M. Little : Cold Fusion: Fact or Fantasy?

Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 407–409, 2009
0892-3310/09

Cold Fusion: Fact or Fantasy?

MARISSA E. LITTLE AND SCOTT R. LITTLE

EarthTech International, Inc. at Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin
11855 Research Boulevard, Austin, TX 78759

e-mail: marissa@earthtech.org

When Professors Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons made their initial
announcement about cold fusion in 1989, the scientific community was unusually
open toward incredible discoveries. A few years earlier a team of scientists had
announced the discovery of high temperature superconductors. Alex Muller
and Georg Bednorz were considered outsiders in the area of superconductor
research, their laboratory had no reputation in the fi eld, and they provided no
theoretical explanations. These facts, combined with previous failed attempts by
dedicated superconductor researchers, caused the announcement to be received
with skepticism. However, within a few short weeks nearly every replication
of the experiment was successful and improvements had been made (Nowotny &
Felt, 1997). In an almost parallel set of circumstances, Fleischmann and Pons,
neither of whom were specialists in the fi eld of nuclear physics, announced their
extraordinary results with no theoretical underpinning. But at this point the stories
diverge. Most of the efforts to replicate their experiment failed and the furor died
almost as quickly as it started (Simon, 2002).
One possible explanation for this turn of events is that cold fusion is not real.
In this case, the positive results obtained by numerous researchers (LENR-CANR
Library, n.d.) over the past 20 years would have to be due to some combination of
measurement error, misinterpretation of results, or even confi rmation bias, which
is “. . . the inclination to recruit and give weight to evidence that is consistent with
the hypothesis in question, rather than search for inconsistent evidence that could
falsify the hypothesis” (Risen & Gilobich, 2007). While this may not seem likely
due to the volume of published positive results, it should be noted that there are
countless null experiments that have remained unpublished. Several null results
were published shortly after the announcement when interest in cold fusion was
widespread (Browne, 1989), but the vast majority of null results after the initial
announcement have fallen victim to the “fi le drawer effect,” a phenomenon
that causes less emphasis to be placed on papers that prove the status quo. The
research behind these papers is simply stored in a fi le drawer and it never reaches
publication status. In an effort to combat this effect, we are belatedly publishing
pertinent null results in this issue of the Journal.

