REFERENCE SITE----
 
  About LENRs
  Investigations


 

 


The leader in cold fusion news and information.
November 10, 2005 -- Issue #13

Copyright 2005 New Energy Times (tm)
Published by the New Energy Institute Inc. six times per year
Subscriptions: $24/year Suggested Donation

Staff 
Editor: Steven B. Krivit
Copy Editor: Cindy Goldstein
 
 
New Energy Times (tm)
11664 National Blvd. Suite 142
Los Angeles, CA 90064
(310) 470-8189
Contact Information:


 

New Energy Times (tm) is a project of New Energy Institute, an independent nonprofit public-benefit corporation which provides information and educational services to help bring about the clean-energy revolution.
 
The New Energy Times (tm) newsletter, Web site, and documentary projects are made possible by the generous contributions of our sponsors and supporters.
 

 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

The New Energy Foundation
Anonymous
Jim Newburn

__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
EDITORIALS AND OPINION
1.   From the Editor
2.   To the Editor
NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
3.   12th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
4.   2005 Annual Winter American Nuclear Society Meeting
ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES
5.   Author and Editor Krivit Speaks at Nanotechnology Conference
6.   Newcomers to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Rock the Boat, Part 1
7.   Newcomers to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Rock the Boat, Part 2
BITS AND PIECES
8.   Cold Fusion in the News
9.   Speakers Available - Experts on the Subject of Cold Fusion
10.  About New Energy Times (tm)
11.  Administrative

 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

"The world has an ample supply of people who can always come up with a dozen good reasons why a new idea will not work and should not be tried, but the people who produce progress are a breed apart. They have the imagination, the courage, and the persistence to find solutions."
-- General Bernard Schriever

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

EDITORIALS AND OPINION

1. From the Editor 
 
So who wants new energy, clean nuclear energy, like cold fusion?

Who wants to see new energy sources that provide virtually limitless, environmentally friendly energy to the whole world? Of course this sounds highly Utopian, but the facts support such possibilities.

Wouldn't we all like to be released from our servitude to Big Oil and other fossil fuels?

And help reduce human suffering caused by the lack of plentiful, benign energy?

Perhaps owners of oil companies may not be so enthusiastic about new energy. But for the majority of the world, new energy is a very welcome prospect.

And wouldn't we want to see the application of new energy as soon as possible? The answer, surprisingly, may not be as simple as you might think.

Electrochemist Ed Storms, with Lattice Energy LLC, presented an unusual update last November at the International Conference on Condensed Matter in Marseilles, France. The title of his second-to-last slide was "What We Know to Be True" about low energy nuclear reactions (LENR). It listed seven sets of empirical evidence that substantiated the claim of what is popularly, though technically incorrectly, called cold fusion.

The title of the very last slide was "What We Hope Will Be True." His three ideas were as follows:

• LENR will replace all present sources of energy.
• Mankind will be wise enough to introduce LENR slowly.
• Mankind will be wise enough not to use LENR to destroy.

The third point is not surprising. Anytime mankind has found a new source of energy, people have found a way to use it for destructive as well as constructive purposes. Any good technology has a potential downside.

But what’s this about introducing cold fusion slowly? Hasn’t it been slow enough already? Aren’t many of the most experienced researchers, including Storms, in the later years of their lives and eager to see their research finally applied? What causes Storms such concern?

Storms, a radiochemist who spent many years at Los Alamos working on nuclear energy systems for the space program, has had time throughout the last decade and a half to perform broad surveys of the work in the field -- far beyond his own personal investigations.

Many researchers in this field have toiled in cramped, underfunded labs for 16 years, striving to attain basic recognition and resources for this field. Naturally, they are eager for change.

So why not bring it on as fast as possible?

This question raises another question: "When was the last time our civilization witnessed a major technological revolution?"

The introduction of the atomic bomb? The automobile? The airplane?

Perhaps the closest personal experience many of us had seen was the emergence of the Internet. Yet how many of us had the foresight to see what it would become?

Years ago, a colleague showed me a new piece of software called NCSA Mosaic during a training session at Novell's headquarters in Provo, Utah. Bill (not Gates) was ecstatic. He went on an on about how this technology would change the world. Bill was able to connect the dots; he saw it coming. The rest of us just saw a computer screen and a new piece of software.

Cold fusion is not so different. Some people see excess heat, perhaps only milliwatts. They may ask, “So what?” Others, like Storms, see an unmistakable pattern. They see an energy revolution on the way.

