm diameter would contain 23 milliequivalents of hydrogen atoms, corresponding to 5.7 millimoles of oxygen molecules in the cell. If the cell free volume were 100 cc, the pressure of oxygen gas would be 1.2 atm, or some 18 psi absolute. If one wanted to load the cell so that it remained hydrogen rich, in the presence of hydrogen loading of the cathode, the equivalent of 36 psi of hydrogen would need to be added, to combine with the oxygen (or to load the cathode), and an additional 35 psi of hydrogen in order to bring the cell to 20 psi gauge.

****

So we are somewhat concerned that the gas leads to each cell not leak at all, and would like to make sure that there is a mass and materials balance when the cells are opened, so that no significant amount of heavy water has escaped.

While cells that do not “load” to the requisite 0.92 D:Pd level would indeed serve as controls, we believe it highly desirable to run a number of cells on light water equal to the number of experimental cells. Of course, these are not directly comparable, and the purpose of having light-water cells would not be to do anything nearly so silly as to compare the power dissipation at equal current in the two cells, as has been done by some experimenters. The purpose, rather, would be to see whether such light-water cells (which are much easier to experiment with and considerably cheaper) would ever provide appearance of “excess heat”. If there is an experimental artifact, it might for some reason exhibit itself more readily in connection with light-water cells, which would be a blessing to allow it to be tracked down and vanquished more readily.

Two other concerns have to do with the performance of the catalyst and with possible high-frequency oscillations in the electrochemical current.

The paper notes that at high current densities the presence of large deuterium (or hydrogen) and oxygen bubbles “disrupted the electrolyte continuity,” and one would like to be very sure that the stabilized current did not change substantially during a small fraction of the time. The validity of the experimental results is totally dependent on the cell current being maintained truly constant, so that when the average of the fluctuating cell voltage is measured, the product of the constant current by this average voltage (and the time) is the true energy input.

Concluding remarks.

This is a serious effort to obtain reliable calorimetric data on heavy water electrolyzed in a cell with a palladium cathode. It is larger in scale and has more electrochemical expertise than the work of Tom Droege of Fermilab, who obtains excellent data but no excess heat.

We have found no specific experimental artifact responsible for the finding of excess heat, but we would like to see eventually (as would the experimenters!) a larger effect and one that can be more reliably exhibited. Alternatively, a larger number of light-water cells might more readily exhibit the phenomenon if it not “real,” and this would seem to be a relatively easy way to challenge the hypothesis that the peculiarity is specific to heavy water.

Sincerely yours,

Richard L. Garwin

cc:

M.C. McKubre, SRI international (Via FAX to 9 (415) 859-4286)

RLG:jah:S357LMH:122393.LMH

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

7. 1991 Cold Fusion Report from Alan Bard on SRI International Research

This report, 14 years old, like the Garwin/Lewis report above, also is by no means demonstrative of any sort of technological breakthrough in cold fusion. It too, was never made available to the general public. This report was paid for by the Electric Power Research Institute, and New Energy Times has received permission from it to publish. Similar reports were concurrently made by Howard Birnbaum and Charlie Barnes. They were all key players in the cold fusion drama. Bard and Birnbaum were members of the 1989 Department of Energy Cold Fusion Panel, who apparently were unable to observe any convincing signs of excess heat as members of that panel. Barnes was a physicist at Caltech and worked with Lewis on their so-called failed attempts to replicate the Fleischmann-Pons cold fusion effect. Tom Passell, the program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute reports that the conclusions of the Birnbaum and Barnes reports were similar to that of Bard.

More important, it demonstrates that the chief characteristic of cold fusion, excess heat, was known to critics very early on in cold fusion's rocky introduction to the world. This report demonstrates that no other explanation was observed that could explain the excess heat. It also is evidence that "experimental error" could not be blamed for this new scientific observation.

