Replies

PARTIAL CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATING TO MIT’S HANDLING OF COLD FUSION
6 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report

March 23, 1989, afternoon
Fleischmann and Pons announcement at the University of Utah.
April 17, 1989
Richard Saltus of the Boston Globe writes to MIT President Paul Gray
complaining about lack of access to the MIT Plasma Fusion Center (see
Exhibit D—May 1 response by MIT President Gray (see Exhibit E).
April 26, 1989
MIT Professor Ronald Ballinger testifies before U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Science, Space and Technology (see Exhibit A).
April 28, 1989
Professors Ronald R. Parker and Ronald Ballinger give interview to
Nick Tate of the Boston Herald, planting anti-cold fusion story (see Exhibit
B).
April 30, 1989
A late-night call by Professor Parker to Eugene Mallove’s home in Bow,
New Hampshire triggers press release to wire services denying the substance
of the Herald’s banner page-one story the next day (see Exhibit C).
May 1, 1989
Press release from the MIT News Office issued, which denies Boston
Herald's characterization of Professor Parker’s remarks about Pons and
Fleischmann’s work as “scientific schlock” and “maybe fraud.” (See
Exhibit C.) • MIT President Paul Gray sends letter to Boston Globe.
June 26, 1989
MIT Plasma Fusion Center holds “Wake for Cold Fusion” party weeks
before Phase-II calorimetry data are analyzed!
July 10, 1989
Section of PFC/JA-89-34 report exists which shows intermediate
processed Phase-II calorimetry data. Data are not yet time-averaged.
This was not published (see graphs, p. 11).
July 13, 1989
Section of PFC/JA-89-34 exists which shows intermediate processed
Phase II calorimetry data. Data for both H2O and D2O have been timeaveraged
in one-hour intervals. Power curve for D2O result retains
roughly the same shape as unaveraged data but has been shifted down.
This was published (see graphs, p. 11).
July, 1989
Publication of PFC/JA-89-34 cold fusion experiments report based on
work funded by DoE contract No. DE-AC0278ET51013. • Mid-July initial
draft of DoE ERAB Cold Fusion Panel report is negative.
July 18, 1989
MIT PFC Director Parker’s Memo on “Cold Fusion Mug” and “stamp
out scientific schlock” t-shirt (see Exhibit F).
November 1, 1989
Final DoE ERAB Cold Fusion Panel report is issued. It cites negative
MIT PFC report—“Albagli et al.” as the first reference. (By contrast, positive
results from U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Center are omitted.)
March 26-28, 1990
“Energy and Environment in the 21st Century” conference at MIT. MIT
President Paul E. Gray makes unflattering comparison of cold vs. hot
fusion (see Exhibit G).
July 19, 1990
Chief Science Writer Dr. Eugene Mallove of the MIT News Office hears
for the first time parts of the Parker/Ballinger/Tate interview tape played
over telephone by Nick Tate of the Boston Herald (see Exhibit B).
August 15, 1990
Meeting with Dr. Stanley Luckhardt (MIT Plasma Fusion Center) and
independent scientist, electrochemist Dr. Vesco Noninski, in Dr. Luckhardt's
office. Within a week Dr. Noninski is challenging the analysis of
the MIT PFC calorimetry on analytical grounds.
September 8, 1990
Letter from PFC team member rejecting Noninski’s analysis of the MIT
experiment—letter provides minimal technical details.
October 10, 1990
Letter to Dr. Noninski from Chemistry Dept. head Professor Mark
Wrighton saying “no evidence whatsoever” has been obtained to verify
Pons and Fleischmann claims. Wrighton provides no technical details in
rebuttal (see Exhibit H).
January 16, 1991
Eugene Mallove meets with Prof. Ballinger in his office and Ballinger
remarks about Pons and Fleischmann being “crooks“ who could have
been “locked up in jail.” At Gordon Institute lecture Ballinger makes
other negative remarks about Pons and Fleischmann (see Exhibit A).
January 19, 1991
Mallove discovers the July 1989 down-shifted MIT excess-heat curve
(See graphs, p. 11), which later became the subject of controversy.
January 25, 1991
Mallove has lunch at “Networks” in MIT Student Center with Dr. Luckhardt.
Luckhardt can’t explain how “bias” was taken out. Luckhardt
said there could be 20 milliwatts excess power in the MIT PFC results,
but “not the 80 mW that Fleischmann was talking about.”
