November 10, 2007
By Steven B. Krivit

Part 1: What Worked; What Didn't

Introduction
I initiated the Galileo Project as a New Energy Institute program in July 2006 in response to the claims of a remarkable experiment developed, performed and published by the San Diego SPAWAR Systems Center group. We first reported the details of this experiment in the Nov. 10, 2006, issue of New Energy Times.

I named the project in memory of Galileo Galilei and in honor of the pioneering spirit of all the condensed matter nuclear science researchers who have had the courage to "look through the telescope" at unconventional science.

For 17 years, people had been arguing about whether LENR is a legitimate new science or just pseudoscience. Other significant questions hung in the balance: Were Fleischmann and Pons really the fools that their critics, and some people in the media, made them out to be? Were the science authorities who pontificated with absolute certainty about Fleischmann and Pons' alleged folly right or wrong?

Many people have had a dog in this fight now for 18 years. As far as I can tell, though, none of the former opponents now seems to be as confident that "cold fusion" is entirely bogus.

At the end of this debate, assuming that time will come, there may be no wrong or right side. A genuine novel nuclear phenomenon may have been discovered by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, just not the one they were expecting to find. Christopher Columbus' "discovery" of a shortcut to the East, for example, didn't turn out so bad.

Over the years, various reasons that "cold fusion" was a mistake, a fraud, or a self-delusion have surfaced. Doubting skeptics came up with one reason after another to dismiss and disregard the entire phenomenon. When the "cold fusion" researchers responded to each objection successfully, the doubters raised more objections.

A few examples:

"They failed to stir their cells, so the temperature gradient was misinterpreted."
"There are no neutrons."
"There is no nuclear ash."
"There is no nuclear ash produced at the same time as the heat is produced."
"Heat measurements are all worthless; only nuclear ash is satisfactory evidence."
"There is no nuclear ash in the correct amounts and time correlated with the heat."

The neutron objection had an entertaining variation that was bantered about: "There are no dead graduate students."

This referred to the fact that graduate students would be spending a lot of time doing the grunt work in the lab. If the reaction was truly fusion, as we understood fusion, the emissions should have killed the graduate students.

When I began my full-time investigation of this field in 2003, I was surprised to find that the former outspoken prominent opponents had paid so little attention to the field. It was the Rip Van Winkle effect. While they were "sleeping," 10 or 15 years passed, and all of a sudden the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science community had widespread data sets that were very difficult to argue with.

Inevitably, it seemed, as I placed some of this data before the former opponents, like IBM's Richard Garwin, they objected.

"But it's not reproducible and, therefore, still not worthy of recognition as a valid scientific phenomena," they said, and they continued to ignore it.

When the researchers at SPAWAR said they now had an experiment that was 100 percent repeatable (in their own lab) and allegedly reproducible (in others' labs), my ears perked up.

I told the SPAWAR researchers, "Let's see."

The Claims
We wrote up the news of the SPAWAR experiment and announced the Galileo Project publicly in issue #19 of New Energy Times, exactly one year ago.

In that issue, we wrote that the "SPAWAR San Diego experiment was the first of its kind in the 17-year history of LENR: simple, portable, highly repeatable, unambiguous and permanent physical evidence of nuclear events." 

A year later, with the Galileo Project mostly behind us, we can review these bold statements with perspective.

Was the SPAWAR co-deposition experiment simple? Yes and no. The experiment was relatively simple to perform. The data analysis, however, was not.

Were the results unambiguous? No, not at all.

Did the experiments produce portable and permanent evidence? Yes.

Was the experiment highly repeatable? Yes, it appears to be highly repeatable as well as highly reproducible.

Replication Guidance
When I started the project, I put some thought into the delicate and complicated philosophical issues of replication.

I had studied, in great detail, the history of the Fleischmann and Pons episode and how the majority of replication attempts in 1989 ended up in a mess. From Fleischmann and Pons, I learned the many things one can do to hinder successful replication.

I also had been watching closely the bubble fusion controversy, centered around Purdue physicist Rusi Taleyarkhan and the so-called independent replication performed by his students. From Taleyarkhan, I learned how not to attempt a replication.

I learned of Harry M. Collins, recognized by Nature as one of the world's authorities on the subject of scientific replication. I contacted him to get some insights. He directed me to his book, "Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice" (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1992).

The book was illuminating and helpful; however, it had some gaps, for my purposes. One was the lack of criteria for independence of scientific replications. I drafted criteria and presented them to him for comment. He found my criteria to be logical and useful, and with that assurance, I applied the criteria as a guide in the management of the Galileo Project.

Collins also provided detailed examples of the possible pitfalls in the transfer of knowledge, or lack thereof, within scientific replication attempts. From this, I derived and distilled several parameters that also aided me as a reference guide in the Galileo Project.

Structure
In structuring the project, I borrowed a deployment model used in the computer software development business.

The last thing that a software developer wants to see is a buggy release of new code. Developers form a small, highly controlled - and closely supported - group of test users within the company to test new code. They call this the alpha test group. If bugs are found, the code goes back to the developers for repair.

If the code works, it is released to the next group, the beta testers. This group is broader and exposes the code to a wider set of conditions and challenges. The beta group is expected to provide feedback to the developers; they work in concert to improve the software. Once the code succeeds with the beta group, it is released to the public.

The first two groups to respond to my initial search for replication volunteers were one led by Winthrop Williams at U.C. Berkeley and one led by Francis Tanzella at SRI International. They became the alpha groups.

I made a second call for volunteers in the Nov. 10, 2006, issue of New Energy Times, and six more teams soon responded. Other individuals responded later, but I had to decline their offers in order to keep the size manageable.

With the eight teams - six in the U.S., one in the Netherlands, one in India - plus three advisers that I requested to provide oversight, the project started out with 34 people.

Months later, when I was satisfied with what the alphas and betas had accomplished, I updated the protocol based on what I learned from the betas and released the version 5.0 protocol to a third group: the general public. However, New Energy Institute has no involvement with and is not tracking the progress of research in this group.

Galileo Project Team Reports
Galileo Project results have been presented to the scientific community by teams from the following affiliations:

JWK Technologies/SPAWAR (originators)
Montclair State University
University of California, Berkeley
SRI International
University of California, San Diego

The team in India, although eager to participate, experienced logistical problems that prevented it from starting experiments before this portion of the project ended in February. I am not aware of reports to the scientific community from two teams in the U.S. and one team in the Netherlands.

One of these teams in the U.S. has self-published its results on a Web site; however, the lessons of "science by press release," fax transmission and e-mail distributions from 1989 are not so easily forgotten. New Energy Times will not participate in derailments of scientific etiquette; we will attend only to reports given and/or presented in science conferences and journals.