These reports, like that of Garwin and Lewis, also sadly suggest that these scientists, who also vigorously argued against cold fusion in 1989, lacked either the courage to admit they were wrong in 1991 or the objectivity to realize the significance of even 2 percent excess heat.

For perspective, at least one prominent individual in the 1989 cold fusion panel showed objectivity and foresight in 1989, Nobel laureate Norman Ramsey. Ramsey wrote "even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary."

The cover letter to Joseph Santucci of the Electric Power Research Institute appears first. New Energy Times wishes to thank Jed Rothwell for his assistance in preparing this text.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

COLLEGE OF NATURAL SCIENCES
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Austin, TX 78712-1167 Fax (512) 471-8696

May 13, 1991

Dr. Joseph Santucci
EPRI
3412 Hillview Ave.
P.O. Box 10412
Palo Alto, CA 94303

Re: RP-3170 Review Meeting Report

Dear Joe:

Enclosed is my report on the review meeting last March. I am really sorry for the delay but I was waiting to receive the view graphs and these came just as I was leaving on several trips which were followed by the end of the semester here with the usual exam and grading activities. Let me also note that a few of the key view graphs, specifically those comparing and summarizing the results of all the calorimetric experiments, were missing.

I hope you find this review suitable. Please call me if you would like any additional comments or would like to discuss this further.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Alan J. Bard

rb

enclosures: report, invoice

Comments on SRI RP-3170 Review Meeting (25-26 March 1991)

Allen J. Bard

The following is a summary of impressions and some recommendations based on the overview of electrolysis, calorimetry, and other experiments discussed at the review meeting. I also studied my notes from the meeting and reviewed the viewgraphs supplied later. However I must emphasize that it is quite difficult to understand and appreciate all of the details of the different studies described In a relatively short meeting.

1. Pd/D Loading Studies.

A rather large effort has been made in the use of Pd resistance measurements (R/R°) to determine the loading of D into the Pd. Since high loading is thought to be a necessary condition for the observation of anomalous heat effects, an independent measurement of D-loading, that can be made in operating cells, is a very good idea.

However the calibration of R/R° as a function of Pd/D seems to be largely based on earlier data by Baranowski (on H/Pd) and an extrapolation of the data of Lewis from a region of lower loading (D/Pd < 0.7). We weren't shown any other results to confirm the R/R° values for higher D/Pd ratios. In light of the importance of loading, and the fact that the relation between D/Pd and R/R° is not monotonic, perhaps some additional independent calibrations at high loading should be made. A second effect that might be important, especially if small amounts of H2O can contaminate the cell, is the relative loading with H and D. It has been reported that small amounts of Η can severely decrease D loading, and that almost no loading of D is possible in the presence of appreciable levels of H2O In the D2O. The effects of surface films from additives and impurities on loading and resistance also seems to be an important issue.

2. Excess Heat Effects

It is difficult to give a detailed analysis of the calorimetric results because of the obvious complexities of these experiments.

As everyone recognizes, these are very difficult experiments that involve calorimetry under conditions of continual input of energy and measurements over long time periods. The experiments described are certainly among the best that I have seen in this field. The use of closed cells with recombination of evolved gases, flow calorimetry, redundancy in temperature measurements, and careful consideration of the calorimeter model, design features, and systematic errors, lends confidence to the results reported. However, subtleties in design and possible small artifacts are sometimes difficult to discern (especially from a brief examination). Thus, continued efforts to demonstrate reproducibility, as well as numerous control experiments are desirable. For example, I think it would be useful to replace the electrodes in the cell with a calibrating heater of the same size and configuration, and test the accuracy, over a reasonable period of time, with this configuration.

The concept of an “oxygen-free” (high-pressure) cell is a very good one, although more difficult to use than the closed "D2-O2" cell. As far as I can discern from my notes, an appreciable excess heat effect has not yet been demonstrated in such a cell.

