EP
Not chemistry(2)

EP 
Correlated heat & Helium-4 (5)

1993

EP 
No major errors (15)

1994

Melich & W. Hansen
(Performed Analysis)

EP (7)

EP
Tritium (7)

1995

EP
He-4 (10)

Amoco (3)
(Performed Replication)

EP
Tritium
Not chemistry (11)

Excerpts From Reference Papers  

-  Caltech, MIT and Harwell - major errors in experiments.
-  Caltech evidence of EP of 0.076 W @ 1.0W/cm3 closely matches their own experimental 1.3W/cm3 as well as that of a 1990 experiment by Fleischmann
-  Poor error tolerance for MIT's calorimeter of +/- 40 mW, Harwell's of +/-15%, compared to Fleischmann's +/- 1 mW

-  A careful re-examination of earlier results from several laboratories  (California Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harwell Laboratory) is needed in terms of our present understanding of electrochemical calorimetry. Error sources in their experiments are discussed. There is possible evidence for excess power production in the Pd-D2O electrolysis experiments at one of these laboratories.

-  This neglect of Ρx by N. Lewis et. al. in the equation defining h would lead to an increase in the heating coefficient as the excess power increases.  

-  an excess power effect develops that becomes as large as 0.076 W after 161 hours of Pd/D2O + LiOD electrolysis. The excess power density of 1.0 W/cm3 Pd for this analysis of the N. Lewis study is in excellent agreement with our experiments (1.3 W/cm3 Pd at 200 mA/cm2) as well as with the results reported by M. Fleischmann et. al. in 1990.

-  The calorimetric error ranges of ±40 mW for the M.I.T. studies and ±15% excess power (±2σ) for the Harwell calorimetry fall far short of the ±1 mW accuracy reported by M. Fleischmann et. al. 

-  The early cold fusion calorimetric results by several major laboratories in 1989-1990 contain serious errors that will ultimately undermine the acceptance of these studies as credible electrochemical calorimetry. These publications by N. Lewis, D. E. Williams, D. Albagli and others, however, serve to illustrate important calorimetric principles, problems, and sources of error relating to attempts to measure excess power in the Pd-D2O system.

Table 2. Analysis of Cal Tech Calorimetric Results.a 

a N. S. Lewis, et. al., Nature, 340. 525 (1989). 
b Higher current density. 
c ΡX/VPd = 0.076 W/0.073 cm3 = 1.04 W/cm3 (0.054 W/cm2) 

-  ALL PERTAINING TO FP-
-  Analyzed their best samples of raw data 
-  Performed computerized data reductions to obtain independent analysis and avoiding possible interpretation error due to human estimating of raw data
-  EP is unambiguous in cell #6 at 1.5 watts
-  Total amount of power is beyond realm of chemistry

-  When I was asked last January by the Fusion/Energy Council of the state of Utah to head a committee to investigate unpublished and unreleased data of Pons and Fleischmann, I knew it would be a difficult and interesting assignment.

-  we have received sets of data and have analyzed some of them in depth. Our strategy has been to obtain and closely examine the most significant data available. We believe that has been done. The data discussed in this report lay no claim to being typical. They are chosen because they illustrate some remarkable results we found to have been obtained by the P/F group.

-  Modern fast computers permit the luxury of using the full model equations without approximation. For this reason it is called the "exact" approach. Of course it isn't really exact. No model of a physical system is exact. But insofar as the model is correct, curve fittings, inversions, and other numerical manipulations can be done in an optimal fashion not limited by trying to make the algebra convenient with the use of approximations. The full blown model equations for open cell calorimetry are rather complicated, and there is little hope of finding simple algebraic solutions. Actually, the latest computers make the use of open cell calorimetry much more attractive. In our approach we avoid many of the arguments about how to reduce the data with approximate methods. In fact much of the criticism of the P/F methods still revolves around how approximations should be made. In our approach, this conflict disappears. 