April 12, 1991
Letter from Eugene Mallove to MIT President Charles M. Vest, copy to
former President Paul E. Gray, suggesting organizing an MIT panel to reexamine
cold fusion in light of accumulating knowledge. No response
was ever received from either MIT President (see Exhibit I).
April 29, 1991
Eugene Mallove writes letter to Dr. Luckhardt requesting calorimetry
information (see Exhibit J).
May 13, 1991
Mallove’s first call to Dr. Luckhardt to try to get MIT PFC H2O curve.
May 20, 1991
Dr. Luckhardt cancels previously scheduled get-together with Mallove
and says he forgot to get raw data at his other office. He puts Mallove
off until the following Friday.
May 24, 1991
Two calls to Dr. Luckhardt (10 am and 1:30 pm)—phone messages left
about getting data on H2O curve. No response to Mallove’s messages.
•Near final version of Eugene Mallove’s resignation letter exists.
May 29, 1991
Taping of WGBH Boston Channel 2 clip on Cold Fusion—Mallove and
MIT PFC’s Dr. Richard Petrasso. • Final refusal by Stan Luckhardt to
turn over PFC calorimetry data.
June 7, 1991
Professor Ronald Parker publicly disparages the PFC team's calorimetry
work on cold fusion! (See Exhibit K.) • Eugene Mallove submits his
resignation from the MIT News Office (see Exhibit L) following the onehour
talk on cold fusion by Frank Close at the PFC and a heated question
and answer session (see Exhibit K).
June 14, 1991
Eugene Mallove’s request faxed to Professor Parker for promised data
relating to PFC cold fusion calorimetry experiments (see Exhibit M).
July 30, 1991
No response yet received from the PFC. Second request sent to Professor
Parker (see Exhibit N) • Press release from MIT PFC “stands by” the
1989 PFC results and conclusions (see Exhibit T).
August 8, 1991
Fax letter from Parker to Mallove giving Stan Luckhardt’s revised objectives
of MIT PFC experiments and stonewalling again on data transfer
(see Exhibit O).
August 9, 1991
WBUR program about Mallove’s resignation and charges airs in Boston
(see Exhibit P).
August 13, 1991
Fax received by Mallove from Parker with heavy water and light water
curves (see Exhibit Q).
August 18, 1991
Formal request by Eugene Mallove to MIT President Vest for investigation
of scientific misconduct at MIT PFC, concerning both data mis-handling
and deception of press and MIT News Office (see Exhibit R).
September 16, 1991
Eugene Mallove responds to August 30, 1991 MIT PFC Press Release
(see Exhibit T).
October 9, 1991
President Vest writes to Prof. Philip Morrison requesting misconduct
inquiry opinion (see Exhibit U).
October 14, 1991
Prof. Morrison’s initial inquiry report to President Vest (see Exhibit V).
October 17, 1991
President Vest’s response letter to Mallove (see Exhibit W).
October 24, 1991
Mallove’s letter to President Vest rejecting Morrison’s assessment and
requesting a formal investigation (see Exhibit X).
November 11, 1991
Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger speaks about cold fusion at MIT
physics gathering celebrating birthday of his former student. Evidently
this has no effect on Physics Dept. resistance (see pages 18-20).
December 31, 1991
Mallove’s letter to President Vest asking for status (see Exhibit Y).
January 2, 1992
Electrochemist Dr. Andrew Riley dies in cold fusion explosion at SRI
International. Dr. Brian Ahern (an MIT graduate) tried to warn SRI of
danger, but telephone call did not go through.
January 6, 1992
President Vest sends brush-off letter to Eugene Mallove (see Exhibit Z).
February 9, 1991
Eugene Mallove sends new evidence of scientific misconduct to President
Vest based on report of MIT graduate Dr. Mitchell Swartz’s independent
investigation. Mallove demands thorough investigation (see Exhibit Z-1).
Further prompt to Vest on February 21 (see Exhibit Z-2).
March 10, 1992
Dr. Luckhardt sends memo to Prof. Morrison giving further explanations
of 1989 work. Redefines the objective of experiment as “turn on”
of “anomalous heating event” rather than D2O vs. H2O comparison!
(See Exhibit Z-3.)
March 19. 1992
NIH physicist Dr. Charles McCutchen’s letter to President Vest complaining
about ethical problems with MIT PFC experiment (see Exhibit
Z-4).
March 20, 1992
Prof. Morrison’s second report to President Vest. Suggests Dr. Luckhardt
continue to have possession of data and should make further
assessments! (See Exhibit Z-5.)