Yet, the Internet, as significant as it has been, did not immediately pose a worldwide threat to existing technologies.

Cold fusion is a different story. Along with the benefits of a clean source of nuclear energy come the potential displacements of infrastructure, jobs, investments, industries and global financial structures.

Let's review for a moment what we know about cold fusion:

● We know it has an incredibly high volumetric energy density. That means there is a lot of potential energy from a very small quantity of fuel -- even more energy than you get from uranium fuel rods in a conventional fission reactor.

● We know it does not produce long-lived radioactive waste or greenhouse gasses, only helium and sometimes tritium.

● We know, by comparing cold fusion to other forms of nuclear energy, that the low levels of neutron and gamma ray emissions appear to manageable and suitable for even residential power generation. It would be appropriate to mention here that it seems unlikely that cold fusion will be completely without danger. But what form of producing and distributing electricity is completely without its dangers?

● We know the fuel cost will be quite low because it will use some hydrogen-containing medium, such as water or possibly oil.

● We also know that it can operate in normal environments, not specialized laboratories which require solar-scale temperatures. This mean a cold fusion reactor in your basement or garage is theoretically possible.

So what's the problem? Consider this analogy: Imagine for a moment that you live in a village that has been suffering from a drought since 1972. No water is to be found anywhere.

Suddenly, one day, someone discovers an enormous reservoir in the mountains. But it’s blocked by walls on all sides. You know for a fact that the reservoir contains a bounty of life-preserving and life-enhancing water. Do you, in your excitement and eagerness, drop a stick of dynamite to release quickly the entire contents of the reservoir? Or do you, instead, find a way to slowly and carefully tap the new source of water in a controlled manner?

Massive disruptions from cold fusion are not beyond my imagination, nor are they limited to my imagination. This past summer, I saw a remarkable demonstration of a new cold fusion method. I have not seen any scientific data yet, with the exception of a reading from a gamma detector, so it’s difficult to accept this new method fully. It’s a new form of cavitation.

Cavitation used to induce fusion is nothing new. Roger Stringham, an experimentalist with First Gate Energies, has been using acoustic cavitation to produce cold fusion since 1989. Rusi Taleyarkhan, a physicist with Purdue University, published his first paper on his hot fusion version of acoustic cavitation in 2002 in Science.

More details of the new cavitation method to produce nuclear fusion are expected later this month at the 12th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science in Yokohama, Japan.

Will this new method trigger a watershed of understanding to catapult cold fusion research into high gear? Perhaps. Will it require us to take a hard look at Storms’ concerns? Perhaps.

Unplug yourself from the grid. Disconnect your natural-gas line. Cancel your delivery of home heating oil. Find another job if you are a coal miner. Start to pray if you have bet your life savings on stocks that benefit from ever increasing prices for oil and gas.

Ooops. Houston, we have a problem.

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.)
 
Our Precarious Dependency on Oil: When the pedal hits the metal and your car grinds to a halt

It’s amazing what happens when we humans suddenly forget how dependent we are on gasoline and oil. We’ve got a lot more “out-of-town visitors” here in Dallas today as a result of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The rain hasn't affected this part of Texas at all, we have mostly a lot of wind.

Yesterday, I wanted to fill up for the next two weeks but almost every gasoline station within miles was either lined up with cars or had plastic bags taped to the pump nozzles saying "out of order/empty." It was a strange, eerie sight. When I finally found a station that only locals would know about, hidden away from the main streets, it took me 20 minutes to pump in 12 gallons and fill my tank. Folks were waiting in line for me to finish and were growing frustrated because it was taking me so long. Me, too.

Well, when every pump is going full-bore at a station, it appears that these modern credit card pumps can get really slow. I’m not sure why. It may have been plain economics. That is, the service station might want to slow down the flow rate to save gas to be sold at a higher price tomorrow, thus discouraging folks who wanted to fill the tank up. Who knows?

It’s amazing how a few hundred thousand extra people driving around town can upset the fragile balance of supply/demand and how often gasoline tankers make their weekly rounds to replenish local stations. Every road in Dallas looked like a major rush hour well past 7:30 in the evening.

Even today it still looks busier than normal everywhere. I imagine that the 2.8 million people in Texas and Louisiana who evacuated these last few days received a lesson from mother nature on how dependent we are on energy. Perhaps we have taken gasoline for granted and thought it would always be available in modern service stations along our modern high-speed freeways.

With the lack of new refineries built in the United States in many decades, the fragility of petroleum delivery systems, and the tight relationship between supply and demand, things can only get more precarious.