-  If this analysis holds, and we see no way around it at the present time, the excess power of cell 6 is impressive indeed. The excess power is about 1.5 watts for the first two days of the 0.4 amps region. The electrode is small, 1mm dia by 1.25 cm long. Counting the 0.4 amps period and the 0.2 amps period, there is about 6000 eV per Pd atom excess energy, or over a thousand times the energy required to vaporize the electrode. Putting it this way it is easy to see that we are not dealing with known chemistry or metallurgy. At issue is a profound energy source. It is of utmost importance that these results be reproduced

-  The integrated excess heat is about 170 megajoules per mole of palladium or about 1700 eV per Pd atom. This is about 400 times the vaporization energy of Pd for the electrode of cell 2! Therefore cell 2 appears to be producing large amounts of excess heat, with the amount increasing with temperature.

-  claims of "no evidence of excess heat' found" at MIT and Caltech are unsupported
-  mathematical analysis of Caltech work shows an instance of "0.0715 W of excess power"
-  Caltech experiments replicate rather than disprove F&P.

-  Unlike the clearly negative indications so far in terms of known nuclear processes taking place, however, careful analysis reveals that the claims in the principal negative papers published so far with respect to the existence of excess energy are in disagreement with the raw experimental data whenever such is presented in those papers.

-  [CALTECH] 0.0715 W of excess power

-  [CALTECH] The results in Ref. 5 are even more impressive when one considers that the Da(I) is only a part of the real amount of excess power that might have been produced in the D20 cell.  This discussion shows that the experimental results in Ref 3 (similar arguments can be given for Ref.4) replicate rather than disprove the calorimetric findings in Ref.5.  The latter conclusion, however, is insufficient to provide a decisive answer in Refs. 3 and 4 to the question of whether  Da(I) is real or not.

-  Evidence of EH found up to 27% in China Lake experiments
-  Evidence of EH found up to 13% in Caltech experiments
-  Evidence of EH and 4He correlation found in China Lake experiments
-  Errors found in Caltech experiments

-  Although the experiments by Lewis and co-workers [42,43] are often cited as evidence against electrolytically induced fusion [5], the reported increase in heating coefficients (h.c.) from 14.0 to 15.9°C/W [42] suggests an excess power effect of over 13% in D2O + LiOD.

-  Our electrochemical experiments unambiguously show a direct correlation between the time of generation of excess enthalpy and power and the production of 4He, established in the absence of outside contamination. This correlation in the palladium/D2O system provides strong evidence that nuclear processes are occurring in these electrolytic experiments and that helium is produced at or near the surface of the palladium rather than deeper in the bulk metal. The major gaseous fusion product in D2O + LiOD is 4He rather than 3He. No experimental evidence for helium products, excess enthalpy or radiation is found in H2O + LiOH control experiments. In summary, nuclear events with 4He as a major product occur during the electrolysis of the Pd/D2O + LiOD system.

-  A critical issue in determining whether or not the anomalous effects that occur during D2O electrolysis are of nuclear origin is the measurement of nuclear products in amounts sufficient to explain the rate of excess enthalpy generation. Calorimetric evidence of excess power up to 27% was measured during the electrolysis of heavy water using palladium cathodes. Maximum excess power was 0.52 W (1.5 W/cm3) at 250 mA/cm2. Eight electrolysis gas samples collected during episodes of excess power production in two identical cells and analysed by mass spectrometry showed the presence of 4He. Furthermore, the amount of helium detected correlated qualitatively with the amount of excess power and was within an order of magnitude of the theoretical estimate of helium production based upon fusion of deuterium to form 4He. Any production of 3He or neutrons in these experiments was below our detection limits. However, the exposure of dental X-ray films placed outside the cells suggests the emission of radiation. Control experiments performed in exactly the same way but using H2O + LiOH in place of D2O + LiOD gave no evidence of helium, excess power or radiation.

-  [MIT] Shows appearance of possible excess heat, depending on one's bias
-  [MIT] Assert manipulation of data

-  Much current skepticism of the cold fusion phenomenon was created by a paper by the MIT Plasma Fusion Center (PFC) reporting a "failure-to-reproduce" the experiments of F&P, as opposed to its later claimed "too-insensitive-to-confirm" experiments.

-  Quantitative analysis of the curves reveal that a bias was introduced into the D2O curve relative to the light water curve tending to obscure the generation of heat.

-  [Swartz quotes from Albagli et al., J. of Fusion Energy, 9, 133 (1990)]  "(w)hen enough solvent was added to the D2O cell to compensate for that lost to electrolysis at the end of the 100h period shown in Figure 6, Ph (the heater power) returned to within 20% of its original value."