April 1, 1992
President Vest’s final brush off letter to Eugene Mallove giving an unacceptable
conclusion. This was no April Fool joke (see Exhibit Z-6).
April 2, 1992
MIT Associate Provost Sheila Widnall’s letter to Dr. McCutchen—a further
brush-off and statement that experimenters will continue to be processing
contested data and will be writing a future memo with experiment
“clarifications.” (See Exhibit Z-7.)
May 1992
Publication of MIT PFC Technical Report (PFC/RR-92-7), a singleauthor
(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.
July 26, 1992
Dr. McCutchen letter to Provost Widnall, asks MIT PFC to publish a correction
that the experiment was not as advertised (see Exhibit Z-8).
August 3, 1992
Provost Widnall’s letter to Dr. McCutchen giving final MIT brush-off
(see Exhibit Z-9).
August 18, 1992
Dr. McCutchen letter to Eugene Mallove details his frustration with
Provost Widnall’s response (see Exhibit Z-10).
August 19, 1991
Dr. McCutchen’s final letter to Provost Widnall saying, “I am sorry MIT
continues to tough it out. Apparently the university feels it need not be
fair to cold fusion people.” (See Exhibit Z-11.)
August 1992
Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz publishes fourteen page analysis of MIT PFC Phase
II Calorimetry in Fusion Facts newsletter. Also published, in part, in subsequent
Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion and elsewhere.

MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW AND COLD FUSION
To its credit, MIT Technology Review published an excellent
feature review article about cold fusion by Dr. Edmund Storms
(Los Alamos National Laboratory, ret.) in the May/June 1994
issue. This might have been a turning point in media coverage
of cold fusion, had this influential magazine continued to follow
the subject. It did not.
Afirestorm of protest against the Storms article had confronted
then TR editor Dr. Steven J. Marcus, which led him to write
an editorial in the August/September 1994 issue, “Don’t Blame
the Parent.” He wrote, “. . .we’ll occasionally make people angry
for having allowed an author to present the ‘wrong’ point of
view. But reaction to the cold fusion story marks the first time in
my memory that dissenting readers criticized the magazine’s
editors not only for choosing to run this material—variously
describing it as ‘dreadful,’ ‘appalling,’ ‘pseudo-scientific,’ ‘irresponsible,’
and ‘an example of the goggle-eyed approach to science’—
but for hurting the institutional parent in the process.”
Marcus heard from so-called scientists who said that the article
“casts disgrace on MIT,” one who said that it “trashes research
at MIT,” and one who wrote that it “embarrasses the Physics
Department, MIT, and all graduates of MIT.” (MIT students are
advised to look up these articles to see for themselves what all
the commotion was about.)
There were, of course, positive responses as well, which
praised the editor for having found the courage to publish the
Storms cold fusion article, but these did not apparently reflect
the majority of the sentiments received. Marcus published six
response letters in that August/September issue, including a
positive one from cold fusion theorist and MIT Professor Keith
Johnson and a negative letter from MIT Nuclear Engineering
and Materials Science Professor Kenneth C. Russell.
Unfortunately, the protest of the Storms article in Technology
Review was not the first time MIT faculty had become upset with
Technology Review on the matter of cold fusion. The negative opinion
of MIT Physics Professor Herman Feshbach caused the previous
editor of Technology Review, Jonathan Schlefer, to back
down in the spring of 1991 from his intent to publish my cold
fusion review article. This 1991 article would have said essentially
what Storms did in 1994, but by 1994, even more confirmatory
evidence could be cited. Schlefer had accepted my article after
much editorial revision! Both positive and negative viewpoints
were presented in that approved article, plus my clearly identified
opinion that the evidence was building strongly toward
proof of the phenomenon. That was not negative enough for
Feshbach—who called all evidence for cold fusion “junk.” This
sorry episode of censorship was one of the key reasons for my
resignation from the MIT News Office in June 1991 (see Exhibit K
for more on this event).
Prof. Feshbach had told me his other reason for not wanting the
article to be published. He said that he had “. . .fifty years of experience
in nuclear physics and I
know what’s possible and
what’s not.” He later demonstrated
the same sort of monumental
arrogance and ignorance
when he appeared on
ABC Television’s Nightline
program, June 11, 1997. Even
though Feshbach admitted
that he knew absolutely nothing
about the Patterson Power
CellTM cold fusion device
which was the subject of the
program, he told viewers that
he could “categorically” state
that there were no nuclear reactions
occurring in it.—EFM