MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report - Infinite Energy Magazine

Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger said in March 1990, “It is
no longer possible lightly to dismiss the reality of cold fusion.”
After long and careful study of this controversy in both its scientific,
media, and political dimensions, I am personally convinced
at greater than a 99% confidence level that cold fusion is
real—both the nuclear emanations that have been reported and
the excess enthalpy that seems to emerge from various experiments.
The erratic nature of the phenomena —the lack of reproducibility
“on demand”—has clearly been the central obstacle
to acceptance in the scientific community, but extraneous
“political” and programmatic factors have also played a role. It
would seem, however, that reproducibility—no doubt a function
of certain critical atomic structure and composition factors
in the test systems—is getting to be less and less a problem.
Two unusual documents that have come to my attention are
only the most recent in a cascade of information that is now
emerging in the field. Physicist David Worledge of the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI), who has just returned from a
trip to the Soviet Union, supplied me with the astounding report
of the “Workshop on Nuclear Fusion
Reactions in Condensed Media,” which
was held at a world-class high-energy
physics center under the sponsorship of
the USSR Academy of Sciences, among
other prestigious scientific organizations.
This is extraordinary because this
heretofore unknown but suspected
level of effort on cold fusion in the
Soviet Union gives an independent
check on some of the nuclear effects
work in the U.S. (I regret to say that in
Dr. Worledge of EPRI
the present atmosphere of hostility to
cold fusion in the U.S., such a conference
would now be unthinkable at places like Brookhaven
National Laboratory and Fermilab.) Noteworthy is the claimed
increasing levels of reproducibility in the experiments, which
incidentally, is also happening in the U..S—e.g. at Los Alamos
National Laboratory and at SRI International in Palo Alto, which
has carried out reproducible excess energy production in electrochemical
cells.
The other paper comes from my colleague,
Dr. M. Srinivasan, Head of the
Neutron Physics Division at the Bhabha
Atomic Research Center, BARC, in
India. This is his recent excellent summary
of the experimental evidence for
cold fusion, which BARC has played a
major role in supplying. Read it and perhaps
be amazed, as I have been. I was
Dr. M. Srinivasan
of BARC
already aware of most of the results that
he cites, but he assembles it so nicely.
As for experimental work here at MIT
in this exciting new field, I regret to tell you that it does not exist.
After the initial brief but intense period of experimental assessment
in the spring of 1989 by an interdisciplinary team drawn
from the Plasma Fusion Center and from the Chemistry Department,
led by PFC Director Professor Ronald R. Parker and then
Chemistry Department head, Professor Mark S. Wrighton, to my
knowledge, nothing further has been done along experimental
lines. It is notable, however, that researchers in several departments
at MIT have continued a strong interest in the field.
An atmosphere of hostility, analogous to the editorial position
on cold fusion of a certain well-known scientific journal
[Nature], is prevalent. I do not feel that MIT’s best interests are
served any longer by unwarranted ignoring of the mounting
experimental evidence for cold fusion. It seems to me essential
that members of the MIT community reassess the experimental
findings that have come and are coming from both domestic and
foreign laboratories. To do any less would be, it seems to me, an
abdication of scientific responsibility, not to mention a possible
longer range injury to the reputation of MIT. It is even possible
that the international competitiveness position of the U.S. might
be at stake, something we here have given much attention to.
There is strong evidence, for example the enclosed Matsushita
Corporation patent application, that Japanese laboratories are
devoting their considerable talents to this field. (I believe it probable
that a major Japanese Corporation may be funding the work
of Drs. Fleischmann and Pons now in France.) [Editor’s Note: That
corporation turned out to be IMRA, an affiliate of Toyota Corp.—EFM]
Basically, I think the train is leaving the station, and MIT is not
on it. This deeply troubles, saddens, even embarrasses me —as
an alumnus who cares deeply about MIT and its image. May I
suggest that you assemble very soon and publicly a panel of MIT
scientists and engineers to consider and evaluate the status of
research on “nuclear reactions in deuterium infused metals.”
(There is no need to call it the politically charged, “cold fusion,”
even though that may well be what it is.) I can imagine the composition
of such a panel, who would hear from researchers both
within and from outside MIT—including from foreign countries.
Obviously, MIT's thoughtful skeptics (e.g. Dr. Richard Petrasso)
as well as proponents of these phenomena (e.g Professor Peter
Hagelstein) should be aboard. As a chairperson, I would offer
the names of three outstanding scientists, who could guide
deliberations in a fair manner: Professors Philip Morrison,
Jerome Friedman, or Henry Kendall. Because of my knowledge
of the field through being a conduit of information, I would be
honored to assist any such panel in its deliberations.
I have sent a copy of this letter to your predecessor, Professor
Paul Gray, with whom I have discussed cold fusion earlier, in
the days when the controversy arose. My deep appreciation to
you for carefully considering this suggestion. I look forward to
discussing the idea further with you, if you feel that it has merit,
and of course I hope you will.
Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove
Exhibit J
Eugene Mallove’s Letter to Dr. Stanley Luckhardt
April 29, 1991
My written request to Dr. Luckhardt for clarification and other
data was rebuffed.—EFM
Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D., Chief Science Writer, MIT News Office,
Room 5-111, Lecturer in Science Journalism, Department of Humanities
Dr. Stanley C. Luckhardt
Room 36-293
Dear Stan:
Glad that you were able to come to Dr. Fred Mayer’s [cold fusion]
seminar last week and ask some good questions. It’s nice to have an
alternate theory to compare with Peter’s [Hagelstein’s] ideas.
I have been meaning to submit a short note to the Journal of Fusion
Energy, a comment of sorts about the MIT experiments in the spring of
1989 and where they fit into the big picture. I would mainly be addressing
the calorimetry issue and in that regard would want to refer to both
your perspective and to that of Dr. Noninski. I realize that there are two
pieces of information that it would be helpful, though not essential, for
me to have: (A) The precision and assumed accuracy of each of the measuring
devices (current, voltage, and temperature) and (B) The plot of
the heater power versus time for the light water comparison cell run that
corresponds to the D 2 O heater power plot presented in the PFC report.
Thanks in advance for your help, and I look forward to sharing with
you some of my ideas, once I get them on paper.
Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove
29 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report