NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/physics/fusion/2727

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ornl!sunova!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!yvax.byu.edu!physc1.byu.edu!jonesse
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various responses
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:36:14 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 52

The feedback is enlightening, although some comments show more heat
than light.
Mr. Noninski says I used an "apparently dreamed-up increase in voltage to
compensate for what he calls 'hydrolysis loss', having nothing to do with
the measurement of his student."  This is not correct.  I first reported
what I understood from David Buehler that the V and I were the same in the
Ni-cathode and control (resistance-heater) cells.  Later, David corrected
me explaining that the joule heating in the two cells was approximately the
same, but that the voltage in the Ni cell was greater, to make up for the
heat lost due to water decomposition (H2 and O2 were allowed to escape
from the open cell).
This makes sense, doesn't it?  That the joule heating should be made equal
between the two cells?  I misunderstood at first -- it was the joule heating
power and the currents that were approx. the same.  I endeavored to correct
my mistake immediately when I learned of it, twice before on the net (this
is my third try with Dr. Noninski).  But the fact remains that much of the
joule heating of the control cell occurred outside the control cell, in the
very thin lead wire, this according to the measurements recorded by David
Buehler.  Then we checked that this difference with respect to the Ni cell
could cause a 10 C temperature difference.
I think the demonstration was misleading, but I do not accuse Dr. Notoya of
deliberate fraud.  The term "notorious" was applied to the demonstration, not
to Dr. Notoya as I explained in a previous posting.  However, I see that this
term could be misinterpreted and I apologize for using it (specifically to
Dr. Notoya).
Tom Droege is right:  now is the time for definitive and scrutinized experi-
ments.  The BYU group is well aware that we have the same obligation with
regard to our claims of neutron and charged-particle emissions from deuterided
materials.  (See Proceedings of conference on low-level nuclear effects
possibly occurring in deuterided solids, BYU Oct. 1991, published by the
American Institute of Physics, 1991.  Oops - mtg held at BYU in 1990.  I have
a few copies of this Proceedings left.)
Folks, we keep seeing evidence of small nuclear goings on.  Until we get a
strong, reproducible signal, don't expect to hear too much from us.  We do
have a dedicated laboratory in a nearby tunnel and we hope to generate
definitive results one way or the other.  The Kamiokande results point us in
certain directions but were not definitive in my opinion.  Now we can work
close to home with *superb* detectors (Czirr and Menlove and others deserve
much of the credit for their development).  We