Mayer Applied Research Inc.​​ History, Skill-Set and Commercialization Efforts

  • Tresinos and LENRs' role in the composition of the Universe...

    Mayer Applied Research Inc. and cold fusion...

    Mayer Applied Research Inc. History, Skill-Set and Commercialization Efforts

    I'm interested in Frederick Mayer and am putting together a compilation.

    Note: I also present an unrelated paper reflecting the importance of Schwinger's early works.

    Reviewing this excellent ICCF18 summary for insight. A must read in order to follow commercialization of this technology, including an early E-Cat replication/review. Rich in names and organizations to look into now, 2020 hindsight from 1990, 1992, 2013, 2019, and today 2020. Just a start. -gbgoble

    Scientific and Commercial Overview of ICCF18 by David J. Nagel


    Meyers at ICCF 18 - 2013

    page 13

    Andrew Meulenberg, of the Science for Humanity Trust, and Sinha presented an ICCF18 paper on a composite model for LENR in linear defects of a lattice. It brought together two concepts. The first was the <b>1990 idea of Schwinger that cold fusion requires a formulation that includes electric and nuclear forces in a single wave function, all parts of which are coherent. That is, the normal Born-Oppenheimer separation of atomic and nuclear forces has to be abandoned.</b>

    page 14

    Compact Objects with Deeply Bound Levels There is a body of theoretical work on mechanisms for LENR that envisions the formation of objects which are intermediate between atoms and nuclei in both their size and binding energies. They have protons or deuterons at their core and associated electrons. Their formation would release energies much larger than the binding energy of hydrogen, but still very small compared to nuclear energies. Concepts and theories for compact objects have been advanced by Randall Mills, Jacques Dufour, Horace Heffner, Sinha and Meulenberg, and <b>Frederick Mayer and John Reitz. The last pair predict formation of an object they call a Tresino with two electrons around a proton or deuteron. The electrons are thought to be spin aligned, so that magnetic coupling supplies binding energy sufficient to stabilize the arrangement. The orbital radius is computed to be 386 femtometers, with a binding energy of 3.7 keV</b>

    page 23

    It is the opinion of some people, this reviewer included, <b>that the mechanisms behind LENR will be found to be important in other areas of science. This is certainly not a new idea. Two theoretical papers can be cited as evidence. In one, F.J. Mayer and J.R. Reitz applied ideas, which were developed to explain LENR, to two major current problems in science, the heating of the earth and the nature of dark matter (Intl. J. Theoretical Physics, Vol. 45, 2006).</b>

    ALSO 2019

    Superconductivity and Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions…-Energy_Nuclear_Reactions

    February 2019 Journal - Results in Physics

    Authors: Frederick J. Mayer, Mayer Applied Research Inc.


    It is proposed that the excess-energy released in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (aka cold fusion) is initiated in a phase-transition yielding a fraction of superconducting electrons, which then start a deuteron-driven chain of nuclear reactions recently detailed in the geophysics arena.

    ALSO 2020

    International Journal of Cosmology, Astronomy and Astrophysics

    Letter to Editor Open Access

    Article Info *Corresponding author: Frederick J Mayer Mayer Applied Research Inc. 1417 Dicken Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48103 USA E-mail: [email protected] Received: October 27, 2020

    Accepted: November 9, 2020

    Published Today: November 13, 2020

    "Cosmic Implications of Tresino Formation: A Narrated Review"

    Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys. 2020; 2(1): 112-114.

    doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-1000123



    Tresino formation plays an important role in determining the composition of the universe from late in the early Universe until now. This letter presents a simplified version of our Baryon Phase Transition cosmology to clarify how the composition evolved to become what it is.

    ALSO 1992

    Hydron Reactions in Metals

    SBIR Phase I - 1992 Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency

    Award Information

    Agency:Department of Defense

    Branch:Missile Defense Agency

    Agency Tracking Number:18109


    Phase:Phase I


    Award Year:1992

  • Cold Fusion Theory by Julian Schwinger

    As Polonius might have said: “Neither a true-believer nor a disbeliever be.” From the very beginning in a radio broadcast on the evening of March 23, 1989, I have asked myself—not whether Pons and Fleischmann are right—but whether a mechanism can be identified that will produce nuclear energy by manipulations at the atomic-the chemical-level. Of course, the acceptance of that interpretation of their data is needed as a working hypothesis, in order to have quantitative tests of proposed mechanisms.

    A few quotes from page 2

    A following paper, entitled: “Nuclear Energy in an Atomic Lattice,” was sent directly to another German periodical, in November of 1989. As of today, the only memorable part is a quotation from Joseph Priestly: “In this business, more is owed to what we call chance-that is, to the observation of events arising from unknown causes-than to any preconceived theory.”

    The editor thought it necessary to add a total disclaimer of responsibility, ending with: “We leave the final judgment to our readers.” In my naivety I had thought that was always so. When part 2 of NEAL was submitted, it was simply rejected. The fix was in. I gave a talk with the same title—“Nuclear Energy in an Atomic Lattice”—at Salt Lake City in March of 1990. The HD hypothesis-of the dominance of the pd reaction-has the pragmatic advantage of suppressing neutron production at the level of excess heat generation.

    But, to quote from that lecture: “... a well trained hot fusioneer will instantly object that there must also be a 5.5 MeV γ-ray. He will not fail to point out that no such radiation has been observed. Indeed.”

    “But consider the circumstances of cold fusion. (The quotation continues.) At very low energies of relative motion, the proton and deuteron of the HD reaction are in an s-state, one of zero orbital angular momentum, and therefore of positive orbital parity. The intrinsic parities of proton, deuteron, and 3 He are also positive. Then, the usually dominant electric dipole radiation-which requires a parity change-is forbidden.”

    I turn from ‘missing’ radiation to Coulomb repulsion, and quote: “... treatments of nuclear fusion between positively charged particles (usually) represent the reaction rate as the product of two factors. The first factor is a barrier penetration probability. It refers entirely to the electric forces of repulsion. The second factor is an intrinsic nuclear reaction rate. It refers entirely to nuclear forces. This representation ... may be true enough under the circumstances of hot fusion. But, in very low energy cold fusion one deals essentially with a single state, or wave function, all parts of which are coherent. It is not possible to totally isolate the effect of the electric forces from that of the nuclear forces: The correct treatment of cold fusion will be free of the collision dominated mentality of the hot fusioneers.”

