Posted on 03/24/2013 9:57:16 PM PDT by Kevmo
How Nature refused to re-examine the 1989 CalTech experiment
Jed Rothwell
LENR-CANR.org
May 2012
Abstract
In 1989 Nature published a paper by Lewis [1] showing no excess heat in a cold fusion
experiment. Several researchers including Noninski, Miles and Fleischmann discovered errors in
this paper. Noninski wrote a critique of the paper describing one of these errors, and submitted it
for publication. David Lindley, an editor at Nature, rejected the critique. This paper examines
some of the errors in the paper, and Lindley’s reasons for refusing to re-examine the experiment.
Background
In May 1989, Lewis et al. at Caltech published a paper in Nature describing a failed attempt
to replicate the cold fusion effect. [1] This, along with the negative reports from Harwell [2] and
MIT [3] are often cited as proof that cold fusion does not exist. All three were subsequently
shown to be ambiguous, and marginally positive:
Harwell. Researchers at Harwell invited outside experts who re-examined the data and found
some evidence of anomalous excess heat. [4]
MIT. A copy of the raw data trace from a pen recorder showed some signs of unexpected heat.
The pen recorder data was converted to one-hour round points in the published version. These
points were moved down to the zero line, and some were moved to the left and right, suggesting
that the change was made manually by a person rather than a computer. This led some people to
suspect the data was tampered with. [5, 6] See Ref. 5, pp. 21 - 24. Storms thinks the apparent
heat in the original data is not significant. It is only instrument noise. [7] However, it should not
have been erased in the published version.
CalTech. The results from Caltech may have been positive. Lewis thought they were negative
but in the opinion of several other researchers, he misinterpreted his own data. That is the subject
of this analysis.
The New Energy Times has a well-organized list of papers, excerpts, and full-text papers
describing Harwell, MIT and Caltech. [8]
There were several problems with the Lewis study. It was not continued long enough to
allow high loading. The size and shape of the cell was not recommended because it did not
2
promote stirring. This meant they had to use a magnetic stirrer, which added noise to the system.
The worst problem is that Lewis made a simple mistake in analysis. He thought the heating
coefficient (the calibration constant) was changing as the experiment proceeded. He thought that
at the beginning of the test, 1 watt of electrochemical power caused the temperature to rise
14.0°C, and later that same power caused the temperature to rise 15.9°C, 14% higher. While it is
conceivable that happened, that would mean the instruments were malfunctioning or the cell was
configured wrong, so the experiment should have been done over. It is more likely that the
instruments were working correctly, and the higher temperature was caused by 14% anomalous
excess heat added to the electrochemical power.
Instruments sometimes do “drift,” gradually changing as an experiment proceeds. These were
professional grade instruments so they probably did not do this. A change in the calibration
constant with the same glassware other components in the same configuration is unheard of, and
probably physically impossible. Furthermore, this only happened with heavy water in the cell; in
a control test with ordinary water the heating coefficient did not change. So, the most likely
explanation is that the temperature increase was real, and it was caused by anomalous heat. The
experiment worked. Miles described this in Ref. [5], p. 20:
The most disturbing aspect of the Caltech report concerns the heating coefficient in a
Pd/D2O+0.1 M LiOD experiment that was allowed to increase with time from 14.0 KW-1
(0.0714 WK-1) at 14.7 hours to 15.9 (0.0629 WK-1) KW-1 at 115.0 hours. This could just as
well have been interpreted as a 13.6% excess power effect. Experiments at Caltech for
Pd/H2O + 0.1 M LiOH gave lower heating coefficients (h = 12.5 ± 0.7 KW-1) that did not
show this large increase with time. Using a constant h value of 14.0, KW-1 yields excess
power that increases with the electrolysis time up to 76 mW [9]. The excess power density
of 1.0 W/cm3 Pd for an analysis of the Lewis study [19] is in excellent agreement with
reported excess power in other F-P experiments using similar current densities [10, 11].
Lewis may have observed the same level of excess heat that Fleischmann and others did with
similar materials and electrochemical conditions. But instead of concluding that he was seeing
14% excess heat, Lewis concluded that the instrument had changed 14%. He did not specify a
reason why it might have changed, and he did not perform recalibration tests that would confirm
the change and pinpoint the source of the error in the instruments.
