Today is F-Day!

On May 8, 1989, the Electrochemical Society held their spring meeting in Los Angeles amid the frenzied controversy of the cold fusion announcement, and declared it F-Day!

This was on the heels of the 1989 American Physical Society meeting that began May 1 in Baltimore, where disgruntled physicists who failed to replicate the findings gathered together to congratulate each other for saving science from amateurs. After all, they knew nuclear theory, and chemists did not. Some of the biggest insults hurled by the mainstream physicists came from scientists with the MIT Plasma Fusion Laboratory and Caltech.

Electrochemist Nathan Lewis was from Caltech and claimed to have seen no effect. As it turned out, his experiment was woefully marred. [See Examples of Isoperibolic Calorimetry in the Cold Fusion Controversy by Melvin H. Miles J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 13 (2014) 392–400] Still, Dr. Lewis showed solidarity with physicists by claiming “that their device “violates the first law of thermodynamics,” that is, the conservation of energy or, as is often said, “the universe offers no free lunch”.

That’s how Eugene Mallove tells it in his Pulitzer Prize-nominated book Fire from Ice Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor.

I’ve seen Youtube video of him frothing at the mouth while angrily asserting that Drs. Fleischmann and Pons had not “stirred their cells” properly.

Physicist Steve Koonin, a colleague of Nathan Lewis’s at Caltech, as well as future BP Oil exec and Department of Energy Secretary, said, “If fusion were taking place, we would see radiation in one form or another, and you would simply not be able to hide that radiation.”

Of course, this is what makes cold fusion/LENR so attractive. Not only do we get fusion-sized energy from tiny table-top cells that use a fuel of water, the heat energy is derived from a new type of reaction that generates no deadly radiation, as well as no CO2! Oh, Steve.

Eugene Mallove writes in his book Fire From Ice:

“…that Dr. Koonin also told New York Times reporter Malcolm Browne at the time of the meeting, “It’s all very well to theorize about how cold fusion in a palladium cathode might take place … one could also theorize about how pigs would behave if they had wings. But pigs don’t have wings.”

Nathan Lewis (L), Steve Koonin (Middle), and Charles Barnes (R) of Caltech. Usurping the scientific process, and believing a 100-year-old theory over the experimental facts, these three men helped to close down research on what could have been clean fusion energy technology. Photo: Interview with Charles Barnes Caltech Oral Histories

Dr. Steve Koonin further disgraced himself for all historical time by saying “My conclusion is that the experiments are just wrong and that we are suffering from the incompetence and delusion of Doctors Pons and Fleischmann.”

While the Baltimore meeting allowed physicists to vent their failures with misery as company, the lowest point for the American Physical Society was reached when Dr. Steve Jones from Brigham-Young University led a panel at a news conference. Steve Jones, of course, the very reason why the March 23, 1989 news conference was held in the first place.

It was after five years of research that Drs. Fleischmann and Pons decided to get funding for their experiments. The US Department of Energy gave their proposal to Dr. Steve Jones for review. Dr. Jones had been previously working on a different kind of muon-catalyzed fusion, but had given it up for lack of results. (He claimed to get neutrons, though no one has ever reproduced his results.)

When Jones saw what the pair from University of Utah were up to, he was excited enough to jump back in, and he contacted Drs. Fleischmann and Pons – not a normal procedure in the application process – to invite them down for a visit to see his neutron detector. In the end of February 1989, while they visited, Steve Jones told Drs. Fleischmann and Pons that he would be announcing his own form of “cold fusion” in May, but, if they wanted to publish papers at the same time, he would be willing to do that.

Huh? Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons wanted nothing more than to get their funding and keep working, but upon arriving back at the University of Utah, administrators and lawyers were fearful of losing the “first place” of announcing this new kind of energy-producing experiment. The two electrochemists were prodded into making the news conference announcement anyway, beating Jones’ own announcement.

At the Baltimore meeting of physicists, Dr. Jones, perhaps still sore from being one-upped on his one-up, made poor scientific judgement by polling with a show of hands in order to determine whether cold fusion was dead, as documented by Steven Krivit on his website.

