RARE Steven Krivit Interview with Martin Fleischmann discussing Cold Fusion (2003) by @mes on 3Speak
▶️ Watch on 3Speak - Odysee - BitChute - Rumble - YouTube - Telegram - Summary - Hutchison Effect playlist (Hive) - Free Energy playlist - MES Links --- In this video, I have uploaded a rare August...
Tags: #coldfusion #freeenergy #lenr #technology #science #physics #deepdives #911truth #conspiracy #dew
This recording is copyright by New Energy Times and may not be used in whole or in part for any commercial purposes without the express written authorization of New Energy Times. Distribution and use of this recording for non -profit educational purposes is freely granted. This is Steve Krivitt of New Energy Times. I met Martin Fleischman for the first time at the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I chased after him eagerly for two days at the conference trying to get an interview. Finally, on Monday night, I was able to talk him into joining me at the bar. As we began the interview, I was immediately shocked and surprised. Here I was all fired up and enthusiastic about attending my first Cold Fusion conference and interviewing a man who I thought was someday going to be widely recognized for his scientific brilliance. Yet from the first moment of this interview, it became quite apparent to me. that he was a man who felt he had failed in life, who was depressed, and disappointed at what life had presented him. I present Martin Fleischman, August 24, 2003, Cambridge, Massachusetts. I'll get a picture of you later. First, I need some answers. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. What is cold people about three of these days? Personally, you want me to answer that personally? But I'm disappointed, personally. It was also obvious, really, so easy to do. When? 1989, was it obvious? Before then, really. And it's been sort of from, how should I say, obliterated, really. Was it obliterated mostly in the first year, or is it, do you consider it still obliterated in the last 14 years? It's an ongoing process. People just don't want to know about it. They don't want to know it. I don't know why they don't want to know. As a sort of person on the outside of things, one can guess all the reasons which people might have for not wishing it to succeed. But, well, those are the real reasons, of course, one doesn't know. People's a lot of different people. Are you talking about scientists, lay people? Are you talking about... politicians? I think the lay people would accept it if it was, if the scientists said yes, this is okay, the lay people would accept it immediately. The politicians, I don't know the politicians, what motivates the politicians, I think the politicians are motivated by this theme, what is good for General Motors is good for America. You know, it's a political, economic system. No, this is not good for us, so it's not good for America either. Well, indirectly, I heard that she was very interested in it. But that's only indirect, I don't know what she would say. See, this is a manifestation of a piece of science which has to be done by the society level, by the government laboratories. Isn't that being done in Japan and Italy? No, no, I think so. What's different about... what you say being done at the society level versus, I understand that there are several government agencies in these countries that are supporting it, and several academic institutions are supporting research. Well, that's friendly, yes, it is done in a small way, but way back in 1988, we could think of all sorts of reasons why it should not go into the public domain. This was obviously a project. which had a strong element, give on to Caesar, that was Caesar's, and given to the society, that which is the societies. And we had, at that time, I made a list of ten reasons why it should not go into the public domain. Recently, I had a occasion to write to John Bocchus, and when I tried to write this list down again, it was 13 reasons. I don't know why, it was only 10 in 1988, but there were 40 subsets of these 10 or 13 reasons, there were 40 subsets of major research projects, just dealing with the system which we ourselves investigated, but of course there were many other systems one could investigate. And I always said it needed a Manhattan 2 type of project. Do you still feel? that it should be in a public domain? It's too late now. I think if it had been in the private, if it had been classified, it would have allowed a much more sensible development of the whole project, piece by piece, step by set, without any pressure, of course. There were lots of military reasons. There were lots of military reasons why it should not have gone into the public domain. I was absolutely astonished that these were not picked up. Well, if it had stayed in a classified arrangement, would there have been any other use for it besides Weaponer? I should say application? Well, that was always the difficulty. The consequences of our research were not what we had anticipated. This is, that is research, I mean, you know, it sort