-  Noninski analyzed these thermal matters and calculated that as much as 2 watts per cm3 palladium of excess power was generated over 60 hours for the heavy water.

-  conclude that the FP Effect 1)is real  2)produces heat 3)they were correct in 1989
-  reviewed Harwell's raw data and found they had an "immature understanding" of what they were doing.
-  reviewed Caltech found lacking scientific merit
-  found Caltech scientists to be both major subjects as well as participants in the media "firestorm" of 1989
-  Amoco found significant EH and significant tritium and precise scientific accounting
-  assert that state of the art cold fusion experiments deserve consideration by patent office

-  We conclude that there is an FPE and its signature is heat. Data existed in 1989 that could have lead to this conclusion.

-  Some of our reconstruction and analysis of Harwell Laboratory's2 isoperibolic calorimetry was reported in the Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion at Nagoya, Japan3. We have gained access to other sets of raw data from the 1989-90 period and have also benefited from retrospective analysis efforts undertaken and published in the past years 4-6

-  [Caltech] the quality and maturity of their calorimeters, their experimental design, and the analysis of their results make their published work of historical but not scientific interest in establishing or rejecting the FPE. It is also worth noting that Lewis, et al were highly visible in the popular press and were subjected to and major participants in the pressures of the intense public relations firestorm that had started on 23 March 1989.

-  [Harwell] The FPH cells were operated for over 40 days throughout which period the experimental team was under great pressure to complete the experiments, produce conclusions and ultimately provide a written report. This pressure produced an immature understanding of the error characteristics of their FPH cells. As with Lewis, et al., the Harwell group operated under extreme public scrutiny and had little opportunity to revisit and reanalyze and mature their instruments or procedures.

-  [Amoco] Unlike most other research groups trying to do science under the glare of publicity, the Amoco team was able in 1989 to complete three iterations of experimentation, learning in each iteration how to improve and mature their experimental instruments and designs. The result of their 24 Oct-18 Dec 1989 experiment showed that an FPE experiment in a closed, flow calorimeter produced unaccountably large steady levels of heat, as well as bursts of heat, at magnitudes 100 to 1000 times greater than instrumental error.

-  Further, the tritium level in the electrolyte at experiment start was 2.5 ± 1.0 pcurie/mL, while at the end of the experiment this had increased to 7.4 ±1.1 pcurie/mL; these results were achieved in a closed calorimeter. A complete material accounting was carried out for the water, palladium and lithium and essentially no materials were consumed during the experiment. They note that had the experiment been terminated in less than one month they would have failed to see the FPE. We are urging Amoco to submit this work for publication in a scientific journal.

-  As observed by the Amoco researchers, patience was crucial to the success of their experiments. In retrospect, the CalTech and Harwell teams failed to produce "persons having ordinary skill in the art". They did not have the "teachings" of the FPE contained in the Utah patent applications, nor did they spend the time to understand the subtleties of the FPE experiments.

-  The 1989 attempts by the ERAB and other public review groups to discern the "facts" of the FPE demonstrates how weak a process advisory panels can be when faced with masses of "preliminary notes", strict reporting deadlines, anecdotal evidence from laboratory visits where experiments are not actually in progress, and where debate is more informed by passion than laboratory experience.

-  Based upon our evaluation of the 1989 experimental data sets made available to us, we conclude:

. There is a Fleischmann-Pons Effect. . The experimental signature of the FPE is heat.  Further, we observe that:

. Refinements of the 1989 FPE experiments are producing experimental protocols and instruments that meet the most stringent demands of science and possibly those of the patent system.

-  Adds nothing technically new to historical analysis
-  offers a challenge to scientists 
-  states high level of confidence in the FPE 
-  provide meaning to the significance of positive versus negative FPE findings
-  assert that the process taken by the ERAB Panel to adjudicate cold fusion by "tally" was absurd

-  The challenge to science is to solve the case, with hard work and rational dialogue. We shouldn't allow such a smoke screen to be thrown up that the answers can't be recognized even when they are found. We also must be careful that our motives are purely scientific.

-  To make our position clear at this point we offer two examples from a long list. Mike McKubre1 et al, using closed cell electrochemical calorimetry both simple and accurate, found and confirmed several times large amounts of excess heat. In their examples the largest total excess heat was 450 eV/atom normalized to the Pd lattice or to the D in the lattice at a loading taken as ~1.