Controls and blanks, e.g., with H2O or other metal cathodes, are important. From my notes I found only one independent H2O control experiment. Given the total number of experiments and the number of cells that clearly show an excess heat effect, more control experiments are necessary. These should be arranged so that the experimental conditions and the input energy and output heat are as close as possible to those in the actual experiments (e.g., by adjustment of cell ohmic drop). Running controls is a boring exercise, but they need to be carried out in numbers and for durations similar to those for the Pd-D experiments.

3. Question of Reproducibility and Magnitude

Reproducibility remains a key consideration. Although it is felt that the excess heat effect will appear whenever certain key conditions (high D-loading, sufficient loading duration, and high current density) are met, I'm not sure that there have been sufficient number of independent cells tried to convince an external observer that appreciable excess heat effects can be generated “on demand.” One still has the impression that the effect turns on and turns off in a non-controlled way.

The overall effect observed, in terms of excess output energy integrated over the duration of the experiment, remains a rather modest one (~2 %), even when rather large power bursts are seen. Thus, from a practical point of view (in terms of eventual applications) it is important to extrapolate to conditions where sustained, greater than break even, energy can be obtained. Unfortunately there was not much time available at the meeting to discuss scale-up. I don't think a large effort should be made in scaled-up experiments until the smaller scale experiments of the type being carried out (e.g., in small high pressure cells) allow one to have confidence that the system is totally under control and the important known variables have been established. These small-scale experiments should then allow an estimation of expected effects in larger cells and whether break-even operation will be attainable.

4. Materials Considerations

Additives that lead to controlled film formation on the cathode that governs reactivity of D and hence D-loading are thought to be important factors. Contamination of the cathode by adventitious impurities from the cell (e.g., Si) and anode (e.g.. Pt) also occurs. So far materials characterization, e.g., of the cathode after excess heat effects compared to a cathode in a cell that never showed excess heat, have been meager. Once the system is thought to be "under control,” detailed analysis of electrode surfaces should be undertaken. Alternative cell materials (e.g., Teflon) and anode materials (in recombination cell) (e.g., dimensionally stable anodes, SnO2, RuO2 might be considered.

5. Mechanism and Products

Given the state of this field, the scientific community will probably not be convinced about the reality of these effects unless there is some understand of the mechanism of the process and products are detected at levels consistent with the observed heat effects. If the process is a nuclear one, there must be some signature. If the process is a chemical one, e.g.. some chemical charge/discharge cycle, it would, of course, be much less important from an energy viewpoint, but would still be interesting to understand.

The product detection experiments carried out so far do not yet provide convincing evidence. The autoradiography experiment is clouded by the possibility of chemical effects of hydrogen and the X-ray detection experiments are not unambiguous. It would, of course, be best if detection experiments could be carried out under conditions where excess heat effects could be measured simultaneously. This clearly complicates the apparatus for both calorimetry and product detection, but would lead to the highest confidence in the measurements.

In conclusion, the work at SRI to detect and understand excess heat effects during electrolysis with Pd cathodes has been carried out carefully and has shown some excess heat effects that cannot readily be attributed to artifacts or errors. The number of different cells and controls do not seem to be sufficient at this stage to convince an outsider that these are completely unambiguous. The detection of nuclear products at levels consistent with the excess heat levels has not yet been accomplished. Such detection is necessary before a convincing case can be made for a process involving a nuclear reaction.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

BITS AND PIECES
 
8. Bubble Fusion Takes Next Hurdle by Haiko Lietz
In July, Haiko Lietz wrote the only original mass media news reports on the replication by Yiban Xu and Adam Butt of the bubble fusion claims of 2002 and 2004 by Rusi Taleyarkhan et al. Bubble fusion achieves hot nuclear fusion through the cavitation and neutron bombardment of deuterated acetone in a now-simple table-top experiment. The Telepolis article from July 18 says as much about the politics of science as it does about the actual data. Note carefully the comments from UCLA's Seth Putterman regarding "demands" for proof, and the data provided by Purdue's Rusi Taleyarkhan in the correction at the bottom of the page.