of gave you a kick in the back side. That there was, obviously, a energy source, which would have supplied the energy needs in the foreseeable future for about the next million years or so. But, well, I shall you put it. The research couldn't be done in, you couldn't expect the private organizations to undertake that research. For one very good reason is that they might invest a great deal of money in developing a system, and then someone in the garage comes up with another embodiment of that, and all that research is useless. So I hear your frustration about how it's gone into development and how it exists in the world. What do you think is going to happen with the way that it's being researched and developed as it is now? It will sag on, and eventually, of course, it will become accepted. That there are not people interested in it now to make sure that there is piecemeal progress, and in the end, that will become a very convincing case. What do you think it will take to get it accepted? say that there was one thing and one thing only which was required, and that was a demonstration device. I still think that this is very important. I think that the implementation of a successful demonstration device would make it very difficult to oppose it. I mean, you could say, well, I don't care whether it's quantum electrodynamics or bananas. It works. But there is now another axis, and that is that there will be an increasing body of information, certainly scientific information, which will make it very difficult to say that this is, this should not be taken seriously. It's changed. And it was clear that it would change, I mean, it's obviously much wider than... than anybody could in this age. And even if the scientific basis of this widening scope is only investigated in a fragmentary way, eventually it will make a very convincing case. Do you think the scientists that are here today and that are researching this field today, have any real chance of convincing the... scientists who are in the hot fusion field who are adamantly opposed to even the existence of this idea? And does it matter? It doesn't matter. Rather, those people will be bypassed sooner or later. You know, they say it must be hot fusion, it must be on, practicated on these particular concepts. In the end, people will say, well, You know, it doesn't work. Let it go. So, I think the opposition, the opposition of the people who were concerned with hot fusion was perfectly understandable. But in the end, it doesn't matter. You know, the people who want to work on cold fusion, will work on, or fusion in a lattice, we work on fusion in a lattice, and that will... just take place, there's this field fusion in the lattice, and there has this field, hot fusion, and in the end. Let's see who ends. You see, in 1994, we had a system boiling for three months. No one was more than that, actually, of the world of three months, at the break -even level. In other words, it was generating as much power, excess power. as the power which was put into the system that was not a very energy-efficient system. But people are not interested in it. People ignore it. Is there any other type of energy mechanism that we, besides nuclear fission, that we have in the world today, that operates at Breakyven? No, I think it's completely impossible to understand this, except as a nuclear phenomenon. It's a small electrode generating excess heat. So if you have an experiment that runs at break-even, even if it's not over unity, just break even, that's pretty phenomenal itself, isn't it? I think it was absolutely phenomenal, and the fact that, but the point, if you produce phenomenally interesting results, there's only one thing people can do, and that is to ignore the results. Change a little bit. Have you always been a heretic? Oh, yes, I've always worked on the outside. Very frequently, my things have been taken over by other people to become mainstream. But not a thing of this magnitude can't become mainstream. I must feel kind of disappointing. Oh, yeah, yeah. I mean, you asked me some time ago. in this interview, what I feel, I'm extremely, the dominant feeling I have about my life is a one of failure. Everything I've wanted to do has failed. Period. You have to, this is just the way it is. You have to accept it. I don't know if I want to or have to accept that what you've done in your life is a failure. Well, if you were to consider the success, or if it had been a success, what would it look like for you? Oh, I don't know. I wasn't going to benefit from this in any monetary sense. This is not part of the scheme of things. I think I would just have done something else. You see, I think the scientific basis of this affects everything from chemistry, physics to biology. and I would have just researched some of the other things I've had to leave. I had to leave five or six major research projects. This thing, it just truncated these other research projects. The impact it had on your life at that time. I would simply have gone back to researching the other topics. I'm not especially