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.

In addition to the detailed article cited in this post
check out the following:

Vol.8, Nos 1-2 (2000)
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance.

ISSN-0898-9621 Gordon and Breach Science
Adil E. Shamoo (Dept of Biological Chemistry, Univ. of Maryland)
Editorial: The Ethical Import of the Cold Fusion Controversy"

Scott Chubb -- Naval research Lab
Introduction to the Special Series of Papers in Accountability in
Research Dealing with "Cold Fusion"

Martin Fleischmann, FRAS
Reflections on the Sociology of Science and Social Responsibility

F. Scaramuzzi, ENEA (Italy)
Ten Years of Cold Fusion: An Eyewitness Account

J. Bockris (Texas A&M)
Accountability and Academic Freedom: The Battle Concerning
Research on Cold Fusion at Texas A&M University

George Miley (Univ. of Illinois)
Some Personal Reflections on Scientific Ethics and Cold Fusion

David J. Nagel (George Washington Univ.)
Fusion Physics and Philosophy

In other words, somebody initiated a study project into reviewing Cold Fusion. The person or persons conducting said study performed some literature research. They made a few notes and comments at the time of their reading the research notes, and now report their comments. No attention to detail or complete top-down or bottom-up analysis has been made. No description of limiting factors in the study's scope have been made. In general, the person/s performing the study might have a college degree in a science or engineering discipline but lack the ability to publish findings or even a research paper.

Regardless of preliminary qualifications and implicit due diligence for proper research, a paper is being tendered as a deliverable for said study which doesn't really address anything of quantifiable, identifiable, measurable, or repetitively describable format. Persons paid to perform scientific research like to get their money for nothing and their chicks for free, also. And BTW, ongoing state and local politics sometimes address broadbased topics which happen to touch upon one of the same physical terms seen in this study, namely 'energy'.

IMHO, the study isn't worth the paper its printed on. Worse, it took funding which is difficult to obtain to actually study said reported phenomenon and fails to render scientific professional due diligence in its deliverables.

"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.

Was that altitude measured above sea level or ground level?....sarcastic inquiring minds need to know..../sarcasm off.

Too bad the forward isn't as simply directed and focused in its measurable metrics as the above quote.

I've found the topic of 'Cold Fusion' to offer good opportunity in the identification problem, history of science, and philosophy of science. Many of the topics implied by the study require an intuition of the founding arguments used in science for basic terminology. The actual meanings, scope, and limitations of terms between different branches of science as well as identifying the mathematical methods used to describe phenomena from different scientific points of view.

Simple terms such as each term in Maxwell's Eqns (quantum, QED), terms from electrochemistry, terms from solid-state physics, derived terms and terms used as identifiable measurables all have some basic implied meanings constraining their range and domains of valid use.

The Cold Fusion problem exemplifies a problem where the quantification of some of these measurables might exceed the functional domains of other functions. Using a handful of measurables might lead to actual circular reasoning and measurements which imply false meanings without indications of the problem to junior postdoctorate level researchers.

I found study of the topic to mandate a review of the researcher's academic background to more fully appreciate their point of view and implied understandings of basic scientific terms. My viewpoint is more from rigorous Material Science ( Mechanical, Electronic, and Chemical), applied mathematics, and common engineering. Too many researchers in this field are either PhDs in Physics, with less than a 3rd year college experience in scientific study of Chemistry, or Physical Chemists, with less than 5 yrs of collegiant study in applied mathematics, or engineers / applied mathematicians with only one or two years of study in chemistry and physics.

I've found that a good 3 yrs of study of both Chemistry and Physics at the undergraduate level is required to even identify the semantical and meaningful conflicts between the sciences. Another 2-3 years of study in each discipline is then required, devoted to simply studying the etymology of the eqns and basic scientific terms. Essentially, this further study amounts to forming a history of science intuition. Then for a particular problem, such as 'Cold Fusion' a quick study and reformulation of scientific reports in an applied mathematics format allows the problem to take shape meaningfully.

Until this is done, too many sparsely described phenomenon are discussed using less than 5 variables when perhaps 10 are involved amongst peers who are only intuitive with discussing 1-3 variable problems.

"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."

IMHO, this is about the most meaningful statement of the entire quoted forward. Not much is expressed, but some value exists in showing a correlation.

I studied the topic a bit around 1988-91 on the side. The assertions made and basis for assertions were a bit tenuous from a rigorous scientific viewpoint.

BTW you make my point. Some of these folk have backgrounds in Solid state physics, hot fusion. Now review the chemistry assertions based upon priniples from electrochemistry in aqueous solutions, then QED. The assertions being made regarding Cold Fusion touch upon measurables in different domains which don't necessarily mean the conclusions being drawn in one branch of science are as well identified in another branch.

We're dabbling with solid state, transitory states, liquid and gaseous and maybe even some plasma states. Additionally, we grate upon measurable which have meaning in one system of state variables, are shown to translate by braoder principles to other states based upon Invariants or dimensionless expressions, but the 'Cold Fusion' assertions go to the core of these foundations. They assert excess energy exists, when the measurable identity or function or process might be better isolated. The induced consequence that excess energy is being generated due to fusion might be very premature. I haven't seen a rigorous discussion of it and that includes reviewing every technical paper I could lay my hands on at Oak Ridge, Rice, Univ of Chicago, CIT, Berkeley, and that junior university out in Palo Alto (hehehehe, I really kill me sometimes ;^)... granted I wasn't tooled up to find all papers on the topic nor am I in 'that community'.

"These scientists published serious data, and analysis. In constrast, your comments are not serious, but typical of the pathologic skeptic."

Dio,...baby...I enjoy few things more than some rigorous scientific review and study. The comments made in the forward were much more arrogant than anything I mentioned and they were being paid to make professional statements.

For example, commenting that the researchers didn't know when to differentiate when they should integrate,..."etc." is synonomous to saying they don't know when to add when they subtract. If somebody is guilty of ad hominem attack, I'd say the author fits the bill fairly well.

As for my pathology, the pathology of science usually is sceptical for error, and yes, I admit, I haven't presented a postdoc paper here in a five minute review, but I expect a research study forward to nicely concentrate it's findings in concise language displaying the fuits of its labor. The fruits I observe are from somebody tooled up to review experimental design, some backgound in applied mathematics and Solid State, but not much in science. A complete system isn't formulated. Nor are the criticisms in the forward well isolated and premises discerned to allow others to satisfy completeness. IMHO, It's premature and hasty,...As I grant is mine, but I only took 5-30 minutes to review, while they obviously have been charged and expected to present a synopsis for the profession. Especially when the topic is supposedly a revolution in science.

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.