Eugene Mallove wrote in Fire From Ice:

Finally, “science by press conference” occurred again, degenerating even further into “science by poll.” At a news conference on the second day of the Baltimore cold fusion fest, Steve Jones asked for an impromptu “straw poll.” He asked nine of the session’s leading speakers whether they were at least 95 percent confident that the University of Utah claim to have generated heat by fusion could be ruled out. Eight answered “yes” and one, Rafelski, Jones’s colleague, wisely withheld judgment. Rafelski commented, “This should not be taken as the matter is settled.” However, Yale physicist Moshe Gai said of his group’s work, “Our results exclude without any doubt the Pons and Fleischmann results.” The panel voted more favorably on whether the claim that neutrons were being seen in a number of cold fusion experiments could be ruled out—three of nine kept an open mind.”

May 2, 1989 Physicist Steve Jones takes a vote on whether or cold fusion is “dead”. Photo: New Energy Times if you can’t tell.

To have the top physicists in the country ridiculing the scientific process with such ugly outrage showed weak stature in scientific thinking, but these physicists were successful in having the tide turn against Drs. Fleischmann and Pons’ work. Their excess heat effects were now completely suspect.

Thus, when the May 8 meeting of the Electrochemical Society began, electrochemist Dr. Nathan Lewis of Caltech was confident in his superior knowledge. Nevertheless, there were 1600 attendees who were less assured.

From Fire and Ice, we get a list of positive results being reported from very competent and open-minded scientists. Eugene Mallove writes:

Everyone was awaiting May 8, when at the special cold fusion session of the Electrochemical Society spring meeting in Los Angeles, Fleischmann and Pons were supposed to present a “thorough, clean analysis” of the thermal aspects of their experiment. Pons told Jacobsen- Wells of the Deseret News, “We are going to supply all the information that we can. People evidently are misunderstanding a lot about calorimetry. A lot of people are making calorimetric measurements with instruments that may not be suitable for these experiments.”

The meeting began with controversy over the relative absence of critical scientists; had it been arranged to be a celebration of only positive results? Lewis of Caltech was present at least as a token skeptic. As he had done in Baltimore, he proclaimed his numerous permutations and combinations of materials and conditions, all of which had failed to show excess power or nuclear products. “I’d be happy to say this is fusion as soon as somebody shows that it is,” a self-assured Lewis told the 1,600 assembled. Fleischmann and Pons were having no trouble. Now they were claiming to get bursts of heat lasting a few days up to 50 times the power input to their cell—the claim was even more extreme than before! Was this a tip-off that they were really onto something, or that they had completely gone off the deep end? To rebut Lewis, they showed a brief film clip of a bubbling cell in which they had injected red dye. Within 20 seconds the dye had spread uniformly through the cell, intuitively giving the lie to Lewis’s accusation about improper stirring.

Concerning their neutron results, Fleischmann and Pons backed off a bit, acknowledging reluctantly that their measurements were deficient and were the “least satisfactory” part of their research. They said that they would rerun their experiment with a new detector. More disturbing was their withholding of the long-awaited and promised 4He measurements. There was an emerging feeling (not necessarily a correct one) that if there were no copious neutrons, there had to be helium-4 to make the claim for a nuclear process. The Fleischmann-Pons rods were being analyzed for helium by Johnson-Matthey Corporation, the 170-year-old British precious metals supplier, under an agreement of exclusivity with the company. This was the presumed reason for the turning down of many other offers to do the rod “autopsy.” Fleischmann had admitted at the meeting that if no helium were to turn up, “it would eliminate a very strong part of our understanding of the experiment.”