The other possible explanation is that cold fusion is real but diffi cult to
reproduce for reasons that are yet to be fully understood. Fleischmann and Pons
did not provide a complete specifi cation for the experiment. Subsequent efforts to
discover this specifi cation have not resulted in the usual narrowing of experimental parameters accompanied by increased reproducibility and strength of effect.
Instead, the cold fusion parameter space has exploded into an assortment of
loosely related methods and phenomena. In contrast to the original experiment,
which involved electrolysis of heavy water with a Pd cathode, cold fusion
experiments now include light water electrolysis, a variety of cathode materials,
gas-loaded metals, ultrasound cavitation, exploding wires, high-temperature
plasmas, etc. (Storms, 2007). This diversity can be optimistically interpreted as
evidence that the phenomenon is robust and rather reproducible. But it also can
be a symptom of confi rmation bias: evidence of cold fusion is found in any
suffi ciently complicated experiment.
It is quite diffi cult to judge which of these two scenarios is true. The fi eld of
cold fusion suffers greatly from the Experimenter’s Regress—a term coined by
Harry Collins (1981). Experimenter’s regress has two pertinent consequences in
this situation. First, “it is impossible to know by objective criteria alone whether
one or another experiment has been performed competently. Thus, rather than
providing an unambiguous way out of controversial affairs, experiments can only
serve to reinforce the apparent confl ict” (Saulson, 2001). This aspect of experimenter’s regress does not allow conclusions to be drawn about the positive results from cold fusion experiments, nor about the null results. One is unable to
determine the merit of an experiment if the expected outcome is not known. If
cold fusion is real, then the experiments with positive results should be lauded as
well performed. However, if cold fusion is nothing but the result of measurement
errors, then the null experiments were obviously correctly performed. Because of
the controversial nature of the claims, the results cannot be interpreted objectively.
Additionally, experimenter’s regress, combined with confi rmation bias, leads a
person into a feedback loop where they assume that the results obtained are the
correct ones since it is diffi cult to determine otherwise. This further polarizes
the two sides as experimenters with positive results become more convinced of
the veracity of cold fusion and experimenters with null results become more
convinced of the fantasy of cold fusion.
All doubts could be put to rest by the development of a commercial energy
source based on cold fusion. But before this development can begin, a robust
demonstration experiment is required to convince scientists, engineers, and investors.
A cold fusion cell that produced enough power to run itself would certainly
suffi ce. Several researchers have claimed such large quantities of excess heat; a
self-sustaining device should be possible even with the ineffi ciency of converting
heat to electricity. But no such device exists.
A cold fusion experiment that reproducibly produced strong, unambiguous
evidence of nuclear reactions would be the next best thing. Martin Fleischmann
lamented the lack of such an experiment in his opening remarks at the Seventh
International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-7) in 1998. Apparently, this
situation has not changed in the ensuing decade. Some cold fusion researchers
will claim to have such experiments in hand but the world has not yet seen the
expected consequences, namely large-scale investment and research in cold
fusion. Possibly some researchers are keeping their success a secret. Solving the
world’s energy problems would certainly bring both fame and fortune.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the mainstream scientifi c community
still does not accept cold fusion as a means of creating nuclear reactions.
This situation will persist until a robust demonstration experiment is developed
and publicized. If no such experiment ever appears, cold fusion will slowly fade
away and become nothing more than a footnote in the history of science.
About the Authors: Marissa and Scott Little work at EarthTech International,
a company dedicated to investigating new energy ideas. We have spent countless
hours on cold fusion experiments, with a great deal of emphasis on accurate
calorimetric measurements (Little et al., 2008). Despite this effort, we have never
seen a successful cold fusion experiment. We are still dedicated to this fi eld and
watch for new announcements with anticipation. Unfortunately, the null results
obtained in our laboratory have fostered the undeserved reputation that we
are trying to disprove cold fusion. Nothing could be further from the truth. This
reputation has lessened the interests of other scientists in being open and cooperative with us. However, our laboratory remains open and we remain optimistic that someday we will have the opportunity to make measurements on an experiment that irrefutably demonstrates the phenomenon known as cold fusion.

References

Browne, M. W. (1989, 3 May). Physicists debunk claim of a new kind of fusion. New York Times.
Collins, H. M. (1981). Son of seven sexes: The social destruction of a physical phenomenon. Social
Studies of Science, 11(1), 33–62. doi: 10.1177/030631278101100103.
LENR-CANR Library. (n.d.). Available at: http://www.lenr-canr.org.
Little, S. R., Luce, G. A., & Little, M. E. (2008). MOAC—A High Accuracy Calorimeter for Cold
Fusion Studies. Presented at the 14th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear
Physics. Available at: http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf.
Nowotny, H., & Felt, U. (1997). After the Breakthrough: The Emergence of High-Temperature
Superconductivity as a Research Field. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Risen, J., & Gilobich, T. (2007). Informal logical fallacies. In Sternberg, J., Roediger, H. L., &
Halpern, D. F. (Eds.), Critical Thinking In Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saulson, P. R. (2001). Life inside a case study. In Labinger, J. A., & Collins, H. M. (Eds.), The One
Culture?: A Conversation about Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Simon, B. (2002). Undead Science: Science Studies and the Afterlife of Cold Fusion. Piscataway:
Rutgers University Press.
Storms, E. (2007). The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation
of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion. Singapore: World Scientifi c Publishing Co.
Pte. Ltd.

The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion

The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion

Note: While I have not authored this article, it appears to me to be extremely important for readers of Veterans Today and to represent another effort by powerful institutions to deprive American citizens and the world’s population the benefits of a new form of free energy technology to keep gas and oil profits up. — Jim Fetzer

A stunning report written by the late Eugene Mallove details the efforts of professors, researchers, and even the former President of MIT to squash cold fusion at all costs. If you have any doubt that Pons and Fleischmann had enemies desperately trying to discredit them, this article will erase it!
A funeral party or wake to mock cold fusion was held by biased hot fusion scientists at MIT before their experiment to replicate Pons and Fleischmann’s results was even complete!

