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

canard used by those who have tried to “wish away” many cases of
experimentally determined excess heat: “Uncontrolled catalytic recombination
of the oxygen and hydrogen produced gas is a source of possible
excess power in the right range.” A number of excellent experiments
have thoroughly investigated this “explanation” and have rejected it.
Recombination is not a significant factor in open cell work. (In closedcell,
deliberate recombination work, it is no factor at all, and there are
excellent positive experiments of that kind too.) On the other hand and
to his great credit, Professor Morrison correctly notes, “It is possible that
helium is lost from the cells.” Indeed, this is precisely the result that
researchers at the Naval Weapons Center have recently reported in connection
with their calorimetric work.
There is a significant omission in Professor Morrison’s critique.
Nowhere do I find an assessment of the validity of subtracting a “somewhat
arbitrary linear function” from the raw heater power data to get
net excess power. Dr. Morrison assumes a priori that the group
employed a correct algorithm. But as my 18 August letter suggests, that
methodology is completely incorrect.
Professor Morrison accepts what I believe to be a gratuitous statement
in Professor Parker’s hastily prepared letter to me of August 8,
1991—the one I received on the eve of the WBUR radio broadcast—in
which he tries to explain the apparent curve shift between July 10 and
July 13. Parker’s statement is: “In one, the drift was fitted with a somewhat
arbitrary linear function. . . in the other, the drift was fitted with a
different linear function, this time a least squares fit, and the data
appearing in the final version of the paper were produced.” I do not
think it is possible to accept this statement on its face. The light water
curve has not been moved down by any new form of mathematical
adjustment, but the heavy water curve most certainly has been moved.
In fact, I believe that this statement about two methods of fitting the drift
to be a complete fabrication on the part of Parker, much as his statements
about what he did or did not say to Nick Tate are completely false.
Professor Morrison is certainly correct that the July 13 draft results
in an excess heat that is “visibly close to zero for both cells.” I do not
contest that, for that is precisely what this curve shift was apparently
intended to bring about. So, I must strenuously disagree with Professor
Morrison’s statement, “Objectively, one has to say that the published
paper does not mislead.” I believe to the contrary. The paper misleads
most egregiously. Professor Morrison’s polite recommendation #3
directly governs this matter: “They should also describe the two
approaches to correction in more detail than the by-name-only account
in the letter by Dr. Parker to Dr. Mallove of 8 August 1991.” In my view,
there is very strong evidence that the alleged “two approaches” is really
only one method of fitting the data and performing the forementioned
inappropriate subtraction of the resulting fitted line. The second
“approach” is merely data-averaging into one-hour samples and subsequent
shifting of the curve down to give the impression of a null result.
More evidence for my contention: If there really had been two methods
of analysis applied to the data that would instantly explain the curve
shift, why would not Professor Parker et al. have immediately shown
me the two computer source codes or the notebook-written algorithms.
This would have immediately cleared up at least the matter of the origin
of the shift. Such was not done, I am quite certain, because two distinct
approaches to the data processing did not exist.
I do not believe that Professor Parker et al. can be trusted at this
time to give forth a complete account of how that curve adjustment
occurred. If asked to do so, they might contrive some kind of algorithm
with a convenient free parameter or parameters that will show how
they processed the data to get the two sets of results.
In conclusion, and in regretted disagreement with the recommendations
of Professor Morrison, I must again ask you to convene an
appropriate panel to thoroughly explore scientific misconduct on the
part of the MIT research group. When this panel renders its opinion, I
am confident that it will reach the very conclusion about this experiment
that Professor Parker publicly announced on June 7, 1991, and
later implicitly rejected, namely that it not “worth anything.” This is
what he said and he will be held to his word that he believes the curves
can be redrawn “anyway that you want”:
“I’ll tell you what my opinion is of that work, because I was part of
it. I don’t think it’s worth very much. Alright? And that’s why it’s just
published in a tech report. I don’t think it’s worth very much. I think to
do calorimetry is one of the hardest things I ever tried to do. I’d rather
stick to plasma physics. . . When you have an open system is where you
can make big errors, where you don’t know the overpotential, the electrode
potential, and so on. These things are unknown. I mean it’s really
tough and that’s why I don’t put any stock at all—you can redraw those
curves anyway that you want. I don’t think that data is worth anything.”
Rather than allow the PFC team members further opportunities to
fiddle with their data, I recommend that all notebooks, computer files,
and printed records relating to their experiment be immediately
impounded and turned over to an investigative team for thorough
analysis. I requested this inquiry in late August. It is now late October.
Your letter to me in early September said that my material would be
“appropriately reviewed during the coming several days.” Time
enough has gone by in deliberations over what to do. It was a good, but
not a sufficient course to ask Professor Morrison’s opinion, which he
rendered the day after he received the material from you. However, it
is now time to appoint a panel that will probe to the core of what I
steadfastly believe to be evident scientific misconduct.
Both you and others, especially Professor Morrison, should be
under no illusion that my hope for cold fusion lies in extracting some
evidence of excess heat from the PFC data. You should know that positive
conclusions about cold fusion are based on a preponderance of evidence
from elsewhere. After the results that will likely be discussed at
the third annual conference on cold fusion in Nagoya, Japan, in the fall
of 1992, no one will need the PFC’s ancient and discredited data. It will
be past history, and, indeed, a very sorry history for MIT.
The case of the PFC data concerns scientific ethics: Is it permissible
to massage data to one’s taste—to artificially present a strong negative
impression rather than an ambiguous and possibly positive one? I think
not. I do not deny the PFC group the right to discuss the sensitivity of
their experimental measurement and then to suggest that because of that
sensitivity their result should be read as null. But it was clearly inappropriate
to arbitrarily shift processed data to contrive a “desired appearance”
and not let the viewers of their report form their own judgements.
And do not forget my contention that the very basis for arriving at the
original processed data (before the shift) is, in any event, not correct. At
the very least, the paper requires substantial revision on that account.
Until I am persuaded by strong technical arguments that deliberate
curve-shifting has not occurred, and that an appropriate processing of
the data has been applied, I will continue to believe in the need for a
thorough investigation. I appreciate Professor Morrison’s offer to discuss
the content of his memorandum with me, however at this time I do
not feel a need for that kind of discussion. The discussion I and several
of my colleagues would respectfully like to have with him would be to
discuss the overwhelming ancillary evidence for cold fusion, not the
PFC paper. I understand his contentions about the PFC work very well
and do not need clarification. I look forward to your reply about the
next steps that you will take.
Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove
Exhibit Y
Eugene Mallove’s Letter to President Charles Vest
December 31, 1991
Over two months have gone by and still no action has been
taken on my request for a full investigation.—EFM
President Charles M. Vest, MIT Room 3-208
Dear Dr. Vest:
My last letter to you regarding the progress of the MIT misconduct
investigation was on 24 October. With the exception of a subsequent
telephone message from Ms. Laura Mersky stating that you considered
the investigation to be a matter of high priority, which you would
attend to upon returning from a foreign trip, I have received no communication
from you. Would you kindly let me know what actions
have been taken?
I can assure you that in 1992 there will be many developments
regarding cold fusion, both scientific and governmental. It will accordingly
be imperative to resolve the MIT misconduct matter as soon as
possible. I look forward to your early reply.
Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove
49 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report