| But the description of the experiment does not say that a sudden onset
was all the experimenters were looking for. And it never says that ramp
subtraction renders meaningless the height and slope of the resulting
curve. Someone as sharp as Philip Morrison integrated the excess power
signal numerically over the entire length of the experimental runs in the
apparent expectation that the result meant something.
To the experimenters, a reduction in the integrated power between
one draft and the next would mean only that their ramp subtraction had
improved. To a reader who thought the absolute height of the curve was
significant, this same reduction could look like data-cooking.
I therefore suggested to Luckhardt that science and civility would be
served if the experimenters published a correction explaining that the
height and slope of their final data meant nothing, and apologizing for
not saying so in the original article. To my great surprise, he objected
strongly to this proposal. For one thing, he said, in one part of their
experiment, absolute signal height was significant. They had compared
the excess power before and
after fluid was electrolysed
and then replaced. Somehow
this was a reason for not
explaining that, for most of
the data, absolute height was
not significant. More surprisingly,
reference to the
article shows that this
absolute-height part of the
experiment failed. The data were discrepant, though the experimenters
thought that the discrepancy would be smaller if more care were taken
to refill the cell to its original level.
I talked to Eugene Mallove, and found him unwilling to concede that
the MIT experimenters’ sin might be only misdescribing their experiment.
He and Mitchell Swartz insist that comparison of the experimenters
data before and after reduction shows that the reduction was
not done properly, and that the effect was to suppress evidence of excess
power that had a sudden onset. I think the experimenters had such a
low opinion of both cold fusion and their own experiment that they
would not have gone to the trouble of subtly cooking the results. Still,
Luckhardt’s adamant and puzzling refusal to clear up the confusion in
their description make me wonder if they are keeping everything closed
because there are things in their data reduction that will not stand
So what should MIT do? Leaving the experimenters and the doubters
to resolve the matter is creating a festering sore and a suspicion of
coverup. The groups are not communicating effectively. Each accuses
the other of non-cooperation.
I think MIT management should take a hand. In the end, this would
waste less of its time than trying to stay out of the matter. It should ask
the experimenters to publish a corrigendum saying that their original
description obscured the fact that they were looking for an abrupt turnon
of power generation by the cell. I see no respectable reason for them
not to comply. At the same time, they should be asked to give their original
data, data reduction formulae and algorithms to the doubters, who
should, in turn, be asked to give their objections, in writing, to the
experimenters. Out of this head-knocking, truth should emerge.
These requests could not reasonably be refused. They are impolite, but
both sides have broken social conventions (the doubters said the experimenters
were crooks; the experimenters ran a party celebrating the death
of cold fusion), so neither can expect the protections of politeness.
Sincerely yours, Charles W. McCutchen
Prof. Widnall’s Letter to Dr. Charles McCutchen
August 3, 1992
Provost Windall’s final stonewall letter to Dr. McCutchen.—EFM
Mr. Charles W. McCutchen
Princeton, New Jersey
Dear Dr. McCutchen:
I'm responding to your letter of July 26. I'm glad that you took the
opportunity to speak with Dr. Luckhardt regarding his memo and the
earlier paper. I recognize that this area remains controversial and the
issue you raised is: Is there anything that MIT as an institution should
do in response to the controversy?
I think MIT management should take a hand. In the end, this would
waste less of its time than trying to stay out of the matter. It should
ask the experimenters to publish a corrigendum saying that their original
description obscured the fact that they were looking for an abrupt
turn-on of power generation by the cell. I see no respectable reason for
them not to comply. —Dr. Charles McCutchen
56 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report
MIT, along with all other universities that I know anything about,
does not often intrude between its faculty members and their professional
actions as scientists. We don't, for example, review the manuscripts
of our faculty prior to publication, as do many corporations and
government organizations. We are used to a high level of controversy,
often between members of our own faculty. Disputes about scientific
data, methods and results are common and play a positive role in
advancing science. When MIT faculty take public positions as scientists
or citizens, it is assumed that they are acting as individuals and not as
official spokesman for the institution.