Bockris from Texas A&M, Huggins from Stanford, and Uziel Landau from Case Western all backed up the Utah duo with positive heat measurements. At a press conference Huggins said, “… It’s fair to say that something very unusual and large is happening. There is conclusive evidence there is a lot of heat generated here—much larger than the proposed chemical reactions that people suggest might be happening.” A thinly veiled criticism of physicists by a Society official, Dr. Bruce Deal, drew applause: “Unlike other societies, we do not attempt to solve complex technical problems by a show of hands.” But not every electrochemist left the meeting convinced. The experiments were subtle, apparently difficult to reproduce consistently, and of course totally unexplained. Steve Jones again reiterated his faith in his neutrons and disbelief on the question of heat—at least in cold fusion cells. Cold fusion might still be partly responsible, he thought, for the hellish conditions inside the planet.

Soon cold fusion would face increasingly acid opposition. Martin Deutsch, professor of physics emeritus at MIT had told Science News, “In one word, it’s garbage.” (Science News, Vol. 135, May 6, 1989.) Some media had essentially written it off. Scientists who had genuinely tried to make cold fusion happen, but who for reasons still not clear could not coax their cells into working, would be joining the ranks of the opposition. They were frustrated and mad. They had wasted precious research time chasing rainbows. Enough was enough! Time to move on.

But those who believed in the tantalizing results of some experiments would not be stilled. Others who were bold enough to theorize about fantastic mechanisms to explain cold fusion did not give up either. They persevered, egged on by the serious critics.

If people were having trouble finding neutrons, perhaps the mysterious “cold fusion” was a kind of nuclear reaction that was largely neutronless—as the MIT analysis seemed to suggest. As skeptic Petrasso himself would say in January 1990 at a lecture at the PFC, “We may turn out to be the big allies of Fleischmann and Pons if they can now prove that they have fusion, because what we’ve demonstrated now is that they basically didn’t have any neutrons at all coming from their heat-producing cell….So now they can claim that they are having neutronless heat generation.” If this turns out to be true, a mind-boggling technological revolution may be in store for us.

The cover of Time magazine on May 8, 1989. Fusion or Illusion? Two obscure chemists stir up a fascinating controversy in the lab, but new tests challenge their hopes of creating limitless energy By Michael D. Lemonick.

So it was that cold fusion became the “pariah science” despite so many positive results, and the Electrochemical Society proclaimed May 8 to be F-day. While I imagine that means Fusion Day, one could fill in F-day with other words, for though the ugly attitudes have stopped spraying spittle as they emote, the lasting effects of these lost years have yet to be measured.

What would have been different if these physicists had only kept to their scientific oath, to follow a method “consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Lucky for us, Caltech, MIT, the Department of Energy, the USPTO – it’s a long list – were not able to stop the research. Today, we are nearing commercially-available technology using condensed matter nuclear science, the field which Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons discovered. It’s 30-years late, but after rolling that long, we can expect an avalanche of announcements that will flip the narrative of failure that mainstream physicists have perpetrated. The failure is their own.

These men who de-railed our future should apologize to Dr. Martin Fleischmann (posthumously) and Dr. Stanley Pons (still underground), and us. The best way would be to urge their colleagues at the current Department of Energy to recognize CMNS science and start funding science research so we can get a technology fast. Or, we can just let them fade away, on the wrong side of history forever.

Get Eugene Mallove’s Fire From Ice from the New Energy Foundation online store here!

The 22 International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science on September 8-13, 2019. Registration now open!

Book on exotic energy features LENR

A new book published this year by Inner Traditions and Bear & Company features exotic energy technologies including cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR).

Infinite Energy Technologies: Tesla, Cold Fusion, Antigravity, and the Future of Sustainability is edited by Finley Eversole, Ph.D and includes chapters on “clean, sustainable energy solutions from the geniuses of our past and the visionaries of our future” authored by the leading new-energy technologists and writers today.

infinite-energy-technologies-9781594773808Described by the back cover copy,

As the global need for clean, renewable energy grows and the shortage of viable large-scale solutions continues, it is time to look to the geniuses of our past and the visionaries of our future for answers. Taking inspiration from Albert Einstein’s statement that “problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them,” Finley Eversole explains that the key to a pollution- and poverty-free future of infinite energy lies not in pursuing one single method but in investigating all the possibilities–in uniting as a world in creative pursuit of global transformation.