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/20/20542/1.html

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

9. EarthTech International Inc. Announces the "Mother of All Calorimeters"
[Editor's note: The following text is provided by Scott Little, an experimenter and engineer at EarthTech International Inc. Photos of this testing device are on the New Energy Times Web site at http://newenergytimes.com/views/LettsPhotos.shtml ]

EarthTech International announces a new high-accuracy calorimeter at our lab in Austin, Texas. Ambitiously dubbed "MOAC" (Mother Of All Calorimeters), this instrument is specifically designed to test cold fusion cells operating in the 0-20 watt range.

A brief description of the system:
The calorimeter chamber is relatively roomy, and the space available for the cell is a rectangular prism volume about 24cm high, 14 cm wide, and 24 cm deep. There are three optical ports which enter the chamber. One of these is fitted with a borescope which permits inspection of the cell during calorimetric measurements. The other two permit laser beams to be directed at the cell cathode if desired. Provision is also made for actuation of a mechanical device near the cell (for example, rotation of magnets around the cell) during calorimetric measurements.

In addition to the device under test, the calorimeter chamber also contains a liquid-to-air heat exchanger and a fan which circulates the chamber air across the device under test and through the heat exchanger. Thus, the heat evolved by the device under test is coupled to the water flowing through the passages in the heat exchanger.

An active insulation system essentially eliminates heat loss through the walls of the calorimeter chamber. Each wall panel consists of a 6mm thick active insulation inner plate, 4 cm of styrofoam insulation, and a 6mm thick active insulation outer plate. With temperature sensors on both active insulation plates and heaters on the outer active insulation plate, each wall panel is independently servo controlled to maintain a zero delta-T across the styrofoam insulation.

Water is circulated around the heat exchange loop by a precision pumping system. An automated batch-weighing flowmeter regularly monitors the actual water flowrate, which is about 2.2 gm/sec. Three independent stages of temperature regulation bring the inlet water to 25.000 degrees C with a typical standard deviation of +/- 0.0006 degrees before it enters the calorimeter chamber.

The calorimeter chamber and the water circulation system are enclosed in a temperature-controlled environmental enclosure. This effectively eliminates problems caused by room temperature variations.

Data collection and experiment control are accomplished with two computers. One is devoted to housekeeping activities such as temperature control of the environmental enclosure and the servo control of the six active insulation panels. The other computer is responsible for the calorimetry measurements such as electrical input power to the device under test, water flowrate measurements, temperatures of the inlet and outlet water streams, etc. In all, MOAC monitors 44 analog input channels and operates 15 analog output channels to control the system.

Both of these computers run Labview programs which serve up their front panel images as web pages. This permits anyone with Internet access to see what MOAC is doing. In addition, the experiment logbook is maintained as a Microsoft Frontpage HTML document which is also served up as a web page so you can see what we're trying to do with MOAC.

All data is recorded to disk and may be replayed by the Labview program to recreate any display obtained during a run.

Accuracy:
We set out to design a calorimeter that would achieve +/- 0.1 percent accuracy. For example, with 10.000 watts going into the cell, we wanted MOAC to read between 9.990 and 10.010 watts of heat coming out of the cell (assuming no excess heat). MOAC is close to this goal now. However, there are "bad days" when MOAC exhibits mysterious shifts of 0.2 or 0.3 percent relative. We are working to resolve these issues now.

Specimen Versatility:
Because of the total heat collection design of the calorimeter chamber, MOAC exhibits excellent specimen versatility. For example, we have a 10-watt calibration resistor permanently mounted inside the calorimeter chamber (near the heat exchanger), a control electrolysis cell with H2O-H2SO4 electrolyte, and an immersed calibration resistor in that cell. All three of these heat sources read the same in MOAC to within +/- 0.1 percent relative.

