New US Navy Report Supports Cold Fusion

BREAKING: New US Navy Report Supports Cold Fusion
V. Impt. - This official report, prepared by the U.S. Navy, is strongly
supportive of cold fusion research.

TECHNICAL REPORT 1862, February 2002
Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D2O System
(In two volumes)

From the Foreword:
"As I write this Foreword, California is experiencing rolling blackouts due
to power shortages. Conventional engineering, planned ahead, could have
prevented these blackouts, but it has been politically expedient to ignore
the inevitable. We do not know if Cold Fusion will be the answer to future
energy needs, but we do know the existence of Cold Fusion phenomenon
through repeated observations by scientists throughout the world. It is
time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap whatever
benefits accrue from additional scientific understanding. It is time for
government funding organizations to invest in this research.
Dr. Frank E. Gordon
Head, Navigation and Applied Sciences Department
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego"

*********** TECHNICAL REPORT 1862, February 2002
Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D2O System
Volume 1: A Decade of Research at Navy Laboratories
S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier-Boss, Editors
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego
SSC San Diego
San Diego, CA 92152-5001

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION The work described in this report was performed for the Office of Naval
Research through the collaboration of Space and Naval Warfare Systems
Center, San Diego (SSC San Diego); the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons
Division, China Lake; and the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL).

FOREWORD Twelve years have passed since the announcement on 23 March 1989 by
Professors Fleischmann and Pons that the generation of excess enthalpy
occurs in electrochemical cells when palladium electrodes, immersed in D2O
+ LiOH electrolyte, are negatively polarized. The announcement, which came
to be known as "Cold Fusion," caused frenzied excitement. In both the
scientific and news communities, fax machines were used to pass along
fragments of rumor and "facts." (Yes, this was before wide spread use of
the internet. One can only imagine what would happen now.) Companies and
individuals rushed to file patents on yet to be proven ideas in hopes of
winning the grand prize. Unfortunately, the phenomenon described by
Fleischmann and Pons was far from being understood and even factors
necessary for repeatability of the experiments were unknown. Over the next
few months, the scientific community became divided into the "believers"
and the "skeptics." The "believers" reported the results of their work with
enthusiasm that at times overstated the significance of their results. On
the other hand, many "skeptics" rejected the anomalous behavior of the
polarized Pd/D system as a matter of conviction, i.e., without analyzing
the presented material and always asking "where are the neutrons?" Funding
for research quickly dried up as anything related to "Cold Fusion" was
portrayed as a hoax and not worthy of funding. The term "Cold Fusion" took
on a new definition much as the Ford Edsel had done years earlier.

By the Second International Conference on Cold Fusion, held at Villa Olmo,
Como, Italy, in June/July 1991, the altitude toward Cold Fusion was
beginning to take on a more scientific basis. The number of
flash-in-the-pan "believers" had diminished, and the "skeptics" were
beginning to be faced with having to explain the anomalous phenomenon,
which by this time had been observed by many credible scientists throughout
the world. Shortly after this conference, the Office of Naval Research
(ONR) proposed a collaborative effort involving the Naval Command, Control
and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division, which subsequently has
become the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego (SSC San
Diego); the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake; and the
Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). The effort's basic premise was to
investigate the anomalous effects associated with the prolonged charging of
the Pd/D system and "to contribute in collegial fashion to a coordinated
trilaboratory experiment."

Each laboratory took a different area of research. At San Diego, our goal
was to understand the conditions that initiate the excess heat generation
(the Fleischmann-Pons effect) and the search for evidence that indicates
their nuclear origin. To eliminate the long incubation times (often weeks),
Drs. Stan Szpak and Pam Boss decided to prepare the palladium electrodes by
the co-deposition technique. Initially, they concentrated on tritium
production and the monitoring of emanating radiation. More recently, they
extended their effort to monitoring surface temperature via IR imaging
technique and showed the existence of discrete heat sources randomly
distributed in time and space. This discovery may prove to be a significant
contribution to the understanding of the phenomenon.

At China Lake, Dr. Miles and his collaborators showed that a correlation
exists between the rate of the excess enthalpy generation and the quantity
of helium in the gas stream. Such a correlation is the direct evidence of
the nuclear origin of the Fleischmann-Pons effect.

The research at NRL was directed toward the metallurgy of palladium and its
alloys and the theoretical aspects of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. In
particular, Dr. Imam prepared Pd/B alloys that Dr. Miles used in
calorimetric experiments. It was shown that these alloys yielded
reproducible excess enthalpy generation with minimal incubation times
(approximately 1 day). The theoretical work of Dr. Chubb contributed much
to our understanding of the Fleischmann-Pons effect.