Exploring five nearly unknown geniuses of our past–John Worrell Keely, Nikola Tesla, Viktor Schauberger, Royal Raymond Rife, and T. Townsend Brown–and their revolutionary discoveries about free energy, electricity, water vortex motion, electric ray and super-microscope technology, and antigravity, this book helps to restore their long-suppressed scientific legacies and bring us one step closer to the destiny they foresaw. Eversole has gathered research from leading experts on cold fusion, zero-point energy, power from water, and the free-energy potential of the Searl Effect Generator to reveal technologies that work with Nature’s laws and that, if fully implemented, could establish sustainable energy systems in a single generation.Infinite Energy Technologies: Tesla, Cold Fusion, Antigravity, and the Future of Sustainability [link]

***Support Eugene Mallove‘s New Energy Foundation and buy this book here.***

The Table of Contents
Foreword … John L. Petersen
Introduction … Finley Eversole, Ph.D.

Part 1 Back to the Future: The Legacy of the Visionaries

1 Nikola Tesla: Electrical Savant … Marc J. Seifer, Ph.D.
2 John Worrell Keely: Free-Energy Pioneer–a New Chapter …Theo Paijmans
3 Viktor Schauberger: A Brief Overview of His Theories on Energy, Motion, and Water … Callum Coats
4 Royal Raymond Rife: The Fate of Compassion and the Cancer Cure That Worked … Gerry Vassilatos
5 T. Townsend Brown: The Suppression of Antigravity Technology … Jeane Manning

Part 2 Infinite Energy: A New Science for a Pollution-Free World

6 The Sustainable Technology Solution Revolution: A Universal Appeal … Brian O’Leary, Ph.D.
7 Power for the People–From Water … Jeane Manning
8 Imagine a Free-Energy Future for All of Humanity … Steven M. Greer, M.D.
9 Energy Technologies for the Twenty-first Century … Theodore C. Loder III, Ph.D.
10 Harnessing Nature’s Free Energy: The Searl Effect Generator … John R. R. Searl and John A. Thomas Jr.
11 Cold Fusion: The End to Conventional Energy and the Start of Social Reorganization … Edmund Storms, Ph.D.
12 Zero Point Energy Can Power the Future … Thomas Valone, Ph.D., P.E.
Afterword … Brian O’Leary, Ph.D.

Appendix A The Four Occupations of Planet Earth … Tom Engelhardt
Appendix B Evidence of Cosmic Community … Finley Eversole, Ph.D.
Appendix C The Earth Charter
Additional Resources

The 400-page paperpack has 74 black & white illustrations. An excerpt from Chapter 5 by Jeane Manning is available here or as a downloadable .pdf

With humanity facing the dismaying prospects of global ecological collapse and geopolitical chaos, there is an urgent need for clear solutions-based guidance that penetrates our dulled consciousness and pulls us back from the precipice. Infinite Energy Technologies delivers such guidance. Through a powerfully resonant combination of new energy science, societal analysis, and spiritual insight, Finley Eversole’s compilation shakes us awake from our dangerous stupor. The wise voices in this anthology make a compelling case for the immediate embrace of a new wave of energy technologies that is key to launching an era of shared abundance, planetary healing, and unprecedented creativity. I pray that millions will heed this call for action without delay and lead the transformation so desperately needed on our imperiled planet.” —Joel Garbon, President of New Energy Movement and coauthor of Breakthrough Power


Remove institutional blocks at MIT and CalTech; fund cold fusion programs now

First published by Infinite Energy IE24 in 1999, the MIT and Cold Fusion Special Report [.pdf] by Eugene Mallove featured a detailed history of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) investigation into the claims made of cold fusion technology. The brief episode of research was undertaken by the MIT Plasma Fusion Center (PFC) in 1989 while Mallove was the school’s News Office Chief Science Writer. Mallove’s report on the hot-fusion scientist’s findings is fully documented with an analysis that shows a discrepancy between the original lab data and the data published in their final evaluation.