This was not a clear-cut result. If there was excess heat, it was marginal. There are reasons to
think it was an instrument error. McKubre pointed out that at both CalTech and MIT the
cathodes were only loaded to around 80%, which is not high enough to produce heat. (See p. xvii
in Ref [12])
Noninski & Noninski (father and son) found another problem in Lewis’ calorimetry. Lewis
tested the heavy water cell in two different states. In the first state, the cell had only electrolysis
power going into it. In the second state, later on, electrolysis power was reduced and an electric
heater was turned on to compensate. The total power going into the cell was the same in both
3
states. The cell reached the same temperature in both conditions, so the total output heat was the
same. Lewis assumed that if electrolysis power is lower, and current density is lower, anomalous
cold fusion power – if present – must also be lower. There were reports that anomalous power is
proportional to current density. Lewis assumed that the cell in second state would have to be
cooler if anomalous power was present, even though total power input into both was balanced.
However, this is not true. While it is true that generally speaking, anomalous power is
proportional to current density, there are other control parameters, and this one does not always
dominate. Anomalous power from cold fusion occurs at different ratios to input electrolysis. This
was already known in 1989, and subsequent studies confirmed it. Anomalous power, once it
begins, does not always change when you reduce electrolysis power. The change may be delayed.
Indeed, in some cases you can turn off electrolysis completely and anomalous power continues
by itself for a while, at a stable level, in what is called “heat after death.” [13] Electrolytic
conditions give rise to the effect, but the effect then continues independently of those conditions.
By testing with a compensation heater Lewis proved only that anomalous power – if present –
was a small fraction of input power; that it was not strictly proportional to the input power; and
that it was fairly stable. Miles described this in Ref. [14] equations 5 – 8.
Noninski submitted a letter to the editor to Nature describing the problem. The editors at
Nature sent the submission out for peer-review. It was rejected in the first round. At Noninski’s
request it was sent out again, this time to Lewis himself. Lewis rejected the critique of his own
paper. David Lindley, an editor at Nature, sent a final rejection to Noninski, with the comments
by Lewis attached. In 1993, Noninski published a similar letter in Fusion Technology. [15]
Lewis described the situation:
We also sometimes observed abrupt or gradual changes in the rate of heat loss from these
cells, presumably resulting from a change in the rate and/or form of gas evolution. [16] These
changes often resulted in a sustained temperature rise of the cell (which might be interpreted
in terms of the onset of excess enthalpy production), but recalibration with the load resistor
method during this period showed no evidence for any anomalous power production, even
after the reported activation period for the Pd rods [17, 18] had been exceeded.
Noninski was saying that “recalibration with a load resistor” would not reveal any change in
temperature if the anomalous power remains steady during the period. It probably would remain
steady, even if electrolysis power was reduced somewhat.
I would add that if Lewis thought the “abrupt changes in the rate of heat loss” were caused by
a change in the rate of gas evolution, he should have measured gas evolution with a gas
flowmeter. He should not have presumed this explained the change. An “abrupt change in the
rate of heat loss” might just as easily be an abrupt increase in anomalous heat. You cannot tell
the difference between these two phenomena unless you measure how much gas is leaving the
cell. The rate of gas evolution does not generally change in a cell where the components are not
4
moved and power levels are unchanged. This paragraph gives the impression that Lewis saw
anomalous heat then went out of his way to avoid looking for the cause of it.
Lindley Letter
Figure 1 shows a facsimile of the letter. The text is transcribed below.
Figure 1. Letter from David Lindley. Comments from Nathan Lewis were Xeroxed on the back of the page. The vertical
lines marking paragraph 2 were added by Melvin Miles, pointing out what he considers the worst problem. The text is
transcribed below.
5
nature
1137 National Press Building
Washington. D.C. 20045
Telephone (202) 737-2355
In reply please quote:
N0657 DL/LB
May 3, 1991
Dear Dr. Noninski,
I enclose at last some brief comments on your letter from Dr Nathan Lewis, to whom I sent it for
advice. He once again disputes your arguments (for essentially the same reasons as our
independent reviewer did some time ago), and I am sorry to say that we cannot change our
earlier decision not to publish your letter in Nature.