-  In a completely independent set of experiments, Edmund Storms2 found excess heat produced to about 400 eV/Pd atom, in a different closed electrochemical calorimeter design. Before going to other details, stop and focus on the implications of these numbers. Those implications are profound and unavoidable!

-  The excess heat that has been produced is hundreds of times that conceivable from chemistry or metallurgy as we know it.   This enormous excess heat production is the Fleischmann/Pons Effect, FPE.

-  is a matter of individual opinion as to when "yes" is proven by observation. Proving the answer to be "no" is a much more difficult subject. An observation that simply fails to answer "yes" (call it "negative") does not answer "no." It simply gives no answer at all.

-  Question #1: Can large amounts of heat be generated at a significant rate by Pd/D interaction as announced by Fleischmann and Pons?  

-  [DOE ERAB Cold FusionPanel]  It is absurd to suggest that Question 1 be answered by taking a tally of the number of positive and negative results. Yet simple negative results have been taken as convincing evidence that the F/P effect does not exist. And current patent and funding policies are driven by a few negative results.

-  Identify critical errors in Caltech, Harwell, MIT, and GE experiments
-  Thoroughly examine errors in Caltech work, assert they utilized erroneous calorimetry values
-  Identify how errors could have allowed excess power to have easily gone undetected in Caltech, Harwell and MIT studies

-  Several key publications [studies by Lewis et aL,1 Williams et a1.,2 Albagli et al.,3 and Wilson et aL4] that greatly impacted the cold fusion controversy incorrectly assumed steady-state conditions for their isoperibolic calorimetric cells rather than the appropriate differential equation.

-  Closer examination, however, shows that Lewis et al erroneously define the heating coefficient as h = AT/PT where the total power (PT) is the sum of the electrolysis power and resistor power.  According to the Newton law of cooling, the temperature difference, AT, defines the total output power from the cell to its surroundings; thus any excess power (Px) must be included in defining the total power.

-  This discussion of various calorimetric error sources shows that excess power effects could easily have gone undetected in the early studies reported by Caltech, Harwell, and M.I.T. These errors stem from the use of steady-state approximations, inadequate calorimetric cell designs including poor scaling of electrodes and cells, room temperature changes, the effects of liquid levels, and questionable cell calibration procedures

- EP confirmed, up to 4.1 watts measured
- No nuclear emissions found
- Helium-4 found at nearly 2x background
- EP measurements claimed with 99% confidence.
- EP measurements simultaneously with loss of mass, possible conversion of mass to energy, though they cannot provide an explanation

- excess power generation have been measured with high confidence level (99%)

- the value of this energy is in the order of thousands eV.  Moreover, this excess power generation occurs simultaneously with an unexplained loss of hydrogen from the reactor.

- the excess energy production was confirmed, in the simple system hydrogen/palladium

- up to several watts

-  We have carried out a search for the [nuclear by-] products expected from these reactions.  No signatures [of nuclear by-products] above background have been found that can explain the amount of excess energy produced

-  Values up to 6000 eV have been measured

- hydrogen is lost in an unexplained way, during the production of excess energy.

-  Closed-cell calorimetry accuracy to +/- 1mw
-  EP measured at ~ 50 Kjoules and 30% EP
-  Tritium measure at ~3x over background
-  The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment, though not nearly enough to account for excess energy.  They did not appear to search for He.
-  Their data support the claims of "cold fusion"
-  Experiment would not have been successful without two-month time period allowed for experiment.
-  Chemical analysis conclude that a chemical process could not have caused the results

-  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 of several 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.

-  In April 1989, a "garage experiment" on cold fusion was set up by T. Lautzenhiser of Amoco and M. Eisner 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). 

-  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

-  [TRITIUM]  The electrolyte was analyzed for tritium activity before and after the experiment.  Prior to starting the experiment the electrolyte had a value of 2.5 +/-1.0 pcurie/mL.  After the experiment was completed, a sample of the electrolyte was counted again and was found to have 7.4 +/-1.1 pcurie/mL.  While not a large increase in tritium, this increase is significant

-  [MIT] Shows appearance of possible excess heat, depending on one's bias.
-  [MIT] Assert manipulation of data
-  If they thought the calorimeter had erred, why did they choose to move the reference line upwards instead of downwards?  How could they know which direction an error may have occurred, and how might they justify moving it in the direction they chose?  