interested in this research topic as a research topic. As opposed to? I mean, you're still interested in it. Well, there are many other things. Basically, I have worked on the effects of quantum electrodynamics on chemical systems since the 1960s. I would have come back to that, and I would have probably been able to nail some of those effects down better than I have been able to do so far. I guess this is somewhat other... a sore spot, and I don't mean to bring it up to rub salt in the wound, but my understanding is that what happened in 1989, it was kept you, kept you from doing all this other research. In 1989, my ex-colleck Stanf and I became a higher pair of hands, and all sorts of other considerations. rooted on the research program, and of course because we had done that, we had done some semi-satisfactory research. Pired Pired Paird of Hans for University of Utah. Whatever. And we lost our freedom, academic freedom. The whole point about academic freedom is you must do the thing which you think is most important, and we have not been able to do that. We churn the handle over and over again, where we write in 1988, what is the significance of the data. And that was not the important thing to do. But it was important in the sense that if you wanted to have an early demonstration device, it was important to continue that line of research. But in the longer term, of course, it was not important to do that work. And what we are seeing now is gradually that work, the other work is being done for other people. So eventually it was not important that we should have continued with this research in the way we did. You have friends here at the conference that go back always, don't you? Yes. Do you enjoy coming to the conferences more for the friendship rather than following the technical proceedings? Well, both, really. But I'm still very interested in the technical details, of course. I'm so rightly interested in the technical details. Do you follow all of the different methods that are being used? Or just the original electrolytic method that you were focusing on? No, I follow everything, but I'm not sure. I was never that keen on the electrolytic method. The electrolytic method is very easy. It's an easy implementation. You can make a bench-top experiment quite easily in electric chemistry, but this is not the way you will do it eventually. Speaking of bent-top experiments, would you mind telling me a little bit about that morning you came in when you saw the hole on the floor? Well, it's a long time ago. He stood around it and we said, well, what do we do? Do we stop? Do we get the bits and pieces out of this and analyze it? Ah, we'll do that sometime. We'll implement this again. So when you walked into the room, can you describe it to me? No, it happened during the night. It was just a hole in the floor. What can you say about it? It's a hole in the floor. Okay. I'll leave you alone on that one. It's a hole in the floor. We'll go and make a bigger hole. No, we didn't. He said we have to scale it down so that doesn't make a hole in the law. This was a lethal experiment, potentially lethal experiment. Was it open or closed cell? It was an open cell. Why was it lethal? potentially. Well, I mean, if you imagine the energy content of one cubic centimeter of palladium deuteride, it's horrendous. A bit too much active material? May the universe disappear. Ops. If it had gone, you know, if it had really blown out, it would have been a very serious matter. So we took steps to do it under much milder conditions. which continued until March 19888, at which time I had a major operation, and I was working through the data, and I filmed up my colleague at Stanton's and said this experiment has to stop until we redesign it. How long did it take before you redesigned it? Oh, I knew how we had to redesign it. That was very clear. to say, I've not been able to do the things I want to do. Is it possible that that much is? No, no, I'm 76. He's another person next to you, 76, but he's got a good line of research, and he's sticking to it coming. Why does he have a good line of research? Because he says this is the way to go, and he's continuing. If he ever doubted, that that was the way to go. He would be in the same situation that I'm in. And who is this gentleman? Ken Shelders. Hello, Ken. I didn't want to do it this way. I really did not want to do this project. I did not want to do this project this way, and I, especially, I didn't really want to continue with it. I said in 1989 to someone who was... very much concerned with this. I said, we are the wrong people to continue this project. We're the wrong people scientifically, to continue this project. We've done, basically, we had done what we had to do, and now, it's a free -for-all. Have you seen the tagline for the conference? Bravery, misplaced? Is that you? Who said that? It's the tagline on the announcement for the conference. It sounds like you. I think that publish and be damned is the thing I was brought up on. I have produced a number of things which people have