Let’s hope that cold fusion can bring some real hope, and soon.

Vince Golubic
Dallas, Texas (former oil capital of the United States)

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
 
3. 12th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
The largest cold fusion conference of the year takes place later this month in Yokohama, Japan. Program details are on line at http://www.iccf12.org/. Abstracts will be available closer to the date of the conference. The Jan. 10, 2006, issue of New Energy Times will provide an in-depth review of the conference.


__________________________________________________________________________________ 

4. 2005 Annual Winter American Nuclear Society Meeting

The American Nuclear Society will host seven talks on cold fusion at the 2005 annual winter meeting. It takes place the week of Nov. 13 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.

The conference tagline is “Talk About Nuclear Differently: A Good Story Untold.” Hmmm. I supose they've got a point. Anybody care for some cold fusion, a new source of clean nuclear energy?

The topics and speakers are as follows:

“Nuclear Reaction Pathways Resulting From Phonon Interactions,” Peter Laurence Hagelstein (MIT)

“Evidence for Intense Soft X-Ray Emission From a Hydride Target Undergoing Intense Deuteron Bombardment,” George H. Miley (Univ. of Illinois)

“Dual Ohmic Controls Improve Understanding of ‘Heat After Death,’” Mitchell R. Swartz, Gayle Verner (JET Thermal Products)

“Bose-Einstein Fusion Mechanism for Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction and Transmutation Processes in Micro- and Nano-Scale High-Density Deuteron Plasmas,” Yeong E. Kim (Purdue Univ.)

“Coherent Zener Breakdown and Tunneling in Finite Lattices: Why Nano-Scale PdD Crystals Can Turn-On Faster,” Scott R. Chubb Sr. (Research Systems)

“Three Types of DD Fusion,” Talbot Chubb (Naval Research Laboratory)

“Low Energy Nuclear Reactions,” David J. Nagel (George Washington Univ.)

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES
 
5. Author and Editor Krivit Speaks at Nanotechnology Conference

Link to Paper
Link to Presentation
Link to Video (Windows Media Required, 17 minutes)

On Nov. 1, I presented “What Really Happened with Cold Fusion, and Why Is It Coming Back?” to the International Congress on Nanotechnology in San Francisco, Calif.

Nanotechnology is a broad term referring to science and technology in which key parameters of materials or processes exist in the scale of one to 100 nanometers.

The conference began with a keynote address from Stanford professor and Nobel physics laureate Martin Perl. At one point, Perl was asked what advice he would offer to science students. His remarks were illuminating.

He encouraged them to be innovative, and do their own work, not merely replicate the work reported in others' papers.

He also encouraged students to select their colleagues carefully. For example, he said, if you go to someone and tell them of a new idea, and they immediately dismiss it, saying, “That’s impossible, it violates Maxwell’s or some other law,” then such a person may not be your best colleague. On the other hand, he said, if they reserve judgment, and then, perhaps a week later, provide their comment to you, this is the type of person you want to associate with.

Bias, Perl said, was also a factor that deserved vigilance. One must be cautious about discarding data that doesn’t fit with one’s expectations, because novel discoveries often are found in the unexpected.

Perl also said that people must be obsessed with their scientific inquiry. It must drive them; they must be tenacious. However, he said there is a time when obsession is no longer appropriate.

“You have to be obsessed with it for a while, but if you are not making progress, you have to give it up,” Perl said.

Such wisdom seemed to characterize many of those who have persisted in cold fusion research over the last 16 years. To go where other scientists dare not, to withstand the personal and professional attacks, they clearly are obsessed.

But should they give up? As shrewd observers of this field know, there has indeed been progress -- slow progress, but steady progress, nevertheless.

The first part of my talk summarized the political history of mainstream science’s failure to recognize cold fusion both as a legitimate science and as a possible new source of energy. I explained how, in 1989, mainstream science threw out the baby (the excess heat) with the bath water (the botched Fleischmann and Pons theory and neutron claims). The second part of my talk briefly reviewed three experimental studies in cold fusion.

The first experiment was the work of Stan Szpak, Pamela Boss, Frank Gordon and Charlie Young of the U.S. Navy SWAWAR systems center in San Diego, Calif.

After years of sparse recognition from mainstream science, the SPAWAR team claims two cold fusion published papers this year, as reported in New Energy Times #12.