    To speak of transferring energy to the lattice is to invoke lattice excitations, or phonons.

    At about the time of the Salt Lake City meeting, or shortly after, I became dissatisfied with my treatment, and began to reconstruct phonon theory. A note entitled Phonon Representations” was submitted to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in June of 1990. The abstract reads:

    “The gap between the nonlocalized lattice phonon description and the localized Einstein oscillator treatment is filled by transforming the phonon Hamiltonian back to particle variables. The particle-coordinate, normalized wave function for the phonon vacuum state is exhibited.”

    A month later, I submitted a second note with the title “Phonon Dynamics”. The abstract reads:

    “An atomic lattice in its ground state is excited by the rapid displacement and release of an atomic constituent. The time dependence of the energy transfer to other constituents is studied ... .”

    The third and last note is called “Phonon Green’s Function”. Its abstract is:

    “The concepts of source and quantum action principle are used to produce the phonon Green’s function appropriate for an initial phonon vacuum state. An application to the Mössbauer effect is presented.”

    I remind you that the Mössbauer effect refers to “an excited nucleus of an atom, imbedded in a lattice, (that) decays with the emission of a γ-ray,” thereby transferring momentum to the lattice.” There is a certain probability ... that the phonon spectrum of the lattice will remain unexcited, as evidenced by the absence, in the γ-ray energy, of the red-shift associated with recoil energy.”

    A casual explanation of the Mössbauer effect has it that the recoil momentum is transferred to the lattice as a whole so that the recoil energy, varying inversely with the mass of the entire lattice, is extravagantly small. As Pauli would say, even to God, “Das ist falsch!”

    The spontaneous decay of a single excited atom in the lattice is a localized event, the consequences of which flow at finite speed, out into three dimensional space, weakening as they travel. This is a microscopic event, with no dependence on macroscopic parameters such as the total mass of the lattice. Unmentioned in the abstract, but of far greater importance, is another situation. To quote: “What happens if the momentum impulse ... is applied, not to one, but all lattice sites?” The reader is invited to “recall that the lattice geometry is not absolute, but relative to the position of the center of mass for the entire system. Thus (the injected energy) can be read as the kinetic energy transferred to the lattice as a whole.”

  • I'm interested in Frederick Mayer and am putting together a compilation

    I read everything carefully, and it left me wondering why Frederick Mayer? He seems interesting, but there are so many stories like him in LENR. Maybe if you explain, we can better understand where you are trying to take us.

    Good reading nonetheless. You have a nose for a story...curious what that story is in this case.

  • Why Mayer... just a hunch. Mayer is considered the father of an industrial technology seen as an important element of cold fusion reactors. More on that later.

    Meanwhile, reading this review by Mallove holds promise (my hunch is I'll find FM in here somewhere).

    side note- Eugene Mallove would have been so happy to see the Space X Starship...


    "While a student in engineering at MIT in 1967, I remember being impressed by the Russian hot fusion exhibit at the world Expo in Montreal. I thought that hot fusion offered a real though difficult-to-develop solution to the world’s energy needs. Because I had been trained as an aerospace engineer with a particular interest in interstellar propulsion methods, I was fond of hot fusion, because it might offer a very high performance propulsion system for limited travel to the “local” stars. I would write of this in my 1989 book, co-authored with colleague Dr. Gregory Matloff, The Starflight Handbook: A Pioneer’s Guide to Interstellar Travel (John Wiley & Sons). In 1969 I had written a lengthy term paper for MIT course 16.53 on the Bussard Interstellar Ramjet concept, which used the hydrogen of the interstellar medium as fusion fuel. In the 1970s and 1980s, I collaborated with physicist Robert L. Forward of Hughes Research Laboratories on lengthy bibliographical studies of the related subjects of advanced interstellar propulsion concepts and the search for extra-terrestrial civilizations (SETI)

    September 16, 1987

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology Volume 32, Number 7 TECH TALK

    "Dr. Eugene Mallove (class of) '69 named News Office science writer"

    Dr. Eugene F. Mallove '69, an engineer and scientist who has written widely on science for the Voice of America, The Washington Post and Technology Review, has been appointed chief science writer for the MIT News Office. The appointment, as assistant director, was announced by Kenneth D. Campbell, director of the News Office. “Gene Mallove brings three great strengths to the News Office: his background in science and engineering; his MIT experience; and, most importantly, his ability to communicate his fascination for science, both in the written word and on the air-waves. I am delighted to welcome Dr. Mallove back to MIT,” said Mr. Campbell.

    A science writer for the past five years, Dr. Mallove’s most recent position was as international science writer and broadcaster at the Voice of America, which he joined in 1985. He was responsible for a weekly 15-minute “New Horizons” program on science, technology, and medicine, and for a daily five-minute program of science teaching to the world, “Science Notebook.”

    He has written free-lance articles for the Washington Post and other newspapers, and for Technology Review and a new magazine, “Computers in Science.” He is the author of The Quickening Universe, to be published by St. Martin's Press this fall.

    Dr. Mallove received his SB in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from MIT in 1969, and his SM in the same field in 1970. In 1975, he received from Harvard University his ScD degree in environmental health sciences, specializing in aerosol physics and air pollution control.