Although funding for Cold Fusion ended several years ago, progress in
understanding the phenomenon continues at a much slower pace, mostly
through the unpaid efforts of dedicated inquisitive scientists. In
preparation of this report the authors spent countless hours outside of
their normal duties to jointly review their past and current contributions,
including the "hidden" agenda that Professor Fleischmann pursued for
several years in the 1980s when he was partially funded by ONR. Special
thanks are extended to all scientists who have worked under these
conditions, including those who contributed to this report and especially
to Professor Fleischmann.

As I write this Foreword, California is experiencing rolling blackouts due
to power shortages. Conventional engineering, planned ahead, could have
prevented these blackouts, but it has been politically expedient to ignore
the inevitable. We do not know if Cold Fusion will be the answer to future
energy needs, but we do know the existence of Cold Fusion phenomenon
through repeated observations by scientists throughout the world. It is
time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap whatever
benefits accrue from additional scientific understanding. It is time for
government funding organizations to invest in this research.

Dr. Frank E. Gordon
Head, Navigation and Applied Sciences Department
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego

Apart from some fragmentary investigations, primarily related to the study
of the self-discharge of batteries, there exists no well defined set of
studies in the field of the electrochemical calorimetry. We note that such
studies would allow the investigation of the thermal behavior of a wide
range of reactions, especially irreversible processes. Thus, the
establishment of an accurate model of an experiment is very important.
However, as this aspect is not generally understood, we felt it necessary
to produce this document.

In spite of its length, this volume only covers the analysis of a data set
generated by calculation and one measurement cycle for a "blank
experiment." We believe that it is very important to produce a detailed
analysis and account (as far as is possible at this stage) of the
methodology which we adopted. This is especially important in view of the
misleading comments which have been made about the calorimetry of the Pd/D
system. Taken at face value, one must believe that the workers concerned do
not understand the difference between differential and integral
coefficients, the disadvantages of differentiating "noisy" data as compared
to integrating such data, the differences between the precision and
accuracy of data evaluations, the recognition of "negative" and "positive
feedback," the analysis of cooling curves, etc. They do not understand
relaxation nor recognize the presence of strange attractors and the way in
which the effects of such complications can be circumvented. [1]

It is relevant here to reflect on the precision and accuracy of the
experiments. Of course, if the precision is high, then there will be no
difficulty in interpreting changes in the rates of excess enthalpy
generation as small as 1 mW at the 10-sigma level. [2]. Of course, the
question of the magnitude of the errors raises three further important
questions: (I) what error limits are required so as to be able to detect
excess enthalpy generation at an adequate level of statistical
significance? (ii) what is the difference (if any) between the experiments
carried out with ICARUS systems and ICARUS lookalikes and with other types
of calorimetry? (iii) how can one assess the error limits of a given piece
of instrumentation?

The answer is that one simply stops the development of the methodology when
one is able to make an adequate set of measurements. We note here that this
particular specification is itself dependent on the physical size of the
systems being investigated as well as the chosen operating conditions. In
our particular investigation the limit was certainly reached when the
errors had been reduced to the 0.01% level. Naturally, the first question
impacts on the second and we note that it is the use of less precise and
accurate calorimetric methods which has bedeviled so much of the research
in this field. The reason is that with the use of less precise/accurate
methods, it becomes impossible to monitor the build-up of excess enthalpy
generation. This then brings us to the third question and the answer to
this is exactly with the methods outlined in this document, at least as far
as isoperibolic calorimetry is concerned (although it is not very difficult
to specify improvements in those methods!). [3] It is relevant that
although errors had undoubtedly been made in setting up these experiments,
the detailed data analyses had also shown the way in which such errors
could be allowed for. [4]

To reiterate, we considered it necessary to produce this document for the
following reasons: Firstly, it is always essential to determine the
Instrument Function (or of a parameter or sets of parameters which define
the Instrument Function) and to validate the methods of data analysis. Such
validation is best done using simulated/calculated data. Secondly, one
needs to see the extent to which "blank" experiments conform to
expectations. Thirdly, one needs to investigate the ways in which methods
of data analysis may fail.

(l.) Of course, it is possible that the researchers concerned do not
understand any of these matters, but what is so remarkable is that they
have failed to understand these topics even when they have been described
to them.