One of the team's studies used an infrared video camera to measure the temperatures in the experimental cold fusion cell. The team did not intend to quantify the amount of heat but merely to develop an understanding of the nuclear active environment responsible for the anomalous heat.

The SPAWAR team did not use a typical Fleischmann-Pons-type cold fusion cathode. Instead, it used an inert metal, nickel, in the form of a wire mesh. The team members placed 60nm particles of palladium into the cell in suspension in the heavy water. The palladium then plated out onto the wire mesh over the course of the experiment. They achieved a nearly 1:1 ratio of deuterium to palladium from the onset with this method. Hence, no waiting period was required for the cold fusion effect to start.

With precise infrared video and still images of their experiment, the cathode indicated a temperature which was double that of the surrounding electrolytic water bath. Although such a simple observation may seem less-than-dramatic, the implication is not. Because normal electrolysis would result in the water bath getting hotter than the electrodes, also called Joule heating, the experiment demonstrated that the opposite effect was occurring.

“There is no known scientific explanation for this. This is new science,” SPAWAR electrochemist Pamela Boss said.

The next work featured in my presentation was that of Yasuhiro Iwamura and his team at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan.

Iwamura invented an ingenious method of using nano-sized layers of materials to demonstrate that atomic transmutations were possible at low ambient energies. The experiment used a substrate of several layers of varying thickness. On one side of the substrate, experimenters placed a sample of material. As deuterium gas was passed through the substrate, modern alchemy occurred. In one experiment, cesium placed on one side of the substrate changed into praseodymium as the gas passed through. The team claims 100 percent repeatability and says it has performed similar experiments transmuting strontium into molybdenum and barium into samarium.

The team's work has been published in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, has been replicated by researchers at Osaka University, and has inspired military laboratories in the United States and Italy to test the phenomenon for themselves.

The third set of experiments I discussed was the work pioneered by Yoshiaki Arata and Yue-Chang Zhang of Osaka University. Called the “double-structure cathode,” this experiment used a small cylinder of palladium for the cathode. The cathode was first prepared by coring a hollow chamber in its center and placing 20 nanometer-sized particles of palladium inside. The chamber was then electron-beam welded shut.

Michael McKubre’s team at SRI International also successfully replicated the Arata/Zhang experiment. The results? Energy production. Over the course of the experiment, 64 Mj of energy was generated, above and beyond the input energy. Other results showed the generation of helium and tritium. The significance? A new source of energy that is environmentally friendly.

"A large amount of pure deuterium gas reacted to convert into helium-4. It is an ideal energy source in that no neutrons or gamma rays are produced," Arata wrote.

Members of the audience asked the usual questions; "Are there any theories? When can we expect a commercial device?" Others looked bewildered, apparently struggling to come to terms with the notion that everything they had heard about cold fusion over the last 16 years was significantly out of date and wrong.

Perl chose a front-row seat for my talk. Afterward, I asked him for his thoughts about the talk. True to his own philosophy, he told me that he would reserve comment until after he had time to read some of the references.


__________________________________________________________________________________ 

6. Newcomers to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Rock the Boat, Part 1

Within the condensed matter nuclear science community, two controversial topics are starting to make waves.

The first contentious matter is the claim of nuclear reactions from either normal water, with one deuterium atom for every 6,000 protium atoms, or even more controversial, true “light water,” with no deuterium at all.

The claims of nuclear reactions in normal or light water are nothing new in the cold fusion field. Even though many experienced researchers in the field have difficulty accepting this body of work, at least one well-respected fusion researcher has given it serious attention.

George Miley, director of the Fusion Studies Laboratory at the University of Illinois, Urbana, and 1995 recipient of the Edward Teller Medal from the American Nuclear Society, is one such researcher. Miley also was the editor of the American Nuclear Society's Fusion Technology journal for 15 years. His paper, "Progress in Thin Film LENR Research," presented at the Ninth International Conference on Cold Fusion in Beijing, China, is a good reference for readers wanting more detail on his work.


Dr. Hyunik Yang

Later this month, Hyunik Yang and Vladimir Vysotskii, researchers from Korea and Russia, respectively, will present a new paper at the 12th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science that reports experiments with light water.

Future issues of New Energy Times will report on this work in greater detail. What can be said for the moment, however, is that the claims related to this work are extraordinary. However, they cannot be accepted until the researchers present hard scientific data and they present replication evidence.