    His career in science and engineering includes work as a consulting astronautical engineer on space propulsion systems with Hughes Research Laboratories, 1970-77; engineer with The Analytical Science Corporation, 1977-79, and with Northrop Co. (Precision Products Division), 1980-81; systems engineering

    manager with Jaycor, Systems Engineering Division, 1981-82; and engineer with MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 1983-85. He founded a firm, Astronomy New England, Inc., which developed and marketed astronomy-related products for six years, ending in 1985. (Reprinted from MIT Tech Talk)

    May 11, 1989

    Dr. Eugene F. Mallove’s Input for MIT President Paul Gray’s Remarks for MIT Technology Day 1989
    Two decades ago humanity was poised to begin an epic journey—the first manned landing on another celestial body, the Moon. We well recall the extraordinary contributions made by the thousands of scientists and engineers to the epic flight of Apollo 11 in July, 1969—in particular the work of MIT engineers who developed the guidance and navigation systems for our spectacularly successful lunar missions.
    We remember the electric atmosphere and the spirit of global celebration—even amidst domestic conflict and war—as the world in rapt attention watched a tiny contingent of humanity make a giant leap onto a new world. And we remain very proud that a son of MIT who received his doctorate from the Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Col. Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., was aboard Apollo 11 and became the second human being to step onto the lunar surface. The launching of the first Sputnik in 1957 is often cited as the beginning of the space age. The era from 1957 through the watershed year of 1969—incidentally, the time of graduation of the 100th MIT class—contrasts remarkably with the present. Slide rules were still the indispensable companions of scientists and engineers; desk-top computers were unheard of and children did not play at video games; energy crises were only a theoretical possibility—as was the threat of global climate change; environmental issues were yet to rise to the fore of public attention; genetic engineering had not entered the public lexicon; and nuclear power seemed to have an endless, promising future.
    Today we aim to go beyond the Moon, not only with our space program, but with our ambitions to make a better planet Earth through science and technology. But these ambitions are beclouded by a worrisome anti-technology backlash and pervasive scientific illiteracy in our society that threatens not only our venture into space and efforts to reach a reasonable accommodation with nature, but our very standard of living. As MIT's recently released “Made in America” study suggests. . ."

    February 9, 1991

    "Eugene Mallove sends new evidence of scientific misconduct to President Vest based on report of MIT graduate Dr. Mitchell Swartz’s independent investigation. Mallove demands thorough investigation (see Exhibit Z-1). Further prompt to Vest on February 21 (see Exhibit Z-2)."

    June 1991

    The negative opinion of MIT Physics Professor Herman Feshbach caused the previous editor of Technology Review, Jonathan Schlefer, to back down in the spring of 1991 from his intent to publish my cold fusion review article. This 1991 article would have said essentially what Storms did in 1994, but by 1994, even more confirmatory evidence could be cited. Schlefer had accepted my article after much editorial revision! Both positive and negative viewpoints were presented in that approved article, plus my clearly identified opinion that the evidence was building strongly toward proof of the phenomenon. That was not negative enough for Feshbach—who called all evidence for cold fusion “junk.” This sorry episode of censorship was one of the key reasons for my resignation from the MIT News Office in June 1991 (see Exhibit K for more on this event).

    "No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein

    "The launching of Infinite Energy magazine in 1995 (and its short-lived precursor, Cold Fusion magazine,

    1994) was, in part, a response to the egregious distortions about cold fusion that were initiated by members of the MIT PFC." - Eugene Mallove

    "No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it." -Albert Einstein

    “I have had fifty years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what’s possible and what’s not... I will not look at any more [cold fusion] evidence! It’s all junk!” - Herman Feshbach, MIT professor, 1991

    “I hope you recognize that the late Professor Feshbach’s most unfortunate and ill-considered reaction was fundamentally unscientific. It reminds me of the Church leaders at the time of Galileo, who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope at the Moon or at Jupiter because they “knew” that nothing new could be seen. Yes, many modern scientists are filled with catastrophic hubris; they have in many ways become mere “technicians of science,” and guardians to what amounts to a pernicious “Holy Writ.” Don’t bother me with the experimental evidence, my theory can tell me what is possible and what is not!” - Eugene Mallove, 2004

    Eugene Mallove - Wikipedia

    Date of death: May 14, 2004

    Place of death: Norwich

    Cause of death: Murder

    Date of birth: June 9, 1947

    Excerpts from

    MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report
    Introduction by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
    (MIT Class of 1969, Aero/Astro Engineering, SB 1969, SM 1970)
    Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine
    President, New Energy Foundation, Inc.

    "HeavyWatergate" and Eugene Mallove

    "When many people are asked today about cold fusion, if they recall the 1989 announcement at all, they may offer remarks such as, “The experiment couldn’t be reproduced.” Or, “Cold fusion was quickly dismissed by other laboratories as a mistake.” One of the most significant players in establishing in the public mind that thoroughly erroneous view was a team of investigators at MIT at its lavishly funded hot fusion laboratory, then called the MIT Plasma Fusion Center. The MIT group rendered a highly negative assessment of the Fleischmann and Pons claims, in part by performing its own attempt to reproduce the heavy-water/palladium excess heat experiment. The announced “failure to confirm” by the MIT group became one of the three top negative reports weighing against cold fusion in those early days. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) cited the MIT PFC’s negative conclusion in rendering its rushed, condemning report in the fall of 1989; alphabetically, the MIT group’s report is the first technical reference cited in the DOE Cold Fusion Panel’s report. It is therefore of considerable interest to understand what really happened at MIT in 1989, and the several years following, on the matter of cold fusion. The story is most certainly not what is regurgitated in numerous journalistic accounts, which are most often unflattering to Drs. Fleischmann and Pons and those researchers who followed their pioneering path. In fact, the story of cold fusion’s reception at MIT is a story of egregious scientific fraud and the cover up of scientific fraud and other misconduct—not by Fleischmann and Pons, as is occasionally alleged—but by researchers who in 1989 aimed to dismiss cold fusion as quickly as possible and who have received hundreds of millions of DOE research dollars since then for their hot fusion research. The cover-up of fraud, sad to say, reaches the highest levels at MIT and includes the current MIT President, Charles M. Vest. Remarkably, President Vest has recently been named by U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham to head the Task Force on the Future of Science Programs at the Department of Energy."

    "MIT has played an extraordinary role in the history of cold fusion. By acts of commission and omission it continues to do so. On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the startling announcement by Drs. Fleischmann and Pons on March 23, 1989, it is imperative that Infinite Energy explore the major role of MIT in shaping the history of the investigation of cold fusion."