(2) However, the high precision of the instrumentation (relative errors
below 0.01%) has been converted into a 10% error by the group at NHE. It is
hard to see how anybody can make such an assertion while still keeping a
straight face. If the errors were as high as this, then it would be
impossible to say anything sensible about calorimetry - for that matter, it
would remove one of the main planks of scientific methodology

(3) The answer to this question brings us to very interesting further lines
of enquiry which can be summarized by the question: "why is it that NHE
have never made any sets of raw data for blank experiments available for
further analysis?" If one considers this question in a naive way, then one
would say that there can hardly be any reason for not releasing data sets
which do not show any generation of excess enthalpy!

(4) Instead of seeking to establish the correct way(s) of calibrating the
systems, the group at NHE used the procedure leading to (k^',0 R)362,
probably coupled to timing errors in the calibration pulse which they did
not allow for. Needless to say, this produced nonsensical results which
they used as a justification for substituting an invalid method of data
analysis. Moreover, this invalid method of data analysis was applied to
just two experiments, regarded as being typical, although the fact that
there were malfunctions in these experiments has also been pointed out.

A good example is the Sidewinder Missile,...designed and built out at China Lake back in ..what, the 60's. A WG/GS-7-12 went out to the scrap yard at DPDO, picked out some scrap and synthisized the heat seeking missile without funding.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't mind a project manager, researcher out there or at the lab or San Diego getting a sluch fund so he can devote time to his profession and truly develop research that strikes to the core of his studies. I recognize that alot of time, the system just isn't there that actually supports that insight.

I've actually found that when I've devoted less than 5 hrs of sleep per night for 20 years and spent at least 4 hrs a day on particular projects in my spare time on topics completely disjoint from my paid profession, that much to my surprise, I've actually excelled beyond the performance of professionals paid to perform in those fields.

And it's understandable. Most of our time at work get's tied up in either bureaucratic or systemic issues which have little to nothing to do with our professions. Even working in strictly research positions or as a full Professor at a world league institute, it's tough to be able to devote 4 hrs a day to any project or topic for any extended period of time.

If this guy is just trying to get some funding to use to perform that study, great, more power to him. Unfortunately, I've also bumped into 10 times the number of similarily ranked persons who will use the same language without any honest intention of actually solving or studying the problem,...they're simply yes-men attempting to form their abilities in their own empires to appear of worth to others.

The comments in the paper indicate they may have some skills to address the problem, but the portions presented as a paper are IMHO insufficient to properly frame the problem/s.

"..Apart from some fragmentary investigations, primarily related to the study of the self-discharge of batteries, there exists no well defined set of studies in the field of the electrochemical calorimetry. ..."

Here's a good example/indicator of the research quality. Some history of science and philosophy is required here. To some extent, the comment indicates the wrong question is being asked. The purposes of most electrochemical investigations related to earlier foundational research in the electron, or more precisely 'charge'. Language and the etymology of the measurable quantities is very important.

I also had the same findings when I researched the field back in the mid 80s, but considered it was simply due to my lack of knowledge. I still take the view that many of the same functions or functionals associated with Cold Fusion are a bit convoluted and that rather than believing no research has been performed, I tend to believe the research exists but just poorly expressed and buried or imaged into different multivariate domains.

Self-discharge of batteries is a simple case, because one can either address the solid state, nicely ordered and simplified identifiable materials,....or electrochemical batteries in a wet bath,...assuming media with again homogenous properties or properties describable and identifiable with a very limited number of variables.

Much solid state theory associates surfaces with an energy value. Electrochemical energies with ionic, charge transport. Calorimetry with temperature change and kinetic energy leaving the remnant in enthalpy or entropy, but the domain of Cold Fusion can complicate multivariate processes between these states, where the terms used to measure and quantify the systems are originally defined by these basic processes and assunmptions.

It's funny. A lot of comments are made here in jest or half baked seriousness. When one rigorously studies these things, I've had some weird encounters which are probably more phenomenal than the damned phenomena being studied. Considering that's the same domain as the Philly Experiment, it does make you wonder sometimes,...or at least is tempting.

So here's one for ya,..for those who read these threads and comment on science and supposed revolutions in science or maybe even CTs regarding concealed information and Sci-Fi ranging to the occult.

What do you think about parallel worlds/universes?

Say you're in the real world lab. Observe something static which is by chance, extraordinary, make notes about it because it surprise you. Then a bit later, you re-encounter the same environment and measurable situation only to discover that what you had previously expected actually exists, but the change of state from your last observation to this recent one is so inexplicable that a parallel universe would make more sense. You discount the situation thinking your memory failed you and obviously the previous condition didnt exist, but then per chance discover your notes of measurements previously taken confirming the initial paradox you believed existed.