I was warned that the project was an attempt at the impossible, that it was like herding cats, that researchers would never agree to follow a fixed protocol, that they would always want to innovate and to "improve" a given experiment with their own ideas.

I am happy to say that all but one group initially followed the protocol precisely and that, despite some friction within the groups, the project has been successful. Additionally, I am aware that some journal papers are in progress, though, as is typical of scientific publication, many months or even years may pass before we see the papers in journals.

Project Management
I set out, as my primary responsibility, to facilitate group communication. I tried to keep as much distance and independence as possible so that I wouldn’t influence specific results.

My involvement centered around three areas:

1. Development of the lab protocol.
2. Facilitation of an Internet discussion list for team members.
3. Facilitation of telephone science conferences for the teams.

The original protocol I received from Pamela Mosier-Boss at SPAWAR was a two-page text document with a few photographs sent as e-mail attachments.

I observed Williams in his laboratory while he ran through an entire experiment, from start to finish, in order to gain sufficient familiarity with the process. I worked with Mosier-Boss, Williams and Tanzella to expand the protocol to an explicit, step-by-step set of instructions with integrated photos, diagrams, materials and source list, electrical schematic, totaling 35 pages. I also produced a quick-and-dirty video tutorial on the assembly instructions of the cell.

Human Issues
Based on a limited set of prerequisites I had understood from Mosier-Boss, I offered the project to a wide range of participants. I specified that the "experiment should be suitable for science students from the undergraduate level up."

This was a less-than-optimal choice. I found out, and Mosier-Boss was reminded, that electrochemistry is a delicate art and potentially confusing to people who have never performed an electrodeposition experiment before.

The lack of electrochemistry experience, within an experiment at the boundary of known science, confused some of the participants.

The phrase "skilled in the art" articulated an important concept.

A Variety of Objectives
The stated objective of the project was to "perform a close replication of the SPAWAR experiment, keeping as close as possible to the original parameters."

The replication of the SPAWAR results came relatively quickly. The group appeared to accept, by mid-January, that replicating the SPAWAR results was easy.

Some members of the group began to ask questions about the characterization of the results. The main question was, How can we truly know that the "pits" are "tracks" from real nuclear events?

This was, and still is, a good question. At the time, however, only one person involved in the project responded to the question with an adequate, though not ideal, analytical method.

Most of the participants presented various ways to optically and subjectively assess the results. As I will discuss later, this is a weak approach. 

The group became polarized. Some people went looking for stronger ways to confirm the nuclear characteristics of the results. Others went looking for better ways to disconfirm the nuclear claims.

The distinction is subtle but critical. Author Charles Beaudette once explained this to me by way of a personal anecdote about scientific skepticism.

Just as Beaudette described, some of the people in the project began to propose hypothetical speculative explanations, and this resulted in a diversion.

We became distracted and failed - at the time - to focus on steps that would lead to confirmation. In particular, we all failed to distinguish between two-dimensional track analysis and three-dimensional track analysis. More on this later.

As Beaudette indicates, considering known ordinary explanations is entirely appropriate. Speculating on fantasies and untested theories is another thing. The collapse of this distinction let to a fair amount of fear, uncertainty and doubt, often referred to as FUD in the world of marketing.

We cannot ignore the significance of the FUD factor. Which scientist can afford the possible challenge to his or her reputation and stand before the world and claim evidence for "cold fusion"? The stakes and risks are high.

One participant in the project has been reprimanded by his employer for his participation in "inappropriate research."

Furthermore, he has been denied access to required laboratory equipment needed to do further LENR research. He also has been prohibited by his employer from being an author on a forthcoming Galileo Project paper that has been accepted for publication in a major journal.

As much as I would love to suggest that a paradigm-breaking experiment should be open to anyone who may want to try it, true believer or true skeptic, and despite the almost certain protests of advocates for complete scientific openness, I now conclude that this is a bad idea. Too many people have too many agendas, and the harm from the FUD that they can create is not worth it.

Exploratory projects such as these should be limited to people who are clear stakeholders in a positive outcome of the experiment, people who truly want it to succeed.

Who is a stakeholder? Look at a candidate's track record to see whether the person has a clear interest in a positive outcome. Has the person ever made novel experiments or only attempted to "validate" those of others? Has the person ever published a paper claiming positive results? Has the person put his or her reputation on the line in support of positive results? 

Once a replication project becomes child's play to people who are skilled in the art and who are stakeholders, then and only then should the gauntlet be thrown down to invite anybody to challenge the experiment.

Communication Tools
Early in the project, I set up an Internet-based discussion list for the members of the project to discuss all aspects of the project. This worked fine until the first results began to come in.

I found that, when most of the researchers attempted to describe their experiments and results in an informal manner, they were much less effective communicators than when they wrote papers. Most of them described their work poorly and incompletely through e-mails.

Several other factors contributed to the failure of this tool for the presentation of results.

Because the researchers often presented the results without a full and complete explanation of the experiment, as they normally would do with a formal paper, they sent to the list crucial information in pieces, particularly after someone asked a question about an ambiguity.

Inevitably, what would have been a distinct, discrete science paper, poster or presentation was disseminated through a series of separate e-mail messages and over a period of several days.

Sometimes, the threading of the messages retained coherence; more often, it didn't. Tracking and comprehension fell apart.

Additionally, accountability was lacking. Something significant happens when a scientist puts his or her name on a paper or stands in front of an audience and makes a claim or challenges another's claim.

When such claims or challenges take place through the informality of e-mails, the bar for the caliber and the rigor of discussion seems to be much lower. There is a lot more noise and not so much signal.

Discussions that lack rigor have no place in high-stakes or highly disputed science claims. When I saw the developing chaos, I said there has to be a better way to share results.

Telephone Science Conferences
I initiated a hybrid of sorts. With the assistance of one of the group members, I developed a plan to present results to the group in telephone conference calls.

The cash outlay for this technology was trivial; setup took just a few minutes.

The protocol for this series of telephone science conference worked as follows:

• We scheduled several 90-minute calls, one per week.
• Participants were instructed to submit their results in writing, as a full and complete report. Standard science paper format or slide presentation format was acceptable.
• Authors sent their draft to me first, and I read through it and make sure there were no apparent ambiguities. I was not evaluating or judging content. If I saw any ambiguities, I sent the draft back to the author with a request to clarify. If I saw no ambiguities, I scheduled the author for a "presentation" during the conference call. Authors with "accepted" papers were added to the queue on a first-come, first-served basis. 
• The calls were set up with four 20-minute periods. The first half of each period was for the author to provide any related aspect of the work orally. I encouraged this because I found that some things can be expressed more effectively orally. The second half of the period was for questions and answers. We expected group members to have read the papers ahead of time, so the author was not expected to give the entire paper in the oral session.
• If a session was full - that is, had four accepted papers - then the extra papers would be first for the next week's conference call.

In my opinion - biased, of course - this new strategy of telephone science conferences worked splendidly. Many of the presentations given at the APS meeting in March 2007 and at the "Anomalies" conference in October 2007 came directly out of presentations made within the Galileo Project group in January and February.

In addition to the low-cost and quick setup, we were able to take advantage of the much wider bandwidth of voice communication as compared with e-mail. We were able to have discussions in real time using the old-fashioned Alexander Graham Bell technology. This provided a more level playing field among the participants in the group; not everybody had equal skill with and time for the e-mail discussion list. The papers also provided a discrete, historical record, as did the recorded conference calls.

Only one group declined to participate in the telephone science conferences. It provided two reasons for not participating. The first was a schedule conflict, which was odd, because the group had worked with me to develop the conference schedule.

When I asked the group a second time, a week later, to participate, pending a schedule change of the conferences, it declined again, stating only that it preferred the e-mail list for the presentation of results.

This group also has chosen to publish results on the Web rather than in a science paper or conference and initially rushed to start replication without waiting to receive the lab protocol.

Interpretation Challenges
When apparently positive results came in quickly, even from the most skeptical of the groups, interpretation of the results became a major point of contention.

This was and remains the biggest issue with the project, though it could not have been foreseen.

CR-39 is not designed for immersion into an electrolytic solution; it is used in nuclear physics in air or in vacuum. No textbook explains what to expect from the use of CR-39 in an electrolyte.

No expert can tell you what to expect when you load deuterium into palladium in a LENR cell. Does it produce alphas? Protons? Neutrons? If so, in what energies? At what concentrations? In what ratios? Or none of the above?

Materials Assumption
When the two alpha teams started, we assumed that all CR-39 was created equal and that manufacturer, source and lot were of no consequence. Big mistake.

In a way, it was reminiscent of the Johnson-Matthey palladium used by Fleischmann and Pons; however, that brand yielded positive results.

In the Galileo project, we learned the hard way that only the Landauer/Fukuvi CR-39 chips gave good results.

We discovered that the TASL chips consistently produced major fogging that covered the entire surface, edge to edge, of those chips. Williams at UC Berkeley was the first to report this. Not until Tanzella, at SRI - who obtained chips from the same source as Williams - got the identical result did we suspect what the problem was.

After learning of the first result at Berkeley and the second at SRI International, I went back to Mosier-Boss and asked her what brand of CR-39 she used.

"Landauer/Fukuvi," she told me.

I asked her whether she had ever tried the experiments with TASL chips.

"No," she replied.

The next day, Landauer/Fukuvi chips were on the way from SPAWAR to Williams and Tanzella.
 
As soon as they ran their first experiments with the Landauer/Fukuvi chips, they got much cleaner results, a night-and-day difference between the two brands.

Chemical Attack
But three weeks passed before the alpha groups obtained their first results with the Landauer/Fukuvi chips. The beta groups were involved at that time, and one of the team members pointed to the TASL effect and stated, unequivocally, that this proved that there was no nuclear effect from the SPAWAR experiment.

He claimed, apparently unaware of the photographic evidence that showed otherwise, that the TASL result was no different from the Landauer/Fukuvi result.

And he proclaimed that he knew the origin of all of the tracklike pits seen in the  SPAWAR experiments. He stated that a chlorine and oxygen reaction was entirely responsible for the effects and that he was certain that none of the SPAWAR effects was indeed nuclear.

This was all rather surprising to hear because his attitude did not seem to reflect the stated objective of the project, to which he had agreed.

This placed the group in a rather odd situation. The researcher presenting the chlorine/oxygen explanation was offering not much more than a speculation. And his speculation certainly did not explain many of the optical characteristics visible in the SPAWAR chips, though it did offer a possible explanation for some of the surface artifacts.

A motto in science says that the burden of proof is on the claimant. This does not mean that skeptics - no matter how prominent they may be - have the right to trample claimants with wild speculations and demand acceptance for their point of view. Alas, some of this drama occurred within the group.

Rather than debate the validity, or lack thereof, of the chlorine/oxygen theory, SPAWAR researchers, to borrow a metaphor, surrounded by the snapping teeth of alligators, drained the swamp.

They took their CR-39 chips out of the electrolyte, which I called a "wet" configuration, and placed them outside the cell, isolated from the chemistry by a thin membrane, and resumed further experiments in this configuration. I called this a "dry" configuration. The SPAWAR team initially used a transparency film, of the kind used in the ancient overhead projectors, to isolate their CR-39 chip.

Other teams in the project shifted to dry experiments, as well, using 6-micron Mylar. SPAWAR soon shifted to this material.

The upside to switching to a dry experiment was that it stopped the debate about chemical attack on the CR-39. The downside was that the Mylar barrier more or less killed the chances for most alpha emissions to permeate the membrane. Most alpha emissions can be stopped by a thin piece of paper.

SPAWAR researchers estimate that 90 percent of the signal dropped after placing the Mylar filter in front of the CR-39. Researchers who lacked high-resolution optical microscopes or automated scanners subsequently saw almost nothing. Some of them seemed to believe that the lack of signal proved that the effect was entirely chemical, and that, more or less, ended their interest in the project.

The good news is that, because the data are permanently recorded on a solid-state detector, many of these chips performed early on in the wet configurations can be submitted for rigorous analysis. More on this later.

Information Bottleneck
One of the other challenges that occurred was a problem in the flow of information from the originators to the replicators. This came to a head in early February when the group was doing a fair amount of arguing about pits versus tracks.

The SPAWAR team knew about the data, presumably tracks, seen on the backside of the CR-39 chips from its own experiments. The SPAWAR team members had seen this effect months earlier. They had told me about the backside tracks in January, but they delayed sharing this information with the rest of the group. As I understand, they were uncertain about potential national security issues as well as safety issues.

The clear implication was that neutrons were being produced, and, if strong enough and if present in high enough concentrations, the neutrons could be used by bad people to make bad materials.

The information about the apparent neutron emissions could have resolved the question of nuclear reactions quickly within the group, but SPAWAR did not release this information during this phase of the project.
 
By the end of February, the first phase of the project had gone as far as it could, and I shut it down - against the protests of some participants who wanted to continue the discussions and debate.

The next step was for participants to report their findings and conclusions to the science community.