    "The actions of certain MIT staff members in 1989 were a major influence on the news media, on other scientists, and on the funding support for cold fusion. This is a matter of record. Though a small group of open-minded, involved faculty, staff, and alumni pursued and continue to pursue cold fusion, MIT as a whole did, indeed, acquire the deserved reputation as a “Bastion of Skepticism” on cold fusion. Sad to say, it was initially only a handful of MIT staff and faculty who gave MIT this reputation. They inappropriately drove many others—on campus and off—to dismiss the claims from Utah in 1989 and the research that has followed. Thus, the role of MIT in cold fusion— apart from the stellar accomplishments of those who persevered in scientific investigations—must be regarded as a permanent blemish on MIT’s otherwise undisputed role as a leader in science, technology, and education. Fortunately, it is a bad mark that could be expunged by future good deeds—and apologies for past misdeeds. Is the MIT of 1999 up to that? We shall see."

    "The events of 1989-1992 are past history, but one must learn from the past or be condemned to repeat it.

    I hope that MIT students will also study the wrongs that have been done by MIT faculty and staff, which perverted the process of science in this area.

    Ironically, those very faculty and staff who so loudly pontificated about the alleged unethical actions of cold fusion researchers Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons are themselves most culpable. They launched distortions about cold fusion that have gained such wide currency."

    "The truth about the calorimetry experiment performed at MIT in 1989 under DoE contract funding (DoE Contract DE-ACO2-78ET51013) is stark and unambiguous. Its purported “negative” result was used to influence the U.S. Department of Energy’s rushed 1989 report against cold fusion. In alphabetical sequence, it is the very first report cited in the U.S. DoE’s ERAB (Energy Research Advisory Board) Cold Fusion Panel report of 1989.

    Some would characterize the data manipulation in the sixteen author MIT paper of 1989 as mere “data fudging.”

    We do not mince words: the use of improperly handled scientific data to draw in the public mind and in the mind of the scientific community a completely false conclusion about an emerging discovery of overarching importance to humankind is high-level scientific misconduct, plain and simple."

    "The record is clear: Had MIT researchers behaved responsibly and ethically as scientists in the spring of 1989, it is most probable that a position of open-mindedness by MIT on the difficult subject of verifying the Utah claims would have averted the highly negative U.S. Department of Energy Report drafted in the summer of 1989. History would have been far different."

    "... this is HeavyWatergate, one of the greatest (but still to be acknowledged) scandals in the history of science."

    "To use the phrase “scientific schlock” which then MIT Plasma Fusion Center Director, Prof. Ronald R. Parker used against Fleischmann and Pons’ work in 1989 (and later falsely denied using it, perhaps fearing legal action), aptly characterizes the methods used by certain MIT researchers against the new science of low energy nuclear reactions. It was not only data manipulation or “processing,” as Parker later would contend on the 1994 BBC and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation cold fusion documentary, “Too Close to the Sun,” but there was a whole range of dirty tricks, deceptions, and self-deceptions that MIT professors and senior officials employed against cold fusion. We have catalogued most of them; this report is lengthy, but it is not comprehensive. Still, we urge you to read this history and learn from it."

    "Some may say, “Why drag up the negative past, why not just emphasize the positive in the pages of this magazine?” To some degree that argument has merit, and we would like to be as positive as we can be. But we cannot ignore the reality that MIT’s reputation as a “bastion of skepticism” against cold fusion has had a devastating effect on the progress of scientific investigation. As an article in Infinite Energy Issue No. 11, revealed, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is using bogus conclusions from MIT investigators in 1989 to deny U.S. citizens their Constitutional rights to be granted patents on their intellectual property.

    "Moreover, even if the hot fusion program were to succeed in building a commercially viable central-station generator of electricity sometime in the year 2050 or beyond, the technology would have serious limitations. The energy from the hot fusion reaction of deuterium and radioactive tritium, which had to be supplied in bootstrap-fashion from the reaction, would emerge in the form of deadly neutron radiation (14 MeV neutrons). That would have to be transformed into more benign thermal energy in a hot jacket of molten lithium in order to heat water for steam-generated electricity. The practical engineering problems would be enormous, the technology would add more nuclear waste to the global inventory (though not as much as conventional fission power, or so claim the tokamak hot fusion advocates), and it was far from certain to be economically viable.
    In fact, in October 1983 MIT Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Lawrence M. Lidsky, published an article (“The Trouble with Fusion”) condemning the hot fusion program. It was a high-profile cover story for MIT’s Technology Review. The stark black and white cover of the issue read, “Even if the fusion program produces a reactor, no one will want it.”

    Then in mid-April 1989, Professor Peter L. Hagelstein, a laser and quantum physics
    expert in the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, went public with a theory of how cold fusion might be explained in terms of “coherent nuclear reactions.” Professor Keith H. Johnson of the MIT Dept. of Materials Science, another MIT luminary, with deep knowledge of palladium hydrides and superconductivity in his background, also put forth a theory that allowed nuclear reactions to occur in the
    Pons-Fleischmann cells. Unlike Hagelstein, who proposed pure nuclear reactions operating in a coherent fashion with a metal lattice, Johnson tried to explain the excess heat as a result of peculiar effects of so-called Jahn-Teller chemical bonding. I thought this was a wonderful honor for MIT, to have two open minded theorists approaching the Utah results with caution, but attempting to pose explanations for it if it could be confirmed. Others at MIT did not hold this view. The Hagelstein/Johnson work was almost immediately regarded with disdain—particularly by the plasma fusion people. So there were early-on two camps at MIT, one largely negative (but at that point generally restrained in its public comments), and another putting forth hope that the Utah discovery was no mistake and could be explained on theoretical grounds—much as Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger began to try to do at that time. (See Julian Schwinger’s talk on cold fusion, which he delivered at
    MIT in November 1991.)

    gbgoblenote - January 2, 1992 "Electrochemist Dr. Andrew Riley dies in cold fusion explosion at SRI International. Dr. Brian Ahern (an MIT graduate) tried to warn SRI of danger, but telephone call did not go through"-Mallove. -end gbgoblenote

    "Present MIT students as well as alumni should investigate this most unfortunate episode for themselves, and take action—for the well-being of MIT. There is no doubt in my mind that the MIT PFC calorimetry was mishandled and fraudulently misrepresented."

    gbgoblenote - In Eugene's review of MIT he includes the following:

    Letter by Julian Schwinger
    Re: Eugene Mallove’s Fire from Ice
    Letter of February 5, 1991 from physics Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger (Nobel Prize for physics in 1965, shared with Sin-Itiro Tomanaga and Richard P. Feynman “for their fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics, with deep-ploughing consequences for the physics of elementary particles”). This handwritten letter was sent to John Wiley & Sons, Inc., concerning the manuscript of Eugene Mallove’s book, Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor, which would soon be published in May 1991. [Note: Italics and square brackets have been added by E. Mallove.]

