Amoco Production Company 1990 LENR Research

Amoco Report (Source: New Energy Times)
New Energy Times has three versions of the Amoco report. Steven B. Krivit obtained short and long versions of the report in 2004 from one of the authors, Melvin Eisner. Afterward, Jed Rothwell, the cybrarian of LENR-CANR.org, published an edited version of the report.

Short version from Eisner
Long version from Eisner
Rothwell version

First Page of Amoco Report (OCR) 

SUMMARY (Source: New Energy Times)

This report will discuss briefly some of the early calorimetric experiments on cold fusion and in more detail, a single experiment just concluded.

A closed cell electrolytic experiment has been conducted using a palladium cathode and platinum anode with accurate (+/-0.001 watt) calorimetric measurements. Results indicate a positive energy output of approximately 50 Kjoules more than was input to the experiment through electrolysis cur­rent and heater current. The heat output was observed both as short term bursts of energy and as long term sustained production. Colorimetric cal­ibration with an internal heat source showed essentially identical data before and after the electrolysis experiment. Material balance for palla­dium, water and lithium showed essentially no material had been consumed during the experiment. Tritium levels measured before and after electrolysis showed a factor of 3 increase that cannot be accounted For by con­centration effects.

It is important to note that if this experiment had been terminated after only one month the results would have shown no positive energy production.

These data support the claims ofseveral experimenters that anomalous heat and tritium are produced during electrolytic experiments using a hydrogen absorbing cathode. Further experiments are in progress to determine reproducibility and better define experimental parameters.


Cold fusion burst upon the scene with great fanfare and little hard infor­mation with a press conference in March 1989, when Pons and Fleischmann (1) announced they had found anomalous energy associated with an electrochemical cell. Before there were any actual reports in the literature, circulation of the preprints was commonplace. There were several claims of confirmation over the following few months from diverse groups located worldwide (2-9), At the same time there were many statements that "cold fusion", at best, was the result of experimental error (10-19). Since many "experts" have come out saying that there is nothing to cold fusion, the public perception at this time is that cold fusion has mostly faded away.

AMOCO HISTORY (Source: New Energy Times)

In April 1989, a "garage experiment" on cold fusion was set up by xxxxxx xxxxxx of Amoco and xxxx xxxxx of the University of Houston on the basic of a common interest in a scientific curiosity. This experiment yielded a 30% energy gain over the life of the experiment (two months). The calculation of the energy gain depended upon assigning an energy to the dissociation of heavy water into its components, deuterium and oxygen. This is in common with most of the published experiment, although a platinum surface had been provided for the catalysis of the gases back to heavy water. The surface area of the catalyst had proven to be insufficient and the volume of the electrolyte had been diminished by the electrolysis. Concurrent with this experiment an idea for a possible commercially valuable process was mutually conceived. At this point the work was disclosed to Amoco TRC management and support was given to con­tinue the investigation of cold fusion as an Amoco project.

In June 1989, the first experimental modification was to the catalyst after the experiment was moved from Houston to the Amoco TRC laboratories. This catalyst consisted of platinum powder packed into a glass tube with the gases evolved from the electrolytic cell being forced through the tube. This catalyst appeared to work effectively and the experiment was again yielding about 30% excess energy until the catalyst became water logged and channeling of the gases through the platinum powder caused the catalyst to fail. However, the energy gain without "bookkeeping" had been shown, although only briefly.

In August 1989, a new catalyst was constructed using platinum powder ground into a fiberglass matrix. This unit allowed the water formed to drip back into the electrolytic cell. Because the catalyst was now bigger then envisioned at the beginning of the experiment the calorimetric chamber had to be modified to allow for the electrolytic cell and catalytic unit to be enclosed. The energy gain during this experiment was 10%, but it was felt that the modifications to the calorimetric chamber had intro­duced an error such that the energy gain determined was conservative. It should be noted that all of these experiments used the same palladium ingot purchased by xxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxx in Houston. At this time a new calorimetric cell was built and the following experiment was begun.