Williams presented his preliminary findings and was not able to offer any conclusions; the data was too ambiguous.

Kowalski stated that his results showed no possible sign of alpha, proton or neutron signal. More on that in Part 2 of this report.

Forsley, working with the SPAWAR team, alluded to possible neutron effects in his March APS presentation. He also began to show the spatially correlated tracks on the front and backsides of the CR-39 chips, possible only by proton recoil effects from neutron emissions.

The matter of neutron emissions was a fundamental aspect of the argument against the acceptance of "cold fusion" back in the early days of the debate. A fusion reaction should have killed Fleischmann and Pons from the neutron emissions if they were really producing fusion. Well, they didn't die. Nor has anyone else died or even reported harm from any LENR-produced emission, though a few explosions reported here and there have injured experimenters, one mortally.

Suggesting that neutron emissions are a key piece of evidence for LENR could cause confusion. The neutrons in these experiments seem to have very low energies and/or low fluxes, which would explain why nobody has been killed from radiation in the 18-year history of “cold fusion.” This also explains why detecting neutrons without constantly integrating detectors, such as solid-state nuclear track detectors, may have been difficult in the past.

Another communication gap occurred over the choice of cathode wire used.

When Mosier-Boss told me that the replication teams could use silver, gold or platinum wires for the cathodes, I insisted that she specify one material only, to minimize the parameter space. She suggested silver.

Sometime later, it became apparent to her that gold cathodes stimulate the proton recoil effect and silver does not. This detail did not get communicated to the replication teams during Phase 1 of the project, and therefore the replication teams did not have the option to produce the spatially correlated backside tracks that SPAWAR displayed at the March APS meeting.

One peculiar observation appeared when the replication teams began to report results within the group. They were getting tracklike effects with external fields, as expected, but they also were getting them on the so-called control experiments, without external fields.

After a bit of backtracking and asking how we goofed in making a suitable control, we learned the following.

Mosier-Boss initially used nickel screens in her experiments. At that time, she tested the external field effects with controls and found a clear correlation. Once she found the correlation with the external fields, she focused on enhancing the effect and did not continue doing parallel control experiments.

At one point, she switched to gold, silver and platinum wires. Not suspecting that they would behave differently from nickel, she did not do controls with the new metals.

The first controls with silver wires were performed by the alpha and beta teams. When researchers started seeing apparently positive results in the test as well as the control experiments, that caused confusion.

Analysis Ambiguity
The bulk of the ambiguity of the results of the SPAWAR replication experiments stems from two major factors.

Uncertainty as a result of exploring a boundary of science is natural. LENR is exploratory science; it is not merely an expansion of a previously understood effect. Therefore, nobody knows what to expect from these LENR co-deposition experiments. The specific type of particle emission, the energy and their flux are all unknown variables. This makes it extremely difficult to know what to expect.

Second, and more important, the core of the analytical ambiguity comes from the use of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional analysis. The interpretation of the results has been, until now, largely based on subjective interpretation of the optical images of the post-experimental pits.

Let's step back for a moment and provide some context.

Solid-state nuclear track detectors, or CR-39 detectors, are intended to help distinguish between a hole caused by a nuclear particle emission and a hole caused by any number of ordinary mechanisms - chemical, mechanical, or electrical - that can put a hole in the detector.

CR-39 is a simple and common tool used in inertial confinement (laser) fusion research. However, in that field, CR-39 is used in air or in vacuum. Those researchers do not dunk the chips into an electrolytic bath for two weeks.

Therefore, asking whether the electrolytic bath is contributing to an effect that is providing false positive signals is a fair question.

The Duck Test: Two-Dimensional Analysis
When SPAWAR initially presented and New Energy Times reported the evidence for charged particles, the evidence was presented based on a two-dimensional optical analysis. This two-dimensional analysis presented a planar view of the etched chip, showing dimensions along the x and y axes but not the z axis.

The three-dimensional geometry of the pit was inferred, based on several optically observed characteristics: relative size of the pit, shape of the pit, definition of the pit boundary, contrast between the center and the perimeter of the pit, appearance of concentric circles, a well-defined center and the general uniformity of the pits throughout the sample. These were the types of subjective assessments that SPAWAR and members of the Galileo Project used early on in the analytical process.

Two-dimensional CR-39 analysis

Optical comparison between known alpha source and LENR experiment (yellow boxes). An area with artifacts is shown in the red box.

And in simple terms, many, if not most of the expected characteristics were present; it looked like a duck, talked like a duck, and walked like a duck. Almost. But almost wasn't and isn't good enough.

Two optical characteristics were missing from the expected appearance of tracks, compared with tracks from well-known particle emission sources.

In non-LENR CR-39 experiments, researchers often see significant ellipticity in the pits; they also see cometlike features that provide an extremely clear visual indicator of a track from an energetic particle. The ellipticity is important because it shows a) vector and b) spatial orientation of the emitting source. It also provides statistical information that is difficult to argue with. All factors add confidence to the claim of a nuclear particle emission.

In most of the SPAWAR experiments, as well as those of the replicators, such strong ellipticity and cometlike features were rarely seen, and this was confusing to some of the people with nuclear physics backgrounds. They wondered whether, if all of the pits are real particle etch pits, why the pits seem so consistently round? This suggests that, if the pits were in fact tracks, the only emissions from the cathode hit the CR-39 at, or very close to, perpendicular, relative to the CR-39 surface.

At least two possible answers exist: a) The pits are not real nuclear tracks; b) The conditions of this type of experiment produce only tracks that are normal (perpendicular) or very close to normal to the CR-39 surface.

According to Williams, a third possibility may explain the observations. Nearly-circular pits could be the result of very shallow tracks of any incidence angle because tracks etched far beyond their end of range become increasingly circular. 

SPAWAR has shown one experiment so far with very clear ellipticity and cometlike features.

CR-39 from SPAWAR Pd/D co-deposition experiment

Another limitation of two-dimensional analysis is that, in addition to the lack of a precise measurement of the pit depth, it does not tell the specific geometry of the pit. This is crucial. The depth as well as the geometry is the heart of what provides the confidence of true nuclear etch pits, and this is where two-dimensional analysis has its greatest limitation.

Etch Pits 101
Let's go deeper into the mechanics of particle tracks, the etch pits that appear after the CR-39 detectors are etched in solution.

The principles behind the use of CR-39 to detect particle emissions are well-known and mathematically precise.