The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion
By Hank Mills with Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
 
Due to the fact that commercially-ready cold fusion technologies like Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) exist and can produce kilowatts of power, I’m not too interested in previous systems from years ago that could only produce a couple watts of power (or less).
However, I am very interested in the events that took place immediately after the birth of Cold Fusion in 1989, when Pons and Fleischmann announced the existence of their technology to the world.
Although cold fusion systems at the time were not ready for the market place, they proved the effect was real — a fact the establishment could not allow the public to accept.
Immediately after the announcement was made, the “mainstream” scientific community went on the attack. The late Eugene Mallove was in the middle of it, being employed at MIT in the news office — before resigning in protest of the institution’s misconduct.

In a featured article for Infinite Energy Magazine, Mallove detailed exactly what took place that led to his resignation, and the depth of hatred that many professors at MIT had for Pons and Fleischmann’s work.

The article titled, “MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report” also looks at how the replication performed by the institution’s Plasma Fusion Center actually did produce positive results, how data from the experiment was altered by unknown individuals at least twice, and how the hot fusion scientists in charge of such tests were far too biased to conduct proper research.

The article is the most detailed piece of documentation I have ever seen in regards to the early years of the war against cold fusion. If you think the suppression Pons and Fleischmann faced was bad, you don’t have a clue until you have read this article.

The Replication Attempt

To start with, those in charge of the replication attempt were members of the MIT Plasma Fusion Center. Their work with hot fusion Tokamak brought the university many millions of dollars in funding from the government, and maintained their job security. If cold fusion were to be accepted as a real phenomenon, it could have made hot fusion research appear to be near worthless.
The question in the minds of representatives in Washington, DC would have been, “Why should the taxpayers finance the construction of giant reactors to experiment with hot fusion reactions that produce nuclear waste and lethal amounts of radioactivity, when cold fusion research only requires a small fraction of the funding, while producing no waste and little radioactivity?”

In the minds of the MIT professors, such as MIT Plasma Fusion Center Director Ronald R. Parker, that question could never be allowed to cross the minds of those that paid for their employment.
So in an effort to belittle cold fusion research so no one would take it serious, the members of his department (including some scientists from others) took every opportunity they could to attack Pons and Fleischmann. For example, consider how….

A funeral party or “Wake for Cold Fusion” was held by the Plasma Fusion Center, before their replication test of Pons and Fleischmann’s setup was even complete. They held another such party afterwards.

Mugs belittling cold fusion were given out by Ron Parker, the head of the MIT hot fusion research group, who was supposed to be doing serious research to determine if cold fusion was a reality or not. The mugs read, “The Utah University: Department of Fusion Confusion” and had mocking instructions for cold fusion on the back.

Ron Parker would use the test results to discredit cold fusion, while at a celebration of the death of cold fusion stated to Eugene Mallove (after being shown evidence in support for cold fusion) stated that the data from the MIT replication was “worthless.”
How examination of the data from MIT’s replication showed obvious evidence of tampering.

In fact, the corrected data showed excess heat. Yet it was still used to discredit cold fusion research for many years.
How the former President of MIT, Charles Vest, refused to order an investigation into how the Plasma Fusion Center handled the replication, and their obviously unscientific behavior — such as partying for the death of something instead of doing unbiased research.
Even worse, years later he signed onto a Department of Energy report stating that cold fusion did not deserve funding for research, yet hot fusion deserved millions of additional dollars and was a “bargain.”

Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest were ignored from the very start. For example, those who had the strongest need for cold fusion to be proven not to work (hot fusion scientists), were tasked with the replication of the effect.
It would be like giving a cigarette company the order to conduct a study on the reality of lung cancer, or the lumber industry the job of determining the usefulness of industrial hemp.
What the hot fusion scientists were going to say was obvious!

How some scientists were so closed minded they stated that if cold fusion was real, Pons and Fleischmann should be dead from radiation poisoning.

In addition, some scientists went so far as to personally attack them. In one case, a scientist stated that even if a thousand tests showed excess heat, that the results would not vindicate Pons and Fleischmann.

“Words to Eat”

MIT Professor Ronald George Ballinger may hold the all time record for making a foolish statement against cold fusion.

He wrote in 1991: “It would not matter to me if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experiments that see excess heat. These results may all be correct, but it would be an insult to these investigators to connect them with Pons and Fleischmann.”

Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the article is how Ronald R. Parker and Ronald G. Ballinger had a phone call with Nick Tate of the Boston Heraldin 1989. They were talking to him about a potential story about cold fusion, hoping that he would write a hit piece.
In their conversation, which is transcribed in the article, Parker uses the fraud word in his description of their work. He also talks about how he is setting up another “blast” against cold fusion with Bob Bazell, a reporter with NBC.
When Tate reported in the Boston Herald on May 1 that the MIT scientists had called Pons and Fleishmann’s work a “possible fraud” and “scientific schlock”, Pons and Fleishmann were viciously attacked at the meeting of the American Physical Society.
In a retrospective piece written in 1991, Tate asserted that: “Some say those comments set the tone for the national criticism of the Utah work that followed.”

Meanwhile, when Tate’s article in the Boston Herald revealed that Parker had described Pons and Fleishmann’s work as being a “possible fraud” and “scientific schlock”, Parker rushed to deny he had made such statements. Probably, he realized that in his rush to discredit cold fusion he had crossed the line, and committed slander.
In order to avoid possible legal repercussions, in a media advisory from the MIT News Office, Parker specifically denied making such assertions to Tate during their telephone conversation. However, Tate had recorded the phone call, and therefore had rock solid evidence that Parker had made those statements.

Years later, Tate allowed Eugene Mallove to listen to the recording, which revealed the truth about what was said. It was too late, the damage to cold fusion’s reputation was done.

Where things stand

In summary, Mallove’s article paints a damning picture of MIT scientists and professors hell-bent on discrediting cold fusion. Out of desperation to protect hot fusion research, they went so far as to tell blatant lies, alter data, hurl personal insults, conduct celebrations of the “death” of cold fusion, and organize journalists to write hit pieces to try and dismiss Pons and Fleischmann’s work in the public eye.
Then the leadership of MIT turned away and ignored the misconduct and potentially criminal behavior, even when they were specifically alerted to it. Years later, these same individuals (working in other positions with the DOE and DOD) continued to promote the idea that cold fusion was “garbage.”
If you want to know the TRUTH about why it has taken twenty plus years for a commercial cold fusion technology to be developed, you should read this article. It is a tragedy beyond measure that an institution like MIT would allow such inappropriate behavior.

Everyone involved has blood on their hands from all the people on this planet that have died due to the suppression of this technology.
Literally, due to their suppression of cold fusion, children have needlessly starved, millions have suffered dehydration due to a lack of clean water, the environment has been trashed, and the global economy has been almost destroyed.

If the suppression of cold fusion by MIT had never happened, we might not even have an energy crisis today!
And this is but one of many such stories about the suppression saga from 1989.
The suppression from back then has had phenomenal staying power due to the brainwashing that pronounced “cold fusion” to be “junk science,” no matter what.
Ignored are thousands of replications worldwide, with several making significant gains toward marketplace viability, and the E-Cat actually reaching the marketplace on October 28 of this year with a 1 MW unit.
So now, when people attack Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, it’s hard to tell whether they are acting as a function of that brainwashing, or as a present-day disinformation agent, or if they have honest misgivings of a scientific basis.
Gratefully, Rossi keeps moving forward despite these negative statements.

A few individuals in the mainstream are coming around and waking up to the reality of cold fusion, like NASA’s Dennis Bushnell who claims cold fusion is the number one most promising alternative energy technology on the planet.

However, to protect hot fusion research, protect the status quo, and to keep the public from realizing how the scientific community suppressed cold fusion, he calls the phenomena LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). In addition, he claims there is no fusion in cold fusion, in order to try and make the technology seem more mundane, and more acceptable.
There were enemies of mankind in 1989 that wanted to prevent the proliferation of cold fusion, and there are still such enemies today. Reading about how cold fusion research was attacked from the very start can help us prepare for attacks from these in the future.

We cannot let greedy, selfish, and power-hungry monsters and their countless minions suppress cold fusion for another twenty years or more. There are too many lives at risk. Simply put, the future of our civilization is at stake.

Hank Mills has contributed a large number of stories to Pure Energy Systems web site at PES.com.
Sterling D. Allan is the Founder and CEO of PES Network, Inc., and of the New Energy Congress.
---------------------------------