Anybody run across this type of phenomenon. Sortof like a Truman Show movie scenerio. Or possibly gives credance to philosophers like Berekely's "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound" query,...a gnostic impression. Appeals to a possibility that some things can be thought into physical existence. Any physicists bump into this sort of paradox?

Hmmmm, Dean of American electrochemsitry,....impressive, glad we're speaking of the same fellow. Looks like even his peers might not be as impressed.

from : http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_5_2_6.html

TEXAS A&M REFUSES SEMINAR (ON COLD FUSION)

By John Kirsch (staff writer), "Panel Speakers Draw Criticism from Some A&M Faculty Members," Bryan-College Station Eagle, 15 April 1997, pp A2, A7.

... SUMMARY

An alternative energy seminar featuring Dr. John O'M. Bockris, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry, was denied the use of the Engineering/Physics Building on the night of Friday, April 18, on the grounds that the credentials of its four speakers were questionable. The listed participants were Drs. Bockris (Texas A&M) and Pat Bailey (of the Inst. for New Energy), J.J. Hurtak of the Academy for Future Science, and graduate student Todd Hathaway, who was also an organizer of the seminar. No University funds were being used for the event.

The faculty spokesperson quoted by the newspaper was Frank Cotton, also a Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Texas A&M, who told the reporter that faculty members and administrators had forced the cancellation of seminar plans after learning who the speakers were. "They're all kooks and charlatans," Mr. Cotton was quoted as saying. ...

... Bockris' research in such controversial areas as cold fusion and low-energy nuclear reactions has drawn criticism from his fellow faculty members for several years. The newspaper mentioned that the Web site for participant J.J. Hurtak provided information on ordering a UFO video [which possibly the University faculty thought was condemning evidence against him].

More on Bockris...From http://www.spectrometer.org/path/taubes.html

Book Review by Mike Epstein

Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion Gary Taubes, Random House, NY, 1993. Hardback, 503 pages.

"Gary Taubes took an axe

Gave Pons and Fleishchmann forty whacks

And when he saw what he had done

He gave John Bockris forty-one."

(with apologies to Lizzie Borden)

Gary Taubes begins this book on a witch hunt and never lets up. What could have been the definitive nail in the coffin of low-level phenomena in deuterided solids (a current and politically correct name for cold fusion), becomes instead a collection of hard facts diluted with opinions and innuendoes. Taubes is a scientific journalist who "studied physics at Harvard", but how could anyone who studied physics say "gases ... are unable to support a high enough concentration of ions to conduct electricity." Perhaps Mr. Taubes would like to test his assertion in the next thunderstorm? Perhaps he has never seen a neon sign? And yet this is one of the shreds of evidence he uses to indict a Pons and Fleischmann manuscript on gas-phase electrochemistry. This is not to say their papers, which he describes as "dead wrong to recklessly interpreted" were not. I can't tell, since he makes it extremely difficult for the reader to confirm the assertions, providing almost no references in the entire book.

"Bad Science" follows the misadventures of cold fusion advocates and skeptics from 1989 to 1992, from the ecstatic beginning through the rapid demise. It also examines in great detail both the scientific and personal lives of the major players in the drama: Pons, Fleischmann, Jones, and Bockris. I suppose Mr. Taubes felt that the only way to explain the mass delusion of so many scientists was to provide a psychological basis for the phenomena. And you know, he’s right! When you start looking at scientists as human beings and not as computers on legs, you also start to realize their fallibility.

The book is a treasure-trove of great quotations:

The Vernon Hughes law of low-level statistics ("Despite the fact that a three-sigma effect appears to have a 99.73 percent chance of being right, it will be wrong half the time") is used to examine the level of confidence at which scientists publish. Steve Jones is quoted to say "if 4 sigma publish."

The wager of Blaise Pascal, who renounced a life of science for one of faith ("To bet on the existence of God and to be wrong is to lose little or nothing. To wager correctly that there is a god is to be rewarded with an infinity of infinitely happy life ... if you win you win everyting, if you lose you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then; wager that he does exist.") is used to explain why so many jumped on the cold fusion bandwagon.

As the Cal Tech electrochemist Nathan Lewis said, "If cold fusion were true, electrochemists would all have funding beyond their wildest imaginations ... an electrochemist’s wet dream!"

But perhaps the most telling quotes are from Fleischmann ("If you really don’t believe something deeply enough before you do an experiment, you will never get it to work") and Bockris ("Negative results can be obtained without skill and experience.") Indeed, I found the most valuable part of this book to be the close examination of how those without skill and experience, or even with skill and experience, got positive results when none existed.