said this is impossible. Such as. Oh, well. For me, go ahead. No, no, no, no, no, no. This is a lot. Oh, you can find it out. Okay. This is not what? What is that crazy fool doing this now? Have you seen changes in the field in the last five years? If so, how would you describe them? Oh, I've seen change, oh, there are certainly changes in the field. I think the work on transmutation has become much more convincing, for example. Um, we saw see some transmutations in 1989, 1990. in 1980 and we had a rough idea of how it might take place. But that work has become very much more convincing. And you said what will change people's attitudes? Well, maybe that will change people's attitudes. This is a dangerous area. We're talking about alchemy, yes? Well, that is the point. People say, this is alchemy. It can't possibly be correct. But all these are very small-scale experiments, and well, we will convince people, if not I don't know. What have you seen as far as the reproducibility of experiments and the excess heat that has been measured in the last five years? Well, the reproducibility solves a problem, but that is not surprising, because you have a system which can self-destruct. So how do you expect it to be reproducible? How often does it self-destruct? I haven't heard of that except for a few instances. Well, by self-destruct, I mean that it just doesn't, in the end, doesn't generate any excess heat. It just becomes a normal system. There are certain preconditions which it's got to meet to... be a cold fusion, a viable cold fusion system. It's very easy to violate those conditions, and consequently, of course, it is not reproducible. I've heard from several scientists that they claim that they are getting much greater repercussions. Oh, yeah, we were getting quite the reproducibility in 1988. To get reproducibility in the system we originally investigated, you must have the correct methodological... conditions for the material you're investigating, we would achieve those conditions, and it was reasonably impetucible. I must say that you had another sequence of experiments in 1989, following the announcement, which were extremely disappointing. And I think if you'd had those results in 1988, we'd probably have stopped. I understand. McCubrey had a series of successes for a year, he had a series of failures again for another year, Next year he had a whole complete series of successes. It's quite a mysterious target. Well, I think the electrochemical experiment is bound to be reproducible. I think you'll get much better reproducibility if you do the thing like the Italians, with the electric diffusion. So I think the imposition of the vector potential on the system is obviously one way to go. and you ask what has been the significant, well, if you have a big envelope and calculate, recalculate what the Italians must have achieved, they must have achieved between 5 and 50 megawatts per cubic centimeter XSEE. Well, that's a huge response. We achieved about 2 kilowatts for cubic centimeter, so they are up on that by 3 others of magnitude. which is a very, I mean, from the sociological point of the very big step, because it would mean that you exist in the sources of production of the medium, you could make a viable system to supply the energy needs, not a society. Switching subjects. Do you enjoy being in the crowd here and bantering about with all the different conversations that are going on? It's quite a feisty crowd. Sure. These are not shrinking violets. Yes, I've heard. That's good. That's what keeps them going. The shrinking violets would have dropped out ages ago. So if you told students about cult fusion, and what would it, it would break paradigms for them? Well, if you don't break the paradigms, it's not possible. This is obvious, you know, stomach, you are in this mind. It's... It's impossible. I thought in 1947 that this is not possible because of what you knew with quantum mechanics. And then, at some point, you got into your head that maybe it is possible, right? Yeah, that's about it. It was just a wild... I'm not a wild scientist, I'm a very step-by-step conventional scientist. And in the end, I said, well, if that is so, and that is so, it's possible. We may not see, but it is possible. You know, the effects may be too small to see. You can't tell that. How do we sort out between the scientists who are pursuing this in an intelligent matter and other people? Very, very difficult. Because, you see, really wild people may have a good idea. It doesn't follow that only the highly educated, convergent scientists are the people you should listen to. It doesn't follow at all. So you have to listen to everybody. And then you have these extraordinary people, like Tesla, for example, who came up with lots of ideas. Should you take them seriously or not? Well, I think you should take them seriously. You should research these ideas. If you've got the guts. Consider. The problem is guts and time and money, you know, you have to have the solstice to do it. What a paradox. You talk about the limitations of the…