When a charged particle goes through or into a piece of CR-39, it creates a path of weakened material. When the CR-39 is immersed in an acid solution, material from this weakened area erodes more quickly than from the other surfaces of the CR-39. This phenomenon and process reveal the very specific geometry of an etch pit. However, mapping this geometry, on the order of microns, is a tedious task. None of the SPAWAR researchers or early project participants reported such analyses.

Etch-pit geometry from M. Salamon et al., U.C. Berkeley, "Charge Resolution of Plastic Track Detectors Used to Identify Relativistic Nuclei"

If you could take a cross section of etch pits and photograph them, this is what you would see:

Alpha track cross sections after etching
T. Yoshioka, et al., Nucl. Instru. and Meth., Phys. Res. A, Vol. 555, p. 386 (2005)

However, sectioning and photographing CR-39 is, apparently, a Herculean feat. None of the SPAWAR researchers or the project replicators has attempted this.

Sequential Etching: Three-Dimensional Analysis
A time-tested, rigorous, but time-consuming method to observe and measure the depth and geometry of an etch pit exists. We can call this three-dimensional analysis.

Normally, researchers etch a CR-39 chip one time to clear out the debris from an etch pit. This provides a relatively clear view of the chip in a two-dimensional, optical analysis, the duck test.

But to know for sure the depth and the geometry of an etch pit, researchers perform sequential etches of the CR-39 chip, each time removing a specific amount of material from the surface of the CR-39 chip. Between etches, they perform an optical assessment of the tracks and measure the changes along the major and minor axes, the x and y dimensions, of the etch pits.

In doing so, they can reconstruct mathematically the shape of the etch pit and obtain hard data with which to compare the measured geometry and the expected geometry.

The diagram below depicts the geometry of an etch pit, after three sequential etches.

Geometrical cross section of an etch pit, with three etches of 5 microns removed each time.
(S.A. Durrani (Univ. of Birmingham), R.K. Bull (Harwell), "Solid State Nuclear Track Detection")

As shown in this diagram, at least four distinct characteristics can be observed in a genuine nuclear etch pit.

• Relationship of the etch rate inside the track versus outside the track
• Relationship of successive etches to each other
• Shape of etch walls
• Shape of termination

All four of these types of data are very specific, including the subtle curvature of the etch walls and the rounded tip at the termination of the etch pit. 

Once a researcher has such data, arguing that some other ordinary explanation - just coincidentally - happens to mimic the geometry of a charged particle becomes very difficult.

Computerized Chip Scanning: Two-Dimensional Plus Analysis
One method, although lacking in its ability to unambiguously characterize the depth and the geometry of specific pits, does in fact provide quantifiable, objective data. I call this two-dimensional plus analysis.

Among the SPAWAR and the project researchers, Forsley has been the primary advocate and user of this method. He uses an automated scanner coupled with computer recognition software to provide data sets that would be virtually impossible to collect using the human eye.

This system automatically reads and plots data from thousands of pits per sample and provides a histogram of the minor and major axes of the pits. The system also provides computer-mapped images with the x and y coordinates of the pits.

Forsley claims that the system and his analyses show scientifically significant trend data of ellipticity among the pits seen in many of the SPAWAR and the project replicators’ experiments.

Forsley has a background in inertial confinement fusion and has experience with these detectors from that field. Other physicists involved in the project do not feel comfortable accepting the data from this system. They have not had personal experience with the automated scanner system and, consequently, do not trust that the system can adequately discern a real particle track from an artifact.

If the 2D+ system lacks on the micro level, it excels on the macro level. With the push of a button, it can measure the major and minor axes and the placement of thousands of pits and plot them on a histogram. Forsley has been able to demonstrate some remarkable data from this tool.

One disadvantage of the tool, however, is that the machine and software are expensive and in limited availability. The lack of access to this machine by other participants in the project was a severe constraint. And despite not requiring a significant amount of operator time, the process does take a long time to scan each CR-39 chip.

One of the most significant data sets that Forsley has been able to show is the correlated tracks on the front as well as backsides of CR-39 chips.

Even with the machine's inability to unambiguously characterize the precise geometry of individual tracks, he is able to show data that is very difficult to argue with.

Well-documented studies show that a 1 millimeter piece of CR-39 has a stopping power that prevents certain particles from passing through it. For protons, only a particle with greater than 10 MeV energy will pass through. For alphas, only a particle with greater than 40 MeV energy will pass through.

With this in mind, Forsley has shown that particle tracks are appearing on both sides of the CR-39 in the general locations of the cathode wires. Because protons with greater than 10 MeV and alphas with greater than 40 MeV in the SPAWAR cells are nearly inconceivable, only one obvious assessment can be made about the backside tracks: Emitted neutrons are triggering proton recoil effects.

Even without the knowledge of the stopping power of CR-39, Forsley's use of 2D+ analysis, in which he has shown front and back spatially correlated tracks, has silenced the critics.

I presented the following analysis from Forsley to a skeptical experimenter who claims to seek positive evidence for new energy sources.

The two images are the front and backsides of a single CR-39 chip from a SPAWAR experiment, using three separate cathode wires (top to bottom): platinum, silver and gold.

I asked the skeptic whether he could come up with any explanation, besides a nuclear particle emission, for this effect.

Not only did he fail to provide a reasonable alternative explanation, but he also was unable to provide even a speculative, imaginary explanation for how a ordinary effect from the cathode could go through or around the CR-39 and create the spatially correlated tracks. (The lack of backside tracks from silver is understood as a distinct effect of that material relative to gold or platinum.)

I asked him whether, considering his stated objective to search for new energy sources, he is excited to see such proof of this phenomenon. I also asked whether he accepts that something nuclear is happening.

He responded that he is unable to accept the claim of a genuine nuclear effect until it is replicated and published.

I found his response revealing. His actions have confirmed that he is truly interested in the field but not in leading it or advancing it.

A Search for the Facts
Before I learned about three-dimensional analysis, I wondered about other methods to perform data analysis on the chips.

I was not satisfied with overall available data that initially came from the project, primarily based on two-dimensional analysis.

Mosier-Boss responded with an improvement to the two-dimensional analysis. She found and began using an analytical method that approaches three-dimensionality, by creating an overlay of two focal-length images.

Dual-image overlay from SPAWAR Pd/D co-deposition experiment.

I liked this a lot. It provided a clear image of the top surface of the etch pit as well the (apparent) bottom of the etch pit. I have yet to hear an ordinary explanation for the distinct, clear concentric circles shown in these photographs.

But I wasn't fully satisfied. Mosier-Boss had told me that, when she sits in front of the microscope and changes the depth of view, the pits obviously are very deep.

So I asked Mosier-Boss whether she could connect a video camera to her microscope so she could record and show the depth of the etch pit and provide a third party with a way to see what she sees without having to be in front of the microscope. She said she did not have that technology available.