Criteria for institutional involvement in such matters derive from our
contractual and institutional responsibilities. Alleged violations of institutional
policies by members of our community will bring forth an institutional
response. As you undoubtedly know, at our request Prof. Philip
Morrison undertook a detailed examination of the issues raised by two
individuals concerning the manuscript in question and determined that
there was no tangible basis for further institutional action.
I hope that the various groups on our campus who are involved in
this research will continue to have collegial, scientific dialogues but I
see no basis to direct any of the groups to take specific actions.
Associate Provost and
Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of
Aeronautics and Astronautics
Dr. Charles McCutchen’s Letter to Eugene Mallove
August 18, 1992
Eugene F. Mallove, Bow, NH
Dear Dr. Mallove,
As you can see from the enclosures, I did not get far with Sheila Widnall.
I was surprised she did not respond to my point that Philip Morrison,
their own expert, had been misled by the paper. I had previously
been surprised when Stanley Luckhardt irritatedly refused to consider
publishing a full description of the way the experimenters interpreted
their calorimetry experiment. I thought this would be a good way to
remove some confusion and lower the anger level.
How about taking the advice Dr. Widnall offered in her letter of April
2, 1992, and submitting a letter to Journal of Fusion Energy. You might get
your points out ln the open for the experimenters to answer. Perhaps
the hot fusioneers will stop the Journal from publishing your letter. This
would be objective evidence that they are brass-knuckle types, evidence
you could take to Sheila Widnall to show what happens when one tries
to have an “open debate in the scientific literature, through peer
review,” with MIT scientists.
Sincerely yours, Charles W. McCutchen
Dr. Charles McCutchen’s Letter to Prof. Sheila Widnall
August 18, 1992
Dr. McCutchen’s final word to Provost Widnall fell on deaf
Sheila E. Widnall, Associate Provost
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 3-234
Dear Dr. Widnall,
Thank you for your letter of Aug. 3, 1992. I do not envy you in having
to deal with matters that take time away from the constructive business
of the university. But consider, it is the enforcement of decency
among scientists that makes collegiality possible. Without sanctions for
bad behavior, science becomes a jungle. Like it or not, you knuckle-rappers
are keepers of the flame.
MIT is using formal procedures to evade responsibility. You and I
agree, I think, that bad scientific ethics are a university's business. So far,
so good. But MIT thinks that getting Philip Morrison to give the matter
a once-over-lightly discharges its responsibility. (Substitute '”Eisen” for
“Morrison” and you have the beginning of the Baltimore affair.) I
explained that Morrison was misled by the inaccurate description of the
experiment, the very thing that I object to. That he was thus misled
shows that a correction should be published. You did not respond. This
Collegial mechanisms will not resolve the issue. They work when all
parties play fair. The MIT hot fusion people are not playing fair. They
published a misleading description of an experiment. The errors ln the
description were important. The collegial rules require that they publish
a clarification. They refuse to do so.
What can the cold fusion people do now? If they submit a complaining
letter to the journal that carried the original paper, the hot fusion
people will probably try to prevent it from being published, and likely
succeed. There will be more anger on both sides, and a lot less collegiality
—all because MIT management cannot bring itself to make the
hot fusion people, its own employees, behave like gentlemen. (Remember
that what they refuse to publish is their own, verbal description of
the way the major part of the experiment worked.)
I am sorry that MIT continues to tough it out. Apparently
the university feels it need not be fair to cold fusion people.
Perhaps it is afraid to be fair. Luckhardt’s negative response
to my proposal that a correction be published suggests that
hot fusion patriotism requires one to be unfair to cold fusion
people. Why else (unless there is real data faking that they are
trying to hide) will the hot fusion people not publish a correction
that would blunt some of the
anger, and enhance their own reputation
Sincerely yours, Charles W.
cc: Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
Has a Theory
to Explain ‘Cold Fusion’”
MIT Provost John Deutch said, “MIT is a place where creative
individuals are encouraged to address scientific subjects of
the greatest significance. We are pleased to see Professor
Hagelstein proposing an explanation for ‘cold fusion’ and we
are encouraging investigators both here and at other research
institutions to continue their work on this most surprising
phenomenon, which may have enormous consequences.”