    Dear Judith McCarthy [John Wiley & Sons]:
    Thank you very much for sending me Mallove’s typescript. For almost two years, I have been muttering: “Someone has to write a book about this!” “This” is the bizarre story of cold fusion—its bizarre science, and its bizarre human behavior. The author of that book would need some familiarity with the relevant physics (atomic and nuclear), chemistry (electrolysis, at least), and should have had first-hand experience of some of the
    events and their participants. But, most of all, he must have a balanced view that incorporates an understanding of what the “scientific method” really means.
    I have just finished reading every word of 470 pages of typescript. (In modest proof thereof, I offer two ‘Typos. . .etc.) I enjoyed it very much. Eugene Mallove, in my book, is the right one to write about “the truth behind cold fusion.
    I have enclosed two recent articles of mine, one delivered the day before December 7 [1990], in Tokyo, the other a short supplement that has been submitted to a Japanese journal. Please send them on to E.M. (beyond MIT, I am unaware of his address) for his possible interest and, at least, amusement.

    I should also like to add, vis-a-vis his recognition of the absurdity of the Editorial note on p. 435, that its promise— ”duty to give him the opportunity to explain his ideas and present his case. . .” was a lie. Only the short introductory note, Part 1, was published. When Part 2 and the much more substantive Part B were submitted, they received the usual vituperative reviews and were rejected; they have never been published.

    gbgoblenote If one wants to understand the early science, or Lattice Confinement Fusion (see NASA GRC), there is no better place to start than the talk given by Julian Schwinger at MIT, included on page 19 of Eugene's review. Also note: With 2020 hindsight it's easy to disagree with Eugene on his final point made in this Intro, Perhaps Schwinger’s 1991 message at MIT was absorbed by quite a few MIT physicists and many other researchers elsewhere, many in government funded cold fusion research. - end gbgoblenote


    In Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger’s eloquent talk at MIT, he compared the possible theoretical foundation of cold fusion with that of the much more accepted but equally mysterious phenomenon, sonoluminescence. Julian Schwinger had resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) to protest its censorship of

    to protest its censorship of his theoretical work on cold fusion from APS publications. It was an honor for me to have become a good friend of Schwinger’s due to my involvement with cold fusion. His praise for my book,
    Fire from Ice, was a very great honor (see prior page). Unfortunately, Schwinger’s 1991 message at MIT was not absorbed by the assembled MIT physicists.—EFMallove

    "A Progress Report: Energy Transfer in Cold Fusion and Sonoluminescence"
    MIT presentation by Julian Schwinger, University of California
    Birthday celebrations are inevitably somewhat nostalgic. Appropriately, then, I found the cover title for this lecture in my own distant past. I first came to Berkeley on the day that World War II began. Not long after, Robert Oppenheimer gave a lecture—perhaps on cosmic ray physics—which he called “A Progress Report,” in the sense, he explained, that time had elapsed. A similar expression of modesty is in order here. I have no great discoveries to announce; only feelings, hypotheses, and programs.

    As Mort Sahl once proclaimed: The future lies ahead

    Incidentally, the other paper of mine cited on p. 551, Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis, which was published after more than a year’s delay, went first to PRL [Physical Review Letters]. Although I anticipated rejection, I was staggered by the heights (depths?) to which the calumny reached. My only recourse was to resign from the American Physical Society, (APS).

    You ask for “. . .a few words. . .” Perhaps they can be found above. If not, how about:
    Eugene Mallove has produced a sorely needed, accessible overview of the cold fusion muddle. By sweeping away stubbornly held preconceptions, he bares the truth implicit in a provocative variety of experiments.

    Yours, Julian Schwinger
    P.S. I am grateful for E.M. for quoting A.C.D. [Arthur Conan Doyle] on p. 216. I have long been conscious of that bit of Sherlock Holmes wisdom, but could not recall the particular story in which it appears. J.S.

    Project Camelot In Tribute Eugene Mallove

    From the site...

    The following was written by Dr Brian O'Leary, presented as a chapter in his most recent book The Energy Solution Revolution. Gene Mallove was a very close friend of Brian O'Leary and we are most grateful to Brian for his kind permission for this reprint of his work.

    Chapter 3. Eugene Mallove versus the Stuckness of Scientists

    More than any other source of breakthrough energy suppression, some of our most powerful scientists lead the way. The world looks up to these high priests of our culture for their yea-or-nay pronouncements of whether or not any innovative energy is possible. Their answer is almost always “no” without their even giving it a look. We are caught in the conundrum of credibility. Only a few of us with a scientific background have broken free of this kind of censorship, and can recognize the great promise of new energy research.

    Nobody knew and expressed this potential better than Dr. Eugene Mallove -- scientist, journalist, educator, visionary, humanitarian, friend. On May 14, 2004, he was murdered during an apparent robbery in the home of his parents. He had been in the prime of his career at age 56.

    This is a great loss, which is just beginning to sink in. So prolific were his writings, so passionate was his expression, so unique were his connections between the scientific community and the solution energy vision, he will be sorely missed. He is one of my heroes. It will be difficult for anyone to fill his shoes.