As an alternative, I asked her to shoot sequential images of an etch pit, one per microscope stop, from the top surface to the bottom of the etch pit and send them to me. I had planned to put each frame into a video and create a one-second animation, but Mosier-Boss found a simpler solution. She put them into a slide presentation and set an automatic transition from slide to slide. You can download and view the PowerPoint file here.

Perhaps someone can develop a technique to calculate rigorously the depth and geometry from this optical analytical method. If so, it would have the added benefit of being nondestructive.

But I still wasn't satisfied. There must be a better way, I thought, and I began consulting with people, like Williams, who had studied under P. Buford Price at Berkeley, a world-renowned expert with CR-39. I met with Andrei Lipson, with the Russian Academy of Sciences, also an internationally recognized authority on the use of CR-39 detectors. It was from these meetings that I learned about sequential etching, three-dimensional analysis. I asked Lipson and his colleagues to perform such analyses on some of the Galileo Project CR-39 chips.

Part 2: Preliminary Results

The first group of researchers to report on the Galileo Project replication attempts spoke at the American Physical Society meeting on March 5, 2007, in the Colorado Convention Center in downtown Denver.

Kowalski-Montclair State University Report
Ludwik Kowalski, a retired physics professor from Montclair State University presented the results from his first Galileo Project experiment, which was also his first-ever electrochemistry experiment.

A macro view of Kowalski's CR-39 chip showing copious pits is below. Also visible are linear patterns that ran parallel to the direction of, and underneath, the cathode wire. General uniformity of pits is visible.

Kowalski Galileo Project replication attempt

Below is a high-magnification view of a sample area in Kowalski's chip.

High-magnification view of Kowalski chip photographed by Kowalski

Kowalski sent the chip to SPAWAR for analysis. Mosier-Boss photographed the same chip and used the dual-image overlay method to provide clear focus at the surface as well as at the bottom of the pit. (The image below is from the same chip as above but at a different location.)

High-magnification view of Kowalski chip photographed by Mosier-Boss with dual-image overlay method

As these two images of the chip show, a variety of representations can occur with two-dimensional analysis. Not only can variations exist from subjective interpretation, but also the photographic technique as well as the selected field of view may present significantly different information. The dual, tiny rings in the center of these pits show the expected conical shape and great depth and make for difficult ordinary explanations.

Poor microscope lighting and single-image photography can produce images that are much more ambiguous. The same image as the one above in green and red is shown below monochromatically, with only the surface in focus.

High-magnification view of Kowalski chip photographed by Mosier-Boss with single-image method

Below is a high-magnification dual-image view of a SPAWAR chip. Although it presents only a two-dimensional analysis, it shows characteristics that are highly suggestive of a deep, narrow, nuclear particle etch pit.

View of a CR-39 chip from a SPAWAR experiment using the dual-image overlay method

Kowalski believed that the dominant pits in his experiment were "about 2.5 times larger than those due to alpha particles from a radioactive source."  Consequently, he concluded that "analysis of our single experiment does not support the idea that dominant pits, on our CR-39 chips, are tracks of alpha particles, or less massive nuclear projectiles."

Mosier-Boss performed a side-by-side comparison of Kowalski's chip with a representative sample and found Kowalski's CR-39 detector to have pits 1.17 times larger than SPAWAR’s.

In Kowalski's presentation, he wrote, "Large pits we observed cannot be attributed to alpha particles or protons, or neutrons."

He explained his position: "Why not? Because of their diameters: 1.7*2.5 = 4.25 prots. Fission fragments would produce such pits. But I am not claiming that our pits are due to massive nuclear projectiles."

Like other researchers who have reported Galileo Project results, Kowalski indicated that the experiment was easy to replicate.

"I am reporting on the basis of an experiment that was performed only one time," he wrote in his American Physical Society report.

Kowalski also displayed an image that he claimed looked like nuclear particle tracks but in fact was not. (video)

"They look like tracks," Kowalski said. "But it's a scratch, so you have to be very, very careful. "

Scratch in CR-39 by Kowalski

This is the image that Kowalski showed at the conference. Because he alluded to the idea that scratches can look similar to pits, he clearly is referencing the multiple circular objects, not the single, dark curved object.

A peculiar feature of this scratch is that it comprises six nearly identical sets of circles in a repeating pattern.

New Energy Times attempted to discuss the image with Kowalski; however, he was unavailable for comment as we went to press.

Mosier-Boss regularly makes scratches on her CR-39. She uses a diamond scribe to mark an "F" on a corner of the chips so that she has a fuducial to focus on.

Williams-University of California Berkeley Report
Also at the American Physical Society meeting, Winthrop Williams, a physicist with UC Berkeley reported seeing pits, though the limitation of his two-dimensional analysis did not provide unambiguous interpretation.

Williams-Berkeley experiment #2

Forsley later performed a two-dimensional plus analysis of the Berkeley chip and found that an inverted "V" pattern appeared, exactly in the location where the two pieces of cathode wire were in front of the chip.

Forsley's automated scan of the front side of the Berkeley detector from experiment #2

Forsley's scanning system found in the Berkeley chip a range of etch pits of varying size, with a large, anomalous distribution of very-small-diameter pits.

Forsley's spectrum of the Berkeley chip's etch-pit size distribution

Forsley APS Presentation
Because Forsley works with the SPAWAR team, his work is not considered a replication, but he brings interesting information to the table.

On Slide 8 of his APS presentation, he shows a spectrum of pit diameters comparing alpha emissions from a uranium calibration with a spectrum from one of the SPAWAR experiments.

The spectrum of the calibration, on the left, shows a distribution similar to the spectrum of the SPAWAR Pd/D experiment, in the center. A dominant peak is visible between 8 and 12 microns in each. A smaller peak is visible at around 2 microns in each. The SPAWAR Pd/D experiment, however, similarly to the Berkeley chip, shows a unique peak, which goes off the scale, just below 2 microns.

No explanation exists for this. Does it represent a large quantity of high-energy alphas, or is it an artifact?

The spectrum on the right shows the distributions of the same chip but on the backside. Forsley writes in his presentation, "Something is causing large tracks on the back!"

Forsley presented an image of the backside of this chip. The pits are dark, but they do not show much contrast.

SPAWAR Pd/D experiment, 3-Wire, E-field, backside

Then he presented the same view with a slightly deeper focus, and suddenly, significant, dramatic features appear. Contrast, vector and signs of deceleration are all visible.

SPAWAR Pd/D experiment, 3-Wire, E-field, backside, deeper focus

Because proton recoils from neutrons would be expected to occur anywhere within the chip, not just on the surface, the appearance of these features is consistent with neutron emission.

On Page 9 of Forsley's presentation, he speculates on how proton recoil from neutrons can cause a knock-on reaction, breaking carbon-12 into alpha particles, leaving a triple track.

At the 8th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen/Deuterium Loaded Metals, which took place Oct. 13-18 in Catania, Italy, other Galileo Project results were presented.

University of California San Diego Report
The results of the Galileo Project replication by students Neil Robertson, Hiroaki Saito, Julie Yurkovic, and Stefanie Zakskorn at the University of California, San Diego, were presented by Forsley on their behalf.

They observed pits similar to those of other groups in the Galileo Project.

Image from UCSD experiment, Winter-Spring 2007.

The UC San Diego students also observed an apparent triple-track, shown below in two images.

Image (b): The focus is on the surface of the CR-39 detector
Image (c): The image is an overlay of two images taken at different focal lengths (top and bottom of pit)

Tanzella-SRI International Report
Francis Tanzella presented work on behalf of himself and Mike McKubre of SRI International, and Ben Earle, a Stanford university student working at SRI International.

In experiment #BE010-5, Tanzella reported that he had placed a BF3 ionizing neutron detector about 10 cm away from the cell. He also noted that the 12mm polycarbonate safety shield surrounding the cell might have thermalized neutrons and/or allowed recoil back to the CR-39 detector.

Over a 14-hour period, Tanzella recorded a neutron signal 14 times greater than the background. The data also show a change in the cell voltage correlated with the apparent neutron burst. He ramped up the current halfway through the burst, and the neutron signal continued.

Tanzella reported, "During the apparent neutron 'burst,' the cell potential reacted in a manner consistent with electrolyte heating."

The two-dimensional analysis of the SRI chips look similar to the SPAWAR chips. An SRI chip also shows what appears to be a triple track.

An interesting facet of the SRI work is that Earle had made a "mistake" in the setup of experiment #5, which took place in January 2007, before the SPAWAR group had reported signs of possible neutron effects.

Earle mistakenly left the blue protective film on the CR-39 detector when he placed it in the cell. Tanzella noticed this after he disassembled the cell after the experiment.

The film is a 60-micron-thick piece of polyethylene, which would enhance the capture of neutron emissions; polyethylene is known to be a good neutron "radiator."

As a possible result of Ben's mistake, the researchers at SRI became the second group to notice tracks on the backside of Galileo Project experiments.

Tanzella also reported that apparent neutron counts were above background in at least three experiments and that the cells’ electrochemical behavior was reproducible in all 10 cells.

Lipson-Roussetski Analysis of Williams-Berkeley Experiment
At my request, and with the sponsorship of New Energy Institute, Andrei Lipson, Alexei Roussetski and Eugeny Saunin of the Russian Academy of Sciences performed three-dimensional analysis on CR-39 chips from Berkeley and SRI.

Roussetski gave the presentation regarding the Berkeley experiment. He said that they found that the track diameters did not show any similarity to real nuclear tracks. He noted that the pits lost contrast in the course of the etching and showed irregular shapes.

Russian Academy of Sciences image of Berkeley chip

They suspected that the pits were caused by a corona discharge effect, so they performed a test with CR-39. The image below shows the result.

Russian Academy of Sciences image of corona discharge effect on CR-39 chip

Lipson and Roussetski write, "The pits are absolutely similar to the pits" in the Berkeley CR-39 detector. Furthermore, the Russian team provided very detailed and clear mathematics that showed that these pits did not match the expected geometry from real nuclear tracks.

In their presentation, they wrote that the pits were caused by a scratch from the cathode wire. They stated that all the pits lost their contrast during the sequential etches, which means that the pits are shallow, another indicator of non-nuclear pits.

A member of the audience asked Roussetski to clarify his speculation that the pits were caused by a mechanical scratch, which seemed to contradict his other speculation, that the pits were caused by a corona discharge effect. Roussetski did not provide a clear answer.

A member of the audience asked Roussetski whether he had performed an analysis on the pits within the high-density area of the chip.

Roussetski replied, "Unfortunately, we cannot analyze individual pits in this ground-beef area."

"Ground beef" is the Russian's term for CR-39 results that look like an agglomeration of poorly defined artifacts rather than clean, distinct etch pits.

Lipson also replied, "There are no individual pits inside; they all overlap."

Roussetski continued, "We analyzed pits on the boundary layer, outside the ground-beef area."

Forsley made a comment to the audience about the corona discharge speculation.

"We are trying to resolve the discrepancies between the observations we've made and the observations they've made. One of the questions relates to an experiment done by Andrei with a cathode in a corona discharge. But the problem is a corona discharge is impossible inside an electrolyte with a conductive solution, and furthermore, the voltages we're working at are 100 times lower than that which they used in their corona discharge test."

Lipson replied, "Yeah, you are right. A corona cannot exist within an electrolyte. But we are thinking about another possibility. We think things similar to corona, electrostatic discharges, can occur at the surface of the CR-39 at much lower voltages."

The SPAWAR experiments are performed at up to 4 volts, in a conductive electrolyte. The Lipson-Roussetski corona discharge test was performed at 300 volts, in air.

Additionally, Lipson's speculation of electrostatic discharges may not hold water because Mosier-Boss performed experiments with copper chloride, instead of palladium chloride, and saw no pits in the CR-39.

Lipson-Roussetski Analysis of SRI International Experiment
Lipson and Roussetski also performed a three-dimensional analysis of two CR-39 detectors from SRI experiments. As with the Berkeley evaluation, they used sequential etching, a three-dimensional analytical method.

The experiment performed with SRI detector #5 used a modified Galileo Project protocol. That is the "Ben protocol," in which the CR-39 was separated from the electrolyte by a 60-micron polyethylene layer. Detector #7 was separated by a 6-micron layer of Mylar.

According to the paper, these barriers protected the CR-39 not only from chemical attack but also from mechanical stress and electrostatic discharge damage during electrolysis.

They compared the pit distributions at the surface of the etched detectors with that of a blank CR-39 and the proton recoil tracks from a weak Cf-252 neutron source.

They also used a Van DeGraaf accelerator to create proton calibration curves for Landauer CR-39.

When they compared the distribution of pits from Cf-252 to the pits seen on the Pd/D co-deposition experiment, both after seven-hour etches, they observed a very similar spectrum.

RAS analysis of SRI chip #7 compared with Cf-252, seven-hour etch

They performed another comparison of the same chips after 14 hours of etching and stated that the spectrum from SRI #7 looks almost identical to that of the Cf-252 recoil.