Finally, perhaps the most vilified person in the book is John Bockris, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Texas A&M. While many know Dr. Bockris from his distinguished career in electrochemical research, others will recall the recent media examination of his transmutation experiments (see Academic Freedom or Scientific Misconduct?). Taubes notes that Dr. Bockris' research group kept the cold fusion balloon aloft by claims of tritium in their cold fusion cells, and points an accusing finger at a Bockris graduate student, presents circumstantial evidence of fraudulent spiking and claims a cover-up.

Perhaps the most puzzling question in the book was why Eugene Mallove, the outspoken supporter of cold fusion is mentioned only briefly and in a positive tone by Taubes. Very strange, since Mallove rakes him over the coals for his tritium accusations against the Bockris lab in his pro-cold fusion book, "Fire from Ice" (Wiley, 1991) published two years before.

There are few winners in "Bad Science." Taube’s witch-hunt finds plenty of victims, and few are innocent. I found the book easy to read and quite enjoyable, although when I finished, I wasn’t very satisfied. Perhaps the scientist in me resented the intrusion into private lives, or maybe it was just the absence of adequate references and documentation. I highly recommend "Bad Science", but also suggest you read it carefully with a skeptical eye.

I'm glad you brought up the expert professional position of Bockris. I wasn't too sure if this was the same Bockris who used to give students negative grades on exams for simple mistakes but I believe it may be the same. There is an interesting hidden trend here though which appears from different researchers approaching this topic from different perspectives. It touches upon almost occult like alchemy issues which might lead to other deduction/semantics. Bockris may not be that bad of fellow, but my experience tells me that it takes a helluva lot of questionable behavior to generate this type of response form institutional peers as reported below. I wonder what's the beef?

Academic Freedom or Scientific Misconduct?

An editorial by Mike Epstein, originally appearing in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol 8/1, 1994.

Universities often tolerate all sorts of faculty member activity under the guise of academic freedom, but apparently they draw the line at alchemy. At least they do at Texas A&M, where distinguished professor of chemistry, John Bockris, is under fire for reportedly accepting $200K and a guest researcher to carry out alchemical experiments which have been variously described as transmuting lesser metals into gold and silver (Begley, 1994), changing mercury into gold (UPI, 1993), or turning silver into gold (Pool, 1993). A petition signed by 23 of the 28 distinguished professors at Texas A&M called on the university provost to strip Dr. Bockris of his title as distinguished professor. The petition follows a letter written by 11 full professors in the chemistry department (out of the department's 38 full professors) calling on Dr. Bockris to resign and remove the "shadow" he has cast over the department. The petition from the distinguished professors said "For a trained scientist to claim, or support anyone else's claim to have transmuted elements is difficult for us to believe and is no more acceptable than to claim to have invented a gravity shield, revived the dead or to be mining green cheese on the moon. We believe that Bockris' recent activities have made the terms 'Texas A&M' and 'Aggie' objects of derisive laughter throughout the world..."

Dr. Bockris categorically denies any allegation of scientific misconduct. He has had a long and distinguished career in electrochemistry, authoring or editing 15 books and more than 600 papers. He also ardently supported the work of cold fusion researchers Pons and Fleischmann, and headed research teams at A&M that claimed to have reproduced the positive cold fusion results. Later, his fusion work (as well as that of others) was criticized by an internal review as a "breakdown of scientific objectivity."

According to media sources, the alchemical experiment was directed by Joe Champion, a "self-described researcher and inventor from Tennessee", who instructed Bockris and his assistants in the proper procedures. In four separate experiments, they ignited a mixture of potassium nitrate, carbon, and various salts to produce small amounts of gold. However, once Champion left Bockris' group, they could not get the technique to work. Dr. Bockris has also expressed interest in "low-energy" nuclear reactions such as the production of heat and the formation of calcium from potassium during the electrolysis of light water on nickel, the formation of iron from carbon in an arc under water, and nuclear changes in biological organisms (Bockris, 1993), which has not likely endeared him to his colleagues.

I do not agree with Dr. Bockris' theories, particularly those dealing with elemental transmutation by electrolysis or biological mechanisms. Much, if not all can be explained by contamination and bad analytical chemistry (Epstein, 1994). However, I would remind those who seek his ouster or demotion that their actions threaten the core of academic freedom. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but no one should be punished for attempting to provide that proof. (Note: Dr. Bockris was eventually found by a four-professor panel to be NOT GUILTY of violating Texas A&M standards in proposing, conducting or reporting controversial research.)

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.