The objections to your argument are that a heat excess independent of applied current is
contrived, and certainly not what proponents of cold fusion have suggested, and in addition that
such a form of heat excess is contradicted by some, if not all, of Lewis’ experiments as well as
by many other negative results from efforts to duplicate cold fusion. It is no good proposing an
unorthodox explanation for Lewis’ results if that explanation is directly ruled out by, for example,
the results from Harwell - unless you intend to produce a different version of cold fusion for
every experiment that has been performed.
The only way that I know to convince the scientific world that cold fusion is real would be to
show how to reproduce the effect reliably and reproducibly, overcoming all doubts about
measurements errors and contaminations. Even if your contrived attempt to explain Lewis’
results were right, it would persuade no one that cold fusion should be taken seriously.
I am sorry that we must persist in our negative opinion of your work, but it seems clear by now
that you are not pursuing a useful path. I can see no likelihood that Nature would wish to publish
your work as long as you persist in such a narrow enterprise against one part of Lewis’ work.
Sincerely
Dr David Lindley
Associate Editor
6
Comments from N. Lewis that were attached to this letter:
While it is true that our open system measurements were not sensitive to any current-density
independent excess heat (as clearly stated in our original manuscript), Pons and Fleischmann
clearly stated in their work that they only observed current-density dependent excess heat. Our
original experiments would have readily detected this heat; we clearly did not see such excesses.
N&N [Noninski & Noninski] have used the incorrect rod diameter in comparison of our results
with the original Pons and Fleischmann work; they should consistently compare our 0.2 cm
diameter rods to the original 0.2 cm measurements, in which case it is clear that the current
density dependent excess heat claimed by Pons and Fleischmann is far in excess of our
experimental errors. N&N have now also proceeded to invent a new hypothetical type of heat
that they claim could have been missed in our experiments, and which was not reported by Pons
and Fleischmann in their experiments. However, the closed system measurements from our
group and from other groups rule out all possible sources of excess heat, including both current
density dependent and current density independent types, clearly illustrating that no types of
excess power have been observed in our measurements of Pd/D2O electrolysis. Thus, their
hypothetical points are really in contradiction to the experimental data in the literature at present.
If you need any further information on this topic, please feel free to contact me.
Analysis of Letter
Many aspects of this letter violate elementary principles of experimental science, but let us
begin with the first paragraph, which violates the standards for peer-review. Lindley says that he
sent the critique to Lewis himself for “advice.” In other words, he asked Lewis whether a critique
of his own paper should be accepted or rejected, and Lewis decided that his own work was fine.
This is not quite as bad as it looks. The paper was rejected by an “independent reviewer” in the
first round. As I recall, this letter was sent after the second or third round. Noninski tried to
rewrite the paper to satisfy the independent reviewer. In the later round, Lindley decided to skip
the independent review and have this paper checked by Lewis directly.
The following paragraphs have many egregious technical errors.
The message is confusing; you may have to read the second paragraph through several times
before you realize what Lindley is saying, and what he demands of Noninski. Here are some of
the assertions Lindley has packed into these short but telling sentences:
1. Lindley demands that Noninski find a single reason, in the form of “an equation” that
would simultaneously prove that all negative experiments, including Harwell and others,
are actually positive.
2. In other words, Lindley asserts that all cold fusion experimental results are uniform. The
experiments all produced the same result. One explanation must account for all of them.
Lindley rejects the idea that some null experiments failed for one reason and some for
7
another. It seems this idea never crossed his mind. He thinks that all experiments produce
a single yes or no result that can only be explained by a single set of equations. The effect
either exists or does not, and all experiments automatically prove the issue one way or
another.
In reality, Lewis probably got positive heat but he made mistakes in his analysis, so he did
not recognize it. In many other experiments, the result was actually negative for various different
reasons. Lewis made a mistake in his equations and his assumptions about how cold fusion
works, but many other researchers used in the proper equations and actually did get a negative
result. Most got mixed results; some cathodes worked, and others did not. Noninski did not prove
that other negative results were actually positive. He never set out to do that, or claimed he had
done that. He did not even address these other experiments. But Lindley assumed this is what
Noninski was trying to do.
We assume that the wide variety of puzzling and varying results, both positive and negative,
indicate that the experiment is complicated and that it is difficult to understand what is
happening. Again, it seems this scenario never occurred to Lindley.
Lindley does not grasp how complicated this experiment is; how many different outcomes it
can produce, and how many ways it can fail. For example, in some cases it did not work because
the cathodes cracked; or because researchers did not wait long enough for the cathode to load; or
because the surface was contaminated. There were many other reasons it might fail, and many
unknown factors. In most laboratories they tested several cathodes. Some would work, but most
would fail. It was later determined that the cathode material varies a great deal and this is the
main controlling factor. [19] 1 Researchers thought they were doing an exact replication, but they
were not, because they did measure critical control parameters such as loading or OCV. [20] In
his response, Lewis also fails to realize that he may not have replicated, and the conditions in his
experiment might be quite different from those in Fleischmann’s. He is an electrochemist, so he
should know this. He should have known that the excess heat is not only dependent on current
density, but also on loading and other control parameters. He should have realized that although
current density is a control factor, it may have some latency; there must be other control factors;
and some of them had not yet been discovered. The data in Fleischmann’s first paper shows wide
variations in the heat compared to the same current density, from 0.6 to 26.8 W for 512 mA/cm-2.
It generally shows increased power with current density, but it does not say the increase is
instantaneous or automatic. McKubre later showed that although anomalous power does
generally rise with current density, the correlation is not perfect or instantaneous (Fig. 2). [21]
1 See especially p. 43, Table 10.
8
Figure 2. Simultaneous series operation of light and heavy water cells; excess power versus current density.
In the third paragraph Lindley demands that the effect be produced “reliably and
reproducibly.” This is the goal of any research project, but it cannot be the initial demand. Most
phenomena are unreliable and irreproducible at first. The whole point of scientific research is to
make them reliable.
In the last paragraph, Lindley says that Noninski’s methods are “unorthodox” and that he is
trying to make a special case, or invent new physics. To the contrary, Noninski is only asserting
that ordinary, conventional equations should be applied. Noninski is saying that Lewis made a
mistake.
It is astonishing that an editor at Nature could be so ignorant of how experiments are
conducted, how varied and complex they are, and how people go about interpreting the results.
Lindley seems to have no understanding of experimental science.
Lindley’s tone in this letter strikes me as supercilious. It is mocking. He would agree it is; he
favors attacking cold fusion with “unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation.”
[22] This is highly inappropriate. It is a violation of academic traditions.
As of 2012, Lindley and Lewis have not changed their opinions of cold fusion. They still
claim that the CalTech results definitively proved that cold fusion does not exist.
References
1. Lewis, N.S., et al., Searches for low-temperature nuclear fusion of deuterium in
palladium. Nature (London), 1989. 340(6234): p. 525.
9
2. Williams, D.E.G., et al., Upper bounds on 'cold fusion' in electrolytic cells. Nature
(London), 1989. 342: p. 375.
3. Albagli, D., et al., Measurement and analysis of neutron and gamma-ray emission rates,
other fusion products, and power in electrochemical cells having Pd cathodes. J. Fusion
Energy, 1990. 9: p. 133.
4. Melich, M.E. and W.N. Hansen. Some Lessons from 3 Years of Electrochemical
Calorimetry. in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold
Fusion". 1992. Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
5. Miles, M. and M. Fleischmann. Isoperibolic Calorimetric Measurements of the
Fleischmann-Pons Effect. in ICCF-14 International Conference on Condensed Matter
Nuclear Science. 2008. Washington, DC.
6. Mallove, E., MIT Special Report. Infinite Energy, 1999. 4(24): p. 64.
7. Storms, E., Personal Communication. 2012.
8. Krivit, S. Historical Analysis of Key "Cold Fusion" Experiments. 2003; Available from:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/HistoricalAnalysisSummaryCharts.shtml.
9. Miles, M., B.F. Bush, and D.E. Stilwell, Calorimetric principles and problems in
measurements of excess power during Pd-D2O electrolysis. J. Phys. Chem., 1994. 98: p.
1948.
10. Fleischmann, M., et al., Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system. J.
Electroanal. Chem., 1990. 287: p. 293.
11. Miles, M., et al., Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and
H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 346: p. 99.
12. McKubre, M.C.H. Cold Fusion (LENR) One Perspective on the State of the Science. in
15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2009. Rome, Italy:
ENEA.
13. Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann. Heat After Death. in Fourth International Conference on
Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave.,
Palo Alto, CA 94304.
14. Miles, M. and B.F. Bush. Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Pd-D2O Electrolysis.
in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion". 1992.
Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
15. Noninski, V.C. and C.I. Noninski, Notes on two papers claiming no evidence for the
existence of excess energy during the electrolysis of 0.1M LiOD/D2O with palladium
cathodes. Fusion Technol., 1993. 23: p. 474.
16. Edkie, R.G. and P.L. Khare, Int. J Heat Mass Transfer, 1972(15): p. 261-267.
17. Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of
deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. 261: p. 301 and errata in Vol. 263.
18. Schuldiner, S. and J.P. Hoare, J. electrochem. Soc., 1956(103): p. 178-182.
19. Miles, M. and K.B. Johnson, Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems, Final Report.
1996, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division.
20. Storms, E., How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p.
261.
21. McKubre, M.C.H. Cold Fusion at SRI (PowerPoint slides). in APS March Meeting. 2007.
Denver, CO.
22. Lindley, D., The Embarrassment of Cold Fusion. Nature (London), 1990. 344: p. 375.
Cold Fusion rocks!
This is the closest I’m going to get to the un-metered electricity I was promised in the 50’s.
P&F advocated open systems for calorimetry, which opens one up to evaporation. If the water evaporates away (or is electrolyzed away) then the thermal mass reduces, and a watt of heat would produce more temperature rise at the end of the experiment than at the beginning. This may not apply to Lewis’s system, but then again it might. It certainly applies to some of the P&F systems, because they advocated open systems.
still waiting to see all those promised units working and producing.....what’s the current time frame???? (other than before the twelfth of never)
I agree. Too cheap to meter. But the ability to meter things has grown greatly in the meantime.
I will have to check on that. In the meantime, it seems very unlikely that 2 of the most prominent elecrochemists would have made mistakes that are basically 4 orders of magnitude incorrect. Have you ever heard of such a thing? I haven’t. When I was in engineering school, if you were off by 1 order of magnitude, you were wrong. It’s not quite believable that distinguished scientists would be off by 4 orders of magnitude. How do you account for that? How do you account for the fact that this effect has been replicated more than 14,000 times? If they were so far off by 4 orders of magnitude, surely it would have NEVER been replicated.
..what’s the current time frame???? (other than before the twelfth of never)
***The current time frame is about 200 years before the hot fusion boys ever produce something useful to engineering, and at about 1/1000th the cost.
The P & F cells were re-filled daily. Your criticism thus does not apply. Other researchers replicated the P & F results with open cells, though not CalTech, MIT, and Harwell.
Silly Nifster. Didn’t you see that the experiements have been repeated 14,000 times, obviously producing 1.21Gigawatts. Flux capacitor to follow shortly.
Read Beaudette's book yet, cigar-boy??
In the case of cold fusion, it's too miniscule and inconsistent to meter, or use to power anything.
Hot fusion produces something very useful to engineering and national defense. There is no doubt that it is theoretically sound, and actually exists, unlike cold fusion.
Telling people to buy a book and calling names. You're really weak.
I’m still waiting to get my nuclear powered vacuum cleaner that Alexander Lewyt promised back in the 60’s.
Always funny.
DO NOT POST TO ME! (5)
For you lurkers, you can get Beaudette's book (temporarily) free of charge through interlibrary loan. Or you can read excerpts from it on-line (and for free) at Steve Krivits "New Energy Times":
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/books/excessheat/AboutEH.shtml
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.