RAS analysis of SRI chip #7 compared with Cf-252, 14-hour etch

They looked at a background detector that had traveled with the SRI detectors. They found that the track density of the blank detector was 3 tracks/0.5 cm2 (from both sides). They said that this was typical for the blank Landauer detectors, based on more than 100 previous similar measurements they had performed.

RAS analysis of SRI CR-39 background detector

Lipson and Roussetski performed a rough reconstruction of the proton recoil spectra for SRI #7 detector and the Cf-252 neutron calibration detector and found a similar spectrum, with a peak at 2.5 MeV.

RAS analysis of SRI CR-39 energy spectrum

Lipson and Roussetski presented detailed calculations for the rate of neutron emissions. Based on the data, plus several assumptions, they concluded that
the neutron emission rate in the SRI #7 experiment was between 1 and 3 neutrons per second.

In their analysis of the SRI #5 detector, they found confusing results. The front face, they said, was covered with high-density pits, which they ascribed to defects and which made it almost impossible to distinguish real nuclear tracks from defects.

However, on the backside of the SRI #5 detector, they found proton recoil tracks similar to those found on both faces of the SRI # 7 detector, though with a track density of 50 percent to 70 percent of that of SRI #7, which used a 6-micron radiator rather than a 60-micron radiator.

They presented the following as part of their conclusions:

- Entire results of two CR-39 detectors' analysis show that a weak but statistically significant emission of fast neutrons has been observed in SRI’s #7 and #5 experiments replicating SPWAR Pd-deposition experiment.

- SRI #7 detector, protected by 6-micron Mylar film, shows 'clean' front and back faces, containing only nuclear tracks from proton recoil.

Lipson and Roussetski's neutron rates, obtained from sequential etching and analysis, disagreed with the rates obtain by Tanzella, obtained with a BF3 detector. Consensus on the emission rates will require additional testing and analysis.

Forsley Analysis of Williams-Berkeley Experiment
Forsley presented additional data on his previous analysis of the CR-39 detector from Berkeley experiment #2, the same detector that was analyzed later by Lipson and Roussetski.

His system indicates the presence of backside pits, which contradicts Lipson and Roussetski, who say they found no significant pit concentration on the backside of this detector.

Forsley suggests that the agglomeration of pits in the Berkeley chip, rather than being "ground beef," as the Russian experts suggest, may be a "caviar" effect.

On a more serious note, Forsley's scanning system is registering something, but what it is isn’t certain.

Forsley's scan of Berkeley experiment #2 detector showing 1,694 pits and their distribution

Forsley showed a spectrum of the pits from the backside of the Berkeley experiment #2, which indicated a large quantity of very-small-diameter pits. He said this showed "some tracks going out toward 30 microns, which is consistent with neutrons, if they are neutrons, but we don't have very many of them."

Forsley's analysis of Berkeley experiment #2 detector, backside, showing 1,694 pits and their size distribution

Forsley presented statistical information about the ellipticity of the pits on the front and the backside of the detector. Below is the data from the backside of the chip.

Scan of Berkeley experiment #2 detector, backside, showing major versus minor axis of pits

Forsley said that the graph above showed that a lot of pits are not only elliptical but also very large in diameter. These characterizations are consistent, he said, with recoil protons or recoil carbon-oxygen recoil neutrons.

Forsley also presented images of SPAWAR chips that had shown, as did the UC San Diego and SRI chips, pits that look like triple tracks. SPAWAR also has seen pits that look like double tracks.

Double and triple tracklike pits from SPAWAR experiments

"In our search for an explanation for this so far," Mosier-Boss said, "the only thing we have found that is known to cause three pits diverting from a center point is carbon being shattered by an energetic neutron (8-14 MeV)."

Summary
The evidence of the apparent neutron emissions was stunning and strong confirmation of nuclear reactions from the Pd/D co-deposition experiment, which has been developed continuously since 1989 at SPAWAR San Diego by researchers Stanislaw Szpak, Pamela Mosier-Boss, and Frank Gordon. 

Mosier-Boss commented on the project after hearing about the results presented in Catania.

"One of the best things about the project is that it helped us build relationships with the folks at SRI International and UC Berkeley," Mosier-Boss said, "and I'm looking forward to continuing to work together with them."

Earlier in the year, Forsley expressed his appreciation for the other members of the Galileo Project.

"I realize that there is very little for each of you," Forsley wrote, "in terms of personal gain, to perform these replication attempts and much to gain for the good of all science. It is a worthy and noble endeavor, and I think each of you is deserving of the greatest praise and recognition.

"As I see the direction and pace of this project at this very moment, I do not see it going nearly as smooth and as obvious as I expected. However, I see that the knowledge that is evolving is progressing at a geometric rate, thanks to the 31 of us involved. And that is a great thing. Your efforts are the most generous gestures in science I have been privy to."

Frank Gordon, who has been on the front line for his group - and taken no small amount of flak for his support of LENR - said that his group has often been surprised by its experimental results.

"Regardless," Gordon said, "it's been 18 years now, and we've had 18 papers published in respectable peer-reviewed journals. The recent data, coupled with everything else we have done, makes an extremely compelling argument for the reality of this science. Critics have demanded extraordinary evidence for our extraordinary claims. We have delivered.

"I think the Galileo Project group addressed several of the issues that caused the initial confrontation between Fleischmann and Pons and the rest of the scientific community: repeatability, reproducibility.

"The Galileo Project, in one coordinated effort, has answered many of the questions that caused most of the early problems for this field. And while I'm at it, let me give credit to New Energy Institute for its leadership on this project."

The confirmations from the Galileo Project certainly weren't what everyone was expecting. The original search was for evidence of alpha emissions. The results of that search remain ambiguous. But the consolation prize is not so bad.

Everyone who has reported results has found something anomalous, something that they have had difficulty explaining by conventional science, and all of their experiments are giving results, however mystifying they may be. The UC San Diego students, as well as the SRI team, were led by people with experience in electrochemistry, and this may have helped with their success.

Whether the Berkeley chips will turn out to be ground beef or caviar is unclear. If they are ground beef, the question will be, Why? What was different?

The group of afternoon talks at the Catania conference was certainly lively, and an ad-hoc discussion continued among a dozen people for another hour after the formal presentations.

The members of the group discussed the obvious conflict between Lipson-Rousettski's perspective and Forsley's perspective. Lipson and Forsley agreed to disagree for the moment. At the group’s request, they agreed to cooperate and to continue to explore the scientific facts and present them at the next international CMNS conference.

The Galileo Project was made possible by the generosity of our sponsors.