Unusual claims in this field naturally draw tremendous suspicion. Some third-party observers speculate that the people behind this work have devised a clever trick to get research money and attention. Such possibilities cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, what if there is substance to the claims? New Energy Times considers both conditions possible and will follow this matter until a clear outcome is known.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

7. Newcomers to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Rock the Boat, Part 2

Widom-Larsen Theory Portal



Dr. Allan Widom

On the theoretical side, the work of Allan Widom, a condensed matter physicist with Northeastern University, and Lewis Larsen, Chief Executive Officer of Lattice Energy LLC. has stirred up a tempest in a teapot in the condensed matter nuclear science community.

Widom and Larsen appear to be relative newcomers to the condensed matter nuclear science community. The only known presentation of the theory so far was at an Italian conference, "Coherence 2005," organized by Vincenzo Valenzi, a researcher with the Biometeorology Study Center of Rome on May 25. The conference was held at the University of Rome 3.

Lino Daddi, a physics professor with the Italian Naval Academy in Livorno was inspired by the Widom/Larsen theory.

"Perhaps we have a theory that explains all the anomalous phenomena. The transmutation observed from Yasuhiro Iwamura [Mitsubishi Heavy Industries] are explained without the problematic multiple reactions of Takahashi," Daddi wrote.

Neither Widom or Larsen granted interview requests at this time. However, a few Internet searches provided some limited information. Widom has a significant list of published physics papers, and the mysterious Larsen is listed as presenting a paper on a device with a "nuclear heat source" at a joint Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute meeting in February 2004.

Professor David J. Nagel, of the George Washington University, was the first to bring the Widom/Larsen paper to our attention. Nagel, a physicist who worked for 36 years at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, considers the Widom/Larsen paper worthy of serious attention.

The controversial new theory appears to explain most, if not all, of the experimental anomalies observed in cold fusion experiments. The theory says it's not a fusion reaction, which would involve the strong force, but other low energy nuclear reactions that involve weak interactions, namely neutron formation from electrons and protons/deuterons, followed by local neutron absorption and subsequent beta-decay processes.

Physics Nobel laureate Brian Josephson reviewed the first Widom/Larson paper and considers their work “highly significant, since the physics may well be sound.”

Several cold fusion researchers have expressed their opinions privately to New Energy Times that the Widom/Larsen theory is wrong.

The theory appears to resolve the "three miracles of cold fusion."

The three "miracles" of cold fusion are 1) the lack of strong neutron emissions, 2) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated and 3) that no strong emission of gamma rays or x-rays occur.

John Huizenga, who chaired the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review, labeled these factors miracles. Huizenga had made up his mind quickly about cold fusion. His use of the term "miracles" reflected his cynicism and difficulty in considering this new paradigm in condensed matter physics.

Widom and Larsen's theory also has accomplished a feat that, so far, has been unprecedented for cold fusion papers. It has made an entry into the mainstream physics community.

Two papers are now available which explain their theory, and they are listed on the Cornell University physics preprint server. The first paper, posted on May 2, 2005, is titled "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces." It can be downloaded from http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026.pdf. A second paper was posted on Sept. 10 and is titled "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces." This can be downloaded at http://www.arXiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0509/0509269.pdf.

The only public comment we found from either of these authors was from a curious letter to the editor of Make magazine, by Larsen:

"Our theory, if verified experimentally by other laboratories: (a) falls solidly within the established laws of physics; and (b) does not involve any D-D or D-D-like fusion."

A cold fusion theory that falls within established laws of physics? How will mainstream science be able to dismiss this? A cold fusion theory that contradicts nearly every other cold fusion theory? How will the current cold fusion community be able to accept this?

The papers have been submitted to a prominent physics journal, but he does not know any further details. If the papers do get accepted for publication, the event may be a milestone in condensed matter nuclear science and its subset of low energy nuclear reactions. On the other hand, if the theory doesn't hold water, then this will be another sad chapter in cold fusion's long incubation period.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

BITS AND PIECES

8. Cold Fusion in the News

Bruce Gellerman, a reporter with a National Public Radio show called "Living on Earth" produced a radio report on cold fusion this summer. Overall, Gellerman did a remarkably good job. It was fair and accurate. He did his homework, took the subject seriously, and left out much of the silliness that other reporters include. The transcript and audio links are here: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=05-P13-00039&segmentID=2

Ted McDonough of the Salt Lake City Weekly wrote a lengthy story title "Weird Science: Cold-Fusion Believers Work on, Even as Mainstream Science Gives Them the Cold Shoulder." The link is here: http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2005/feat_2005-10-20.cfm

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

9. 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)

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

10. About 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.
 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

11. 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.