    As chief science writer for MIT in 1989, Mallove first got into the new energy game by investigating the controversial discovery of cold fusion by University of Utah chemists Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. As we saw in Chapter 1, his investigative reports on the attempts of MIT nuclear physicists with a vested interest in hot fusion research (consuming tens of billions of federal dollars) revealed that they fraudulently reported their inability to replicate the original Pons-Fleischmann experiments. Their "unadjusted" findings actually reinforce the truth of the discovery. The efforts of these scientists and other establishment researchers at major universities to discredit cold fusion, under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy, will be remembered as a sad lesson in scientific ethics.

    Risking everything, Gene Mallove resigned his position at MIT to reveal the truth about cold fusion regardless of ridicule and financial insecurity. He wrote the book Fire from Ice, which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. The facts revealed in that work led the great writer Arthur C. Clarke to conclude that the suppression of cold fusion was "one of the greatest scandals in the history of science."

    Mallove had been at it for fifteen productive years, before he was senselessly cut down, what a loss! His authoritative books, his numerous editorials and writings in the successful magazine Infinite Energy, his support of the work through the offices of his New Energy Foundation and New Energy Research Laboratory, his many media appearances, and the excellent video/DVD "Fire from Water" underline the boldness with which he struck out on his mission, fearless about threats to his career which otherwise would have been secure. He stood alone in organizing and supporting the cold fusion scientists, which has grown into a community of several hundred researchers, many of whom came from prestigious institutions, meeting annually and publishing in the best peer-reviewed scientific journals. Against all odds, cold fusion has become a viable science with great potential because of the tireless and selfless efforts of this one man. He was a giant.

    To underline my remarks, just visit the web site In my 2003 book Re-Inheriting the Earth, published before his death, the index shows more pages of citation to Mallove's work (nine) than that of any other individual. He was very grounded and did not venture into consciousness science as I had done. This made him all the more credible. He never succumbed to the pseudo-scientific claims of new age pundits and acted as a responsible scientist throughout. He didn't play favorites but looked at all viable alternatives with intellectual honesty, yet still from a Western scientific point of view.

    His standards were always very high. He did not buy into fads and politics. His rigor could be very disarming to those toeing the line of the establishment and was an inspiration to all fellow heretics. I not only stand in awe of his achievements, I miss the opportunity to team with him and others to raise the credibility of new energy research and development.

    He had also proposed to the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 the establishment of an Office for Unconventional Energy within the Department of Energy (DOE). During a candidates' panel he orally presented the idea and three of the candidates endorsed it. We can largely thank Gene that the DOE began reviewing the cold fusion concept, something that would have been unthinkable during the past fifteen years.

    His “Universal Appeal for New Energy” is posted on Google and on many websites. Please read it. Its articulate expression is unmatched in our quest to give this research a chance. He has been the standard-setter of our work, providing a foundation for understanding the scientific principles and nomenclature for the most promising concepts and categories.

    His grasp of historical analogues such as the development of aviation, relativity, quantum physics, the Copernican revolution and the Enlightenment, as reported in Infinite Energy, are inspiring and prolific. His writings provide a deep and insightful understanding of the historical patterns of scientific progress and censorship that we now face in new energy research. I humbly defer to Mallove’s writings and to the brilliant classic book by Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, about how mainstream scientists in any culture can be blind to new paradigms of discovery.

    When it comes to changing worldviews, the scientists, alongside vested government, industry, media and intellectual discourse can become the guardians to the gates of outmoded thinking. More than anyone, Mallove gives this cultural aberration, applied to new energy breakthroughs, fresh insight that will endure for a very long time, particularly as the developments much too slowly unfold—sometimes in direct contradiction even to the thinking of progressives and environmentalists, who are imprisoned in scarcity consciousness.

    The tragedy of Eugene Mallove all the more inspires us to advance our mutual cause. We must get the word out as quickly and widely as possible. Most of us in the field believe that this murder was an assassination: he was one of many of those pioneers who could make the greatest difference. This mandates that, through strength in quality and numbers, the teams now forming will ensure that the work will carry on regardless of the personal fates of pioneers such as Gene. A full investigation of the murder, still pending, will hopefully shed light on its true motive.

    Novelist Mignon McCarthy said, "Each society honors its live conformists and dead troublemakers." I believe that the world will remember Dr. Mallove as one of the greatest scientific pioneers of history, a Galileo of our time.

    In later chapters, we’ll look more deeply into how to overcome the stubbornness of those who call themselves “scientists” who refuse to look at new phenomena that appear to violate their own precepts of reality. The scientists, as we shall see, can be allies or adversaries in our quest. For example, the climate scientists and leading environmentalists have helped us create a challenging new mandate to keep carbon in the ground. This is good. But most physicists still resist the notion of free energy, even though the evidence is overwhelming. They too are of the no-free-lunch school. We shall have to bring more and more scientists, environmentalists and progressives on-board.

    Dr Brian O'Leary - Vilcabamba, Ecuador - 2008

  • While reading I could not help wondering if the field has progressed any since the days of Malove, and CF Magazine? Lots of promising developments back then, as there are now.

    If you stripped away the dates, it would be hard to tell which era you were reading from. The experiments, and results were basically the same. The theory of whether it is some type if nuclear effect, or chemical is still up for debate. Hardly anything has changed it seems.

    You could even make the argument that because of Mallove's talented writing skills, Nobel winner Schwinger running interference with mainstream science , and FP's still active in the lab, that era was more if they were on the cusp of THE breakthrough.

  • Often the breakthrough is when that fleeting glimpse of the unknown brings us to the dawning of a new art of science and is akin to the 'cusp of dawn' when the suns first ray pierces the horizon. The sun has risen past that horizon and the crack of dawn, the day is here. I'm pretty excited about recent disclosures. I foresee many more

    Hmmm... Yes, The esteemed Schwinger running interference included when his "only recourse was to resign from the American Physical Society, (APS)". Extreme. Much of Mallove's talented writing skills, energy and legacy is seen in his, well thought out and documented resignation from MIT. Extreme. Lot's of painful developments for Eugene, others as well. A long time friend of mine,, DaVid, was Eugene's roommate at MIT and had long talks with him and his wife during these troubling and difficult life changing times. He was expecting their arrival for their yearly visit to Marin the week Eugene died. Much of my insight comes from what he shared with me after learning of my Guam expose.