-  Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the MIT PFC experiment was that after I publicly challenged it, the objective of the experiment was redefined by its defenders! 

-  May 1992 Publication of MIT PFC Technical Report (PFC/RR-92-7), a single author (Luckhardt) "Technical Appendix to D. Albagli et al. Journal of Fusion Energy article" (originally 16 authors!) Error limits of MIT PFC calorimetry are further expanded and the nature of the experiment was further redefined to deflect data mishandling accusation.

-  The two pairs of graphs, referring to the same experiment, are from two drafts (executed three days apart) of the MIT PFC Phase-II Calorimetry comparative study of a heavy water (D2O) Fleischmann-Pons cold fusion cell and an ordinary water (H2O) control cell. In the July 10, 1989 draft, there is clear evidence of excess heat (beyond electrical

-  input power) in the D2O cell, but no visually apparent excess in the H2O cell. The data were averaged over-one-hour intervals to produce the July 13, 1989 draft, which shows no excess heat in the D2O cell.  There is now no doubt that to produce the July 13, 1989 draft, the D2O data had to be treated differently than the H2O data to give the final

- impression of a "null" result-no excess heat for D2O. The results were published in this form in the Journal of Fusion Energy and a MIT PFC Tech Report, widely cited (especially by DoE) as evidence that the Fleischmann and Pons claim was false. In essence, the hour-averaged data were properly transformed from the intermediate processed form

- concurs with claims of EH
- finds no significant source of error with SRI work

-  confirm observation of EH
-  confirm no errors
-  they performed full hands-on evaluation
-  this is the same Lewis from Caltech who was highly negative and vocal in Baltimore

-  [Cover Page]  Dr. Lee Hammarstrom of the Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Space Systems 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 subcomittee of the JASONS in a 3-hour session in La Jolla, CA on July 14, 1993.

-  [Related citation: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/redocuments/1997/970404-pena-sc.html]

-  [Over many decades, a group of distinguished scientists know as the JASONs has provided the U.S. Government independent, expert analyses in defense and arms control issues.]

-  [Related citation: http://physicalsciences.ucsd.edu/news_articles/jason_rift.htm]

-  [Since the dark days of the Cold War, a group of scientists has met secretly every year in La Jolla to ponder the Pentagon's most vexing challenges... The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA, has severed its 42-year-old contract with JASON, suggesting that its members are relics of the Cold War focused on nuclear physics and ill-suited for today's threats to national security.]

- This is a brief informal report from Nate Lewis and Dick Garwin on the basis of our visit to SRI International Tuesday, 10/19/93.  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.

-  [cold fusion cells]  we held one in our hands ...which according to a summary chart has provided about 3% excess heat.

-  The uncertainty in excess power measurement is about 50 mW, but the excess power appears to be on the order of 500 mW or even 1 W peak.  

-  We believe that there are a few things (probabably irrelevant) not very well understood by the experimenters.

-  we don't need a theory to make us believe our eyes

-  This is a serious effort to obtain reliable calorimetric data on heavy water electrolyzed in a cell with a palladium cathode.  Is 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.

-  If the raw data from the calorimetric measurements in Ref 1 are observed more closely, a different conclusion from that expressed by the authors may be drawn. 

-  "Fig. 1.  Excess power density as a function of time calculated for some moments from the raw data in Ref. 1 (0.1x9cm palladium cathode, 69mA/cm^2 current density).  The dotted line represents the level of Px,sp claimed in Ref. 9 [Cunnane et.al] for a 0.1 x 10-cm palladium cathode at 64 mA/cm^2 current density."

-  "It is seen from Fig. 1 that in the course of the experiment, an additional power source [greater than the sensitivity of the method -0.04W (Ref. 1 [Albagli])] has acted that is of the order of, and at times even greater than, the value 0.079 W (1.01 W/ cm^3) reported in Ref. 8 [Fleischmann&Pons] for the current density, similar to that used in Ref 1. It is seen that Px [Excess Power] is observed exactly according to the predictions of Eq. (3) in Ref. 1."