Cell Access:
MOAC's roomy calorimeter chamber will accommodate a variety of cell sizes and shapes. In addition, the mechanical actuator feature and optical access ports permit a variety of things to be done to the cell during calorimetric measurements.

Dual Method Calorimetry:
Because the cell is located in a stirred-air chamber during calorimetric measurements, MOAC performs an isoperibolic measurement of the heat evolved from the cell while the water-flow calorimetry is underway. The isoperibolic measurement is accomplished by comparing cell temperature to the calorimeter chamber air temperature.

Our Offer:
Earthtech hereby offers to test promising cells in MOAC free. We believe that the opportunity of observing a genuine excess heat effect in an accurate calorimeter is well worth the time, energy, and money we will expend in the process. A promising cell is one that typically shows at least 0.20 watts of excess heat and is reasonably repeatable. The terms "typically" and "reasonably" are open to interpretation.

Our goal is to identify cold fusion technology that works, then to help develop it into a useful energy source for mankind.

Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX)

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

10. Speakers Available - Experts on the Subject of Cold Fusion
Steven B. Krivit - General audiences (author of The Rebirth of Cold Fusion)
Charles G. Beaudette - Academic audiences (author of Excess Heat and Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, 2nd Ed.)
David J. Nagel - Government and military audiences (participant in the 2004 DOE Cold Fusion Review)

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

11. Updates to the New Energy Times(tm) Web Site
 
S.B. Krivit, "How Can Cold Fusion Be Real, Considering It Was Disproved By Several Well-Respected Labs In 1989?"
Paper: http://newenergytimes.com/library/2005KrivitS-HowCanItBeReal-Paper.pdf
Presentation: http://newenergytimes.com/library/2005KrivitS-HowCanItBeReal-Presentation.pdf
Audio Recording: http://newenergytimes.com/audiol/2005KrivitS-ICENES-2005.mp3

News Flash -- July 27, 2005, Second Arrest Made in Mallove Murder Case
http://newenergytimes.com/news/NewsFlashJuly252005.shtml

Myths and Facts of Cold Fusion / Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
http://newenergytimes.com/PR/CFMythsFacts.shtml

A Historical Look at the Academic and Media Misunderstandings of Cold Fusion
http://newenergytimes.com/students/AcademicView.shtml

Stanislaw Szpak, Pamela Mosier Boss, Charles Young, Frank Gordon, "Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in The Palladium Lattice"
http://newenergytimes.com/library/2005SzpakS-EvidenceOfNuclearReactionsPdLattice.pdf

Akito Takahashi, "Condensed Matter Nuclear Effects"
http://newenergytimes.com/library/2005TakahashiA-CondensedMatterNuclearEffects.pdf

Interview and Photographs with Dennis Letts by Steven Krivit on Oct. 9, 2003
http://newenergytimes.com/views/Letts.shtml
http://newenergytimes.com/views/LettsPhotos.shtml

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

12. Support New Energy Times(tm)

New Energy Times( tm) is a project of New Energy Institute Inc., a nonprofit public-benefit corporation organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for public and charitable purposes. Federal 501(c)(3) recognition is pending.
 
The mission of New Energy Institute Inc. is to provide information and educational services to the general public to increase awareness and understanding of new, environmentally friendly energy research and technologies. Our goal is to help bring about the clean-energy revolution.
 
New Energy Times (tm) offers research, reporting and analyses through its Web site, newsletter, private and public presentations and publications, including The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy by Steven B. Krivit and Nadine L. Winocur.
 
We pledge to remain a news source you can trust and a resource you can depend on. If you find our work valuable, please become a regular sponsor or make a donation so we may continue being of service. We depend on our readers and thank you for your support.
 
Donations can be made online at http://www.newenergytimes.com/donate.shtml
If you are interested in providing a tax-deductible donation, please contact us for special arrangements.
 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

13. Administrative

 
Copyright 2005 New Energy Times (tm)
Permission is granted to forward this document to others.
Publication, in print or electronically, is not permitted without express written permission.