    Julian Schwinger provided much needed theory to guide experiments in 1990. A Nuclear and Atomic effect as he put it, or as put here and at ECat World, an electro-atomic, or ultra dense, lattice confinement effect tapping into binding and perhaps other energies including chemical. A multi body 'nuclear' effect accessed through chemical means. I see his works in emergent advanced tech, his thoughts presented were followed. We are much further advanced in theory now.

    As to theory, this is from a delightful conversation tentatively initiated by me at the Linked in Quantum Physics group in 2014. I learned a lot and was bolstered by these kind intelligent open-minded folks. The participants were good enough to give me permission to post it Of course I'm the layman in the conversation.

    The importance and usefulness of the existence of multiple and various theories...

    Chris Multi-Disciplinary Generalist at Minding My Business


    OK, long story short and cut to the chase.

    Pathological Disbelief: When any model is accepted part and parcel as "The Truth" , we do not have Scientists, but "True Believers".

    The Skepticism required by the Scientific Method is meant to apply to all models, those proposed and those both offered and accepted in the past; and, especially, of our very own. This last ensures better offered models.

    There are about 35 models contributing to comprehending nuclear behaviour. That they are all variously successful indicates that threshing for commonalities is paramount. It also allows that we just don't know it all.'


    Chris Multi-Disciplinary Generalist at Minding My Business


    I offer my own consideration of matter and energy, regarding the states of matter, as a contribution towards some better comprehension of the "Cold fusion" phenomenon and to address Pathological Disbelief and its deep in the rut thinking.

    There is electronic chemistry and nuclear chemistry. We have Inoganic and Oganic Chemistry. We have Electrochemistry and Biochemestry. These are all electronic chemistry. We consider temperature as a contributing factor.

    However, it is generally considered that nuclear chemistry entirely disregards temperature.

    LENR Conversation between a Researcher, Chemist, Astronomer, Quantum Theorist, Student, and a Layman…chemist-astron-1681637829

    Prologue to the Conversation as posted at the LinkedIn Quantum Physics Group

    "Nobel laureate Brian Josephson has many many reasons to be saying 'I told you so' to the mainstream scientific community in regards to cold fusion research and the rewards of LENR energy. Anyone who he says it to owes him an apology. After all, he discovered the Josephson Effect and realized the possibility of 'cold fusion' from the beginning. He must be smarter and more open minded than most.

    In 1970, a Cambridge professor wrote his recollection of traveling to Kyoto to accept the London Prize on behalf of his former student. His Physics Today article puts things in perspective and is a delightful read. "Pathological Disbelief" presents Brian Josephson's position."

    -end quote.... from the Prologue to the Conversation.

    "About Eight Years ago a 22-year-old Student Showed his Professor Some Calculations on Quantum Tunneling. Now this Professor Tells Us how Josephson Discovered his Effect" by Philip W. Anderson, Physics Today, 1970

    "Pathological Disbelief" by Brian D. Josephson, Nobel Laureates' meeting, Lindau 2004

    Epilogue to the Conversation

    Thanks everyone. This has been a valuable conversation about Brian Josephson's thoughts on science and pathological disbelief. I appreciate each of your contributions, solid perspectives, and information shared, i.e. the love of learning.

    Perhaps it would be OK with everyone engaged in the conversation here if I write an article of our discussion and publish it where it's accessible to others interested in this discourse.

  • Project Camelot In Tribute Eugene Mallove

    From the site...

    The following was written by Dr Brian O'Leary, presented as a chapter in his most recent book The Energy Solution Revolution. Gene Mallove was a very close friend of Brian O'Leary and we are most grateful to Brian for his kind permission for this reprint of his work.

    Hi there Greg. Thank you so much for weaving all these disparate narrative threads together - a great piece of investigative science journalism. For those interested in Brian O'Leary's book there's a link below. Sadly the link on the Project Camelot is no longer active.…5&creativeASIN=0979917646

  • I'll get back on track with this thread over the next few days. Meanwhile since it's a Sunday...

    My pleasure and thanks for the compliment. Many of my leads are happenstance; I knew DaVid for decades and had been writing cold fusion articles for four years or so when, while writing the Guam series, I called, scheduled a visit for the next day without telling him the subject matter.. When I began to present everything I knew about cold fusion he asked how I knew he was close to Eugene, sharing that he was often his confidant during those years, and sorely missed him. He often consoled Eugene telling him the 'stars/planets' weren't yet right, give it two or three more decades. Also that his stance, actions, and works wouldn't be in vain. I think Eugene knew that deep within, hence he engaged his warrior spirit to right an injustice, in an honorable manner.

    Sunday insight... Imagine Eugene rooming with DaVid during the first four formative years of higher learning at MIT. To the level that I know each of them, Each contributed to each others make-up likely having very interesting conversations, sometimes till day's first light'. These continued throughout their long friendship.

    DaVid is a bit more 'lit-up' than I am...

    For a bit of of his talking points and projects review


    1979: Alcatraz Conversion Project:

    1978: Produced "The Evolution of the Mandala" - a multi-media presentation documenting the evolution of consciousness .

    1978:The San Francisco Medical Research Foundation produced the first New Age Music Catalogue

    1977: Founded The San Francisco Medical Research Foundation, a (501C-3) Wholistic Health Corporation.





    To Convert "The Rock" (Alcatraz Island) Into

    The Global Peace Center

    An integrative vision of synthesis, consciously conjoins science, art, religion, and philosophy to create a sacred space, a meeting of the ways, a common ground where all people may come to by inspired in the ways of Peace, Beauty, Harmony, Creativity and Fun...

    Majestic in its simplicity, revolutionary as a political metaphor. The Global Peace Center proclaims Global Renaissance! A New Epoch!... A Time Of Enduring Peace For All Humanity...

    San Francisco, the "Geneva of the West" and a major center for the rapidly emerging Pacific Rim nations, is ideally suited for this project...