Drs. Pons and Fleischmann with cold fusion energy cells in 1989.
In that year 1989, two scientists Drs. Fleischmann and Pons working out of the University of Utah Salt Lake City Chemistry department announced the discovery of what was called cold fusion, a clean and powerful form of energy generated in a small test-tube of heavy water. The cell made excess heat, which means more heat comes out of the cell than goes in. And it was alot of heat, the kind of heat that could be developed into an energy-dense technology to provide clean, abundant power for the entire world. It was an astounding declaration.

Upon learning of this breakthrough discovery, scientists around the world dropped what they were doing and attempted to reproduce the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE). Brilliant individuals and talented researchers from a variety of disciplines, including hot fusion and plasma scientists, threw electro-chemical cells together using materials on hand, and attached a battery.

Unfortunately, for all the groups that attempted the experiment, there was only about a 15% success rate.

Most of the attempts to reproduce the effect failed, and many of the researchers saw nothing out of the ordinary happen.

Within months after the announcement, two of the top science institutes in the United States, with the power to shape policy at the highest levels, had declared cold fusion a ridiculous hoax.

More than any other factor, it was the negative reports by MIT on the east coast, and CalTech on the west, that influenced the U.S. federal policy of excluding cold fusion from the energy portfolio.

Federal agencies cited the recommendations from MIT and CalTech as a basis for their policy.

PFC Director Ronald Parker and professor Dr. Richard Petrasso wrote the MIT final report, making the claim that the Utah scientists had “misinterpreted” their results.

Quoting Mallove’s account, scientists at MIT claimed that “tritium detection in cold fusion experiments at Los Alamos National Laboratory should be ignored because it had been done by ‘third-rate scientists'”. They were of course talking about Dr. Edmund Storms and Dr. Carol Talcott, specialists on tritium and metal-hydrides who were measuring “significant amounts of tritium” along with others teams at the national lab.

MIT and CalTech expert opinions were broadcast through the TV/satellite peak of power, just as the Internet was first emerging in the civilian sphere. The message was total. In a story to the press, Parker characterized the work of Fleischmann and Pons as “scientific schlock” and “possible fraud”.

Though he first denied saying anything of the kind, an audio tape made by the reporter confirmed his particular language. The same vocabulary was unleashed on May 1, 1989 at the Baltimore meeting of the American Physical Society with an emotional vehemence uncharacteristic of scientific objectivity.

While Director Parker was meeting with Boston Herald reporter Nick Tate, he took a phone call from NBC-TV news Science Reporter Robert Bazell during the interview. The press eventually ran the message that cold fusion was a big mistake. Since then, virtually no coverage of cold fusion breakthroughs have been broadcast, with the exception the 2009 CBS 60mins report Cold Fusion More Than Junk Science.

During the Herald interview, Parker also took a phone call from Richard Garwin, Chief Science Researcher at IBM Corporation and a member of the Energy Research Advisory Board tasked by then-Secretary of Energy James Watkins with determining the federal response to cold fusion. The ERAB ultimately decided there was no need to investigate the phenomenon further.

In the years that followed, then-President of MIT Charles M. Vest was also on a federal panel that advised President Bill Clinton’s administration to increase funding for hot fusion. The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) has refused to even acknowledge the existence of cold fusion, resulting in no research funding for over twenty-years, including their $29 billion 2012 budget.

These reports were cited by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to justify diverting cold fusion patents out of the normal processing stream. Mallove stated that the MIT report effectively “killed the Pons and Fleischmann patent, which happened in the Fall of 1997”.

The meme created by MIT and CalTech in 1989 remains in scientific and political circles to this day: that cold fusion is a phenomenon imagined in the minds of lesser scientists.

Dr. Vesco Noninski was first to be curious about the MIT cold fusion experimental data. A subsequent analysis performed by MIT alumnus Dr. Mitchell Swartz, now of JET Energy, confirmed discrepancies between the original lab data and the reported data. The MIT reported data appears to be shifted downward, indicating that excess heat may have been measured, as represented by the higher-temperature lab data.

Swartz detailed his findings in three papers which can be found in the Proceedings of ICCF-4 prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute in 1993: “Re-Examination of a Key Cold Fusion Experiment: ‘Phase-II’ Calorimetry by the MIT Plasma Fusion Center“, “A Method to Improve Algorithms Used to Detect Steady State Excess Enthalpy” and “Some Lessons from Optical Examination of the PFC Phase-II Calorimetric Curves“. [download .pdf]

But the damage had been done. Administrators were not interested in re-visiting an already dismissed claim.

If it were not for that lucky 15%, we would not have known anything different, and prospects for a clean energy future would indeed be gloomy.

It is now known that for the types of palladium-deuterium electrolytic cells that they were experimenting with, significantly long times are needed to “load” the deuterium into the palladium. Weeks, or even months, could go by before excess heat would be produced. Turning on the cell in the morning, and expecting the effect to occur by dinner, was unreasonable.

In addition, scientists who were experts in their own field were not necessarily skilled in the complex art of electro-chemical cells. Measuring heat, a science in itself called calorimetry, is difficult for an experienced electro-chemist, let alone a novice. Experiments done by both MIT and CalTech were plagued with poor calorimetry.

Swartz’ examinations of MIT data twenty-years ago were recently appended when Melvin Miles and Peter Hagelstein re-visited the PFC’s experimental procedures of calorimetry. Miles and Hagelstein published their analysis in the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Volume 8 2012 pages 132-138 [download .pdf]

Miles is a retired Professor and Navy researcher who is an expert in measuring heat. Hagelstein is MIT Professor of Electrical Engineering who has theorized on the nature of the cold fusion reaction. Hagelstein has collaborated with Mitchell Swartz over the years on several IAP short courses and public demonstrations of active cells on the MIT campus without the official support of MIT. The most recent cold fusion cell continues to produce excess heat for six months now.

The summary of the Miles and Hagelstein calorimetry analysis is reproduced here:

The 1989 report from MIT remains flawed with unjustified shifts of temperature plots and poor calorimetry procedures. Yet this report, along with the CalTech conclusions, established the baseline for all academic and federal policy over two decades.

Twenty-years ago, Dr. Charles McCutchen of the National Institute of Health (NIH) responding to Eugene Mallove’s request to examine the MIT PFC data, asked MIT President Vest:

For its own good, and to restore some civility to a contentious field, MIT should look into (1) how its scientists came to perform and publish such a poor experiment, (2) why they either misdescribed their results, making them seem more meaningful than they were or used a subtle correcting procedure without describing exactly what it was, (3) how it came about that data from calorimeters with a claimed sensitivity of 40 mw converged, between drafts, after completion of the experiments, to within perhaps 5 mw of the result that hot fusion people would prefer to see. It might have been chance, but it might not.” –Charles McCutchen NIH 1992

In light of the problems that characterized the Plasma Fusion Center’s experiments over those few months in 1989, and in light of the twenty-three years of research confirming without a doubt the existence of a form of energy that is dense, safe and ultra-clean, both MIT and CalTech have two choices: implement Dr. McCutchen’s recommendations, or, remove any long-standing institutional blocks that have kept research on cold fusion out of the most prestigious science schools in the U.S., and begin again by instituting a serious program to understand and develop what is now called condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS).

Both MIT and CalTech have refused donor money for cold fusion research. Most recently, an “MIT physicist” denied a group’s ability to fund Hagelstein’s research by actually returning the dollars. Meanwhile, the University of Missouri increases its support for new-energy company Energetics Technologies with private donations over $5 million. For elite science schools like MIT and CalTech to ignore the reality of cold fusion is not only a threat to the integrity of our institutions of science, but a threat to our planet.

There is alot of catching up to do in order to develop the myriad of technologies that will allow humankind a second chance at living a technological future, in peace, on a green planet Earth, and we need our most talented and creative minds to do it.

New-Energy Program begins tomorrow!

Opening party starts at 4PM.

Related Links

How Nature refused to re-examine the 1989 CalTech experiment by Jed Rothwell [.pdf]

JET Energy NANOR device at MIT continues to operate months later by Ruby Carat May 22, 2012

1994 BBC doc profiles early history of cold fusion underground by Ruby Carat June 7, 2012

International Society of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Publications

Big Bang Theory AND Cold Fusion

System crashing, nuclear threat,
riots in streets, fiat paper debt,
mass extinctions, despot measures-
I’m changing the channel for TV pleasures.

I am not familiar with most current TV offerings – and this is old news for you hipsters – but while visiting family, I learned about The Big Bang Theory, one of the biggest shows on TV. It’s about a couple of super-smart science geeks, and the limitations they have as whole people.

Steve Wozniak on Big Bang TheoryOne particular episode, Season 4 Episode 2 The Cruciferous Vegetable Amplification, aired on November 30, 2010 and had a guest appearance by Apple computer legend Steve Wozniak AND a mention of cold fusion.

Continue reading “Big Bang Theory AND Cold Fusion”

Infinite Energy Magazine publishes 100th issue

I finally got my hardcopy of Infinite Energy magazine.

I’m on the road, with mail forwarded here and there, so there was a delay in the November/December issue. Even though selected articles are available on their website for free, there’s nothing like having it in hand to take around.

Infinite Energy mastIt’s the 100th issue!

Infinite Energy started back in 1995 by Eugene Mallove, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University graduate in aeronautical engineering and environmental health sciences, respectively. He had a talent for communicating science to the public and wrote several books including “Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor“. Fire From Ice

Dr. Mallove was also a chief science writer at MIT’s news office before resigning over their falsification of data from Fleischmann-Pons-style experiments. One of the first passionate advocates of new energy, he wrote a well-documented expose of MIT’s data manipulation in issue #24. From his own words:

In the spring of 1991, as I was finishing Fire from Ice, and feeling increasingly uncomfortable with what was happening at MIT with respect to cold fusion, I made a fateful discovery.

Questions had already arisen about exactly how the MIT PFC-Chemistry Dept. team had analyzed their excess heat calorimetry study that pared a heavy water/palladium cell with an ordinary water/palladium cell. This was the so-called “Phase-II Calorimetry” study that had been published in the Journal of Fusion Energy. (Edited at the MIT Plasma Fusion Center—how’s that for short-circuiting peer review!)

From the pile of information that I had been collecting about the on-going work at MIT and elsewhere, I found two draft documents concerning this calorimetry that had been given to me by PFC team members during the rush toward publication. I could see immediately that there was a serious discrepancy between the unpublished, pre-processed raw data (the July 10, 1989 draft) and the final published data on the July 13, 1989 draft. (See page 11 graphs reproduced from these drafts).

At first glance, it appeared that the data had been altered between July 10th and 13th to conform to what would be most welcome to the hot fusion people—a null result for excess heat in the heavy water data. I would later publicly challenge the creation and handling of these graphs by MIT PFC staff (see extensive Exhibits J through Z-11).” —Dr. Eugene Mallove MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report IE#24

Infinite Energy #1 cover 1994
Infinite Energy issue #1 has Dr. Edmund Storms on the cover.

It was the poor treatment of cold fusion that compelled Dr. Mallove to start Infinite Energy magazine.

The very first issue was partially funded by Arthur C. Clarke who wrote “though the title may be criticized on logical grounds, I can’t really think of a better one.” It also included a letter from Clarke to then Vice-President Al Gore requesting funding for this science.

A strong supporter of cold fusion, Arthur Clarke wrote in a 1998 Science magazine article “Even more controversial than the threat of asteroid impacts is what I would call perhaps one of the greatest scandals in the history of science, the cold fusion caper.”

Arthur C. Clarke contributed several articles over the years including “2001: The Coming Age of Hydrogen Power And the Dawn of a New Era” [read] from issue #22.

That very first issue of Infinite Energy also included an article by Nobel Laureate and quantum field theorist Julian SchwingerCold Fusion Theory: A Brief History of Mine“. [read] He was awarded the Nobel prize in 1965 for quantum electrodynamics along with Richard Feynman and Shinichiro Tomonaga, and originated the oft-quoted “The circumstances of cold fusion are not the circumstances of hot fusion.”

Dr. Schwinger later resigned from the American Physical Society APS for their refusal to publish his papers on cold fusion theory, saying “The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.”

Contributors to issue #1 include names that are familiar to those following cold fusion developments today such as Edmund Storms with his essay “Cold Fusion: From Reasons to Doubt to Reasons to Believe” [read], Jed Rothwell’sVery Hot Cold Fusion in Japan“, Peter Gluck with “Why Technology First“, and Bruce Klein and Dennis Cravens‘ “Cell Testing at Clean Energy Technologies“.

Pioneers like then Associate Editor Hal Fox, Tom Benson, Geoff Rohde, Andrew Rothovius, Michael T. Huffman, Nelson Ying and Charles W. Shults III contributed articles, original research and reviews.

Cold Fusion Lives!
This T-Shirt from Al Kemme Associates was advertised in Infinite Energy Vol. 1 No. 3 in 1995. I want one!

Looking at the earlier issues reveals a community of researchers and writers fully engaged about the possibilities of clean, abundant energy from hydrogen, and excited too.

Advertised in several early issues is this t-shirt design from Al Kemme Associates. Above the order form you could cut-out and mail was this description:

Cold Fusion Lives! The definitive T-Shirt for the Cold Fusion supporter!
Grinning skull with red and yellow atomic eye sockets is guaranteed to be a hit at a scientific conference or biker convention!

Infinite Energy magazine has profiled the major players in cold fusion/LENR/LANR/ condensed matter nuclear science and published original scientific work shunned by the mainstream “peer-reviewed” journals for seventeen years.

Experimental data and articles on speculative science were published to support independent research. Giving a voice and a platform to new energy scientists around the world, allowing the field to advance – before the Internet allowed global networked communication.

The non-profit New Energy Foundation was formed as an adjunct to the magazine in order to further support independent new energy researchers through direct funding. Donations made to the Foundation are distributed to labs that successfully apply to the Foundation. Your donation can also be earmarked for specific researchers and be assured that they will reach their labs in particular.

The death of founder Eugene Mallove in 2004 was devastating to the tight crew that operates the office. Recent losses of Technical Editor Scott Chubb earlier this year and then his uncle, long-time researcher and author Talbot Chubb, this month have also forced difficult changes.

Infinite Energy #100
Infinite Energy issue #100

However, Technical Editors Dr. Peter Graneau and William H. Zebuhr along with Managing Editor Christy L. Frazier have honored their work by continuing to publish cutting-edge new energy science and technology.

Struggling through a difficult economy, the recent 100th issue looks at the state of the science today, surveying scientists working in the field such as Drs. Brian Ahern, Jean-Paul Biberian, Talbot Chubb, William Collis, Dennis Cravens, John Dash, Mitchell Swartz, and Francis Tarzella.

A second status report includes remarks by Thomas Bearden, Arnold Gulko, Donald Hotson, Thomas Phipps, Jr and William Zebuhr with Dr. Cynthia K. Whitney as the lone female respondent.

It includes a review of the first commercial course on cold fusion from NuCat founder David J. Nagel, “A Model for a Sonofusion Process” by Roger Stringham, and a theoretical paper by Scott ChubbConventional Physics Can Explain Cold Fusion Excess Heat“.

Infinite Energy provides a critical service for scientists, students, and clean energy activists. They have generously helped our efforts at Cold Fusion Now through magazine and book donations for our educational and outreach events.

My subscription aids in that endeavor, and yours can too.

Cold Fusion Now!

Related Links

Eugene Mallove on Coast-to-Coast February 3, 2004

Eugene Mallove Remembering Cold Fusion’s Slain Champion from PESN

Sir Arthur C. Clarke Challenges the Scientific Community with Provocative Essay in Science by Eugene Mallove Infinite Energy issue #20

Arthur C. Clarke: The Man Who “Predicted” Cold Fusion and Modern Alchemy compiled by Eugene Mallove Infinite Energy issue #22