[Later, Dr. Deutch became Director of the CIA in the Clinton
MIT News Office
April 12, 1989
Ponder the unthinkable. Question the status quo. Live in the world as
well as in your own nation. Dream of a better future, but
contribute to the present. Share your talents. Commune with all people.
Be steady friends and bold companions. Be honest in all that you do.
—MIT President Charles Vest’s Commencement Address June, 1998.
Photo: Courtesy CIA
57 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report
Key Cold Fusion Publications of MIT
Graduate, MIT Professor Peter L.
• “Coherent Fusion Theory,” presented at the ASME Winter Meeting,
San Francisco, Dec. 1989, paper TS-4.
• “Coherent Fusion Theory,” Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 9, No. 4,
1990. pp. 451-463.
• “Status of Coherent Fusion,” DoE Annual Report, January 1990.
• “Status of Coherent Fusion Theory,” Proceedings of The First Annual
Conference on Cold Fusion, March 28-31, 1990, Salt Lake City, pp. 99-
• “Coherent Fusion Mechanisms,” AIP (American Institute of Physics)
Conference Proceedings #228, Anomalous Nuclear Effects in
Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo, Utah, 1990, Editors: Steven E. Jones,
Franco Scaramuzzi, and David Worledge, pp. 734-781.
• “Coherent and Semi-Coherent Neutron Transfer Reactions,” Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 33, The Science of Cold Fusion, Ed: T. Bressani, E.
DelGiudice, and G. Preparata, SIF Bologna, 1991, pp. 205-209.
• “Coherent and Semi-Coherent Neutron Transfer Reactions,”Proceedings
of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion (October 21-
25, 1992), Frontiers of Cold Fusion, Ed., Hideo Ikegami, Universal Academy
Press, Inc., Tokyo, pp. 297-306.
• “Coherent and Semi-Coherent Neutron Transfer Reactions I: The
Interaction Hamiltonian,” Fusion Technology, Vol. 22, 1992, pp. 172-180.
• “Coherent and Semi-Coherent Neutron Transfer Reactions III:
Phonon Generation, ”Fusion Technology, Vol. 23, 1993, p. 353-361.
• “Coherent and Semi-Coherent Neutron Transfer Reactions II: Dipole
Operators,” submitted toFusion Technology, 1993.
• “Coherent and Semi-Coherent Neutron Transfer Reactions IV: Two-Step
Reactions and Virtual Neutrons ” submitted to Fusion Technology, 1993.
• “Lattice-Induced Atomic and Nuclear Reactions,” Transactions of
Fusion Technology, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Cold Fusion (Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii, December 6-9, 1993, Vol. 26, No.
4T, December 1994, pp. xi-xii.
• “In Memory of Julian Schwinger,” Transactions of Fusion Technology, Proceedings
of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (Lahaina,
Maui, Hawaii, December 6-9, 1993, Vol. 26, No. 4T, December 1994, pp.
• “A Possible Mössbauer Effect in Neutron Capture,” Hyperfine Interactions,
Vol. 92, 1994, p. 1059-.
• “Update on Neutron Transfer Reactions,” Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Cold Fusion (9-13 April 1995, Monte Carlo,
Monaco), pp. 327-337.
• “Proposed Novel Optical Phonon Laser Pumped by Exothermic
Desorption,” Bull. APS, Vol. 40, 1995, p. 808.
• “Anomalous Energy Transfer Between Nuclei and the Lattice,”
Progress in New Hydrogen Energy: Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Cold Fusion, October 13-18, 1996, Japan, pp. 382-386.
• “Models for Anomalous Energy Transfer,”Proceedings of the Seventh
Key Cold Fusion Publications of
MIT Professor Keith H. Johnson
• “Hydrogen-Hydrogen/Deuterium-Deuterium Bonding in Palladium
and the Superconducting/Electrochemical Properties of PdH/-
PdD,” K.H. Johnson and D.P. Clougherty, Mod. Phys. Lett. B, Vol. 3,
1989, p. 795-.
• “Jahn-Teller Symmetry Breaking and Hydrogen Energy in ?-PdD
‘Cold Fusion’ as Storage of the Latent Heat of Water,” K.H. Johnson,
Transactions of Fusion Technology, Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Cold Fusion (Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii, December 6-9, 1993,
Vol. 26, No. 4T, December 1994, pp. 427-430.
• “Method of Maximizing Anharmonic Oscillations in Deuterated
Alloys,” U.S. Patent 5,411,654, Brian S. Ahern, Keith H. Johnson, and
Harry R. Clark, Jr., Filed July 2, 1993, Date of Patent, May 2, 1995.
• “Water Clusters and Uses Therefore,” K.H. Johnson, Bin Zhang, and
Harry C. Clarke, US Patent 5,800,576, Filed, November 13, 1996, Date
of Patent, September 1, 1998.
Cold Fusion Publications of
MIT Graduate Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz
JET Energy Technology has contributed through
our R&D, high standards, and quality control.
Publications on Research and Q/C
• Swartz, M. 1993. “Some Lessons from Optical Examination of the
PFC Phase-II Calorimetric Curves,” Vol. 2, Proceedings: Fourth International
Conference on Cold Fusion, 19-1, op. cit.
• Swartz, M. 1994. “A Method To Improve Algorithms Used To Detect
Steady State Excess Enthalpy,” Transactions of Fusion Technology, 26, 156-159.
• Swartz, M. 1996. “Relative Impact of Thermal Stratification of the Air
Surrounding a Calorimeter,” Journal of New Energy, 2, 219-221 (1996)
• Swartz, M. 1996. “Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction,” Journal of New Energy, 1, 3,
•Swartz, M. 1996. “Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric
Systems,” Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130.
•Swartz, M. 1996. “Definitions of Power Amplification Factor,” J. New
Energy, 2, 54-59.
• Swartz, M. 1997. "Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess
Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-
Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material,” Fusion Technology,
• Swartz, M. 1997. “Noise Measurement in Cold Fusion Systems,”
Journal of New Energy, 2, 2, 58-61.
• Swartz, M. 1997. “Biphasic Behavior in Thermal Electrolytic Generators
Using Nickel Cathodes,” ECEC 1997 Proceedings, paper #97009
• Swartz, M. 1998. “Patterns of Failure in Cold Fusion Experiments,”
Proceedings of the 33rd Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy
Conversion, IECEC-98-1229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6,1998.
• Swartz, M. 1998. “Optimal Operating Point Characteristics of Nickel
Light Water Experiments,” Proceedings of ICCF-7.
• Swartz, M. 1998. “Improved Electrolytic Reactor Performance Using
p-Notch System Operation and Gold Anodes,” Transactions of the American
Nuclear Society, Nashville, TN 1998 Meeting, (ISSN:0003-018X publisher
LaGrange, IL) 78, 84-85.
Publications on Quasi-1-dimensional Isotope Loading, and
Optimal Operating Point Behavior
• Swartz, M. 1992. “Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical
Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal,” Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300.
• Swartz, M. 1994. “Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled to Reactions at an
Electrode,” Fusion Technology, 96, 4T, 74-77
• Swartz. M. 1994. “Generalized Isotopic Fuel Loading Equations,”
Cold Fusion Source Book, International Symposium on Cold Fusion and
Advanced Energy Systems, Ed. Hal Fox, Minsk, Belarus,
• Swartz. M. 1997. “Codeposition of Palladium and Deuterium,”
Fusion Technology, 32,126-130
Publications on Catastrophic Desorption and Nuclear Theory
• Swartz. M. 1994. “Catastrophic Active Medium Hypothesis of Cold
Fusion,” Vol. 4. Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Cold
Fusion, sponsored by EPRI and the Office of Naval Research.
• Swartz, M. 1996. “Possible Deuterium Production from Light Water
Excess Enthalpy Experiments Using Nickel Cathodes,” Journal of New
Energy, 3, 68-80 (1996).
• Swartz, M. 1997. “Hydrogen Redistribution by Catastrophic Desorption
in Select Transition Metals,” Journal of New Energy, 1, 4, 26-33.
• Swartz, M. 1997. “Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids,” Fusion
Technology, 31, 228-236 (March 1997).