    By converting what was once a place of pain and suffering into a "Jewel Of Light, " we will unleash powerful forces for cooperation, reconciliation, and healing...

    The central structure will be The Harmonium. An architecturally advanced ArtainmentE media facility of Laser Light, holographic sound, and fragrance. The HarmoniumE will feature advanced multi-media technologies, making The HarmoniumE the most technologically and aesthetically sophisticated multi-media facility in existence...

    Historically, this special island belongs to the Native American People. A former federal penitentiary, Alcatraz is currently administered by the Department of the Interior. Through a political process, be it an initiative, an act of Congress, or direct purchase of the island, we have the means and opportunity to free Alcatraz and ourselves of its sad and dismal history...




    DaVid, M.D.
    The Global Peace Foundation
    20 Sunnyside Avenue, Suite A-156
    Mill Valley, CA 94941
    (415) 381-2644 l Fax (415) 381-2645

    Copyright © The Light Party

  • I would like to learn more about Fred Mayer's 1991 seminar.

    Eugene Mallove’s Letter to Dr. Stanley Luckhardt
    April 29, 1991
    My written request to Dr. Luckhardt for clarification and other data was rebuffed.—EFM
    Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D., Chief Science Writer, MIT News Office, Room 5-111, Lecturer in Science Journalism, Department of Humanities
    Dr. Stanley C. Luckhardt
    Room 36-293

    Dear Stan:

    Glad that you were able to come to Dr. Fred Mayer’s [cold fusion] seminar last week and ask some good questions. It’s nice to have an alternate theory to compare with Peter’s [Hagelstein’s] ideas.

    I have been meaning to submit a short note to the Journal of Fusion Energy, a comment of sorts about the MIT experiments in the spring of 1989 and where they fit into the big picture. I would mainly be addressing the calorimetry issue and in that regard would want to refer to both your perspective and to that of Dr. Noninski. I realize that there are two pieces of information that it would be helpful, though not essential, for me to have: (A) The precision and assumed accuracy of each of the measuring devices (current, voltage, and temperature) and (B) The plot of the heater power versus time for the light water comparison cell run that corresponds to the D2O heater power plot presented in the PFC report.

    Thanks in advance for your help, and I look forward to sharing with you some of my ideas, once I get them on paper.

    Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove

    Reading up on this might help (1992)... not sure yet.…nt%22&printsec=frontcover

  • Congratulations Shane D. !!

    What a flash of lucidity. I don't mind criticizing Rossi and often rightly so, but isn't he the very cozy tree that hides the Void Forest ?

    Where are Kws promised by the rest of Lenr field ???

    We will start with the old guard, drowned since 1989 ??

    I read everything carefully, and it left me wondering why Frederick Mayer? He seems interesting, but there are so many stories like him in LENR. Maybe if you explain, we can better understand where you are trying to take us.

    Good reading nonetheless. You have a nose for a story...curious what that story is in this case.

  • Bringing this thread back on topic...

    Who holds A Priori in commercial development of LENR energy?

    Those denied publication do.

    Or those whose works were killed off in the 'cold fusion" patent/denial/firewall do.

    Or whose works were thwarted by process of government 'take the ball and run with it' in the (well-founded IMHO) interest of national security do. (complex history of DOD DOE NASA etc...)

    Many and various types of high power density low energy nuclear reaction methods exist and many more are possible.

    The low energy nuclear reactive environment is perhaps a complex Mandelbrot Set. Dennis Bushnell, at times, says it is a "fractal phenomenon" without explaining why, I've often wondered what Mandelbrot would have to say about that. I'm also setting some Mandelbrot Tiles in a remodeling job...

    Along this line of thinking, I reason that the purest essence of anything is actually an amalgamate... always. Difficult to see the logic in it for sure.

    Pure Amalgamate

    When reading the recent paper by Leif Holmlid and Sindre Zeiner-Gundersen my mind wandered back to this supposition of mine.

    From their paper:

    "Nuclear processes give relativistic particles (kaons, pions and muons) by laser-induced annihilation-like processes in ultra-dense hydrogen H(0). The kinetic energy of the mesons is 1300 times larger than the energy of the laser pulse. This method is superior to the laser-sail method by several orders of magnitude and is suitable for large spaceships".

    In this supposition of mine, each of the relativistic particles released in these nuclear/atomic processes is an amalgamate.

    Benoit Mandelbrot would be 96 today.

    American-French-Polish mathematician

    Benoit B. Mandelbrot was a Polish-born French-American mathematician and polymath with broad interests in the practical sciences, especially regarding what he labeled as "the art of roughness" of physical phenomena and "the uncontrolled element in life".

    Benoit Mandelbrot/Quotes

    My fate has been that what I undertook was fully understood only after the fact.

    I was in an industrial laboratory because academia found me unsuitable.

    Most were beginning to feel they had learned enough to last for the rest of their lives. They remained mathematicians, but largely went their own way.

    I don't seek power and do not run around.

    For much of my life there was no place where the things I wanted to investigate were of interest to anyone.

    An extraordinary amount of arrogance is present in any claim of having been the first in inventing something.

    Nobody will deny that there is at least some roughness everywhere.

    Now that I near 80, I realize with wistful pleasure that on many occasions I was 10, 20, 40, even 50 years ahead of my time.

    Mandelbrot Tiles…263e3b893ad08d1086756.jpg

    Time to read his book again... It's been so long I've forgotten most of it, Maybe I'll glean a bit more from it now.

    "The (Mis)Behaviour of Markets: A Fractal View of Risk, Ruin and Reward" by Benoit Mandelbrot

    Discussing this with a friend a few days ago... somehow dug this out of their memory, found its source and just sent it to me. Suggested I read up on it, which I will when the used copy I bought arrives.

    From Chapter 1:

    The Apprenticeship of an Empirical Skeptic


    "Benoît Mandelbrot, who had a similar experience at about the same age, though close to four decades earlier, remembers his own war episode as long stretches of painful boredom punctuated by brief moments of extreme fear." Nassim Nicholas Taleb

    (see page 12 footnote) in the 2007 book titled "The Black Swan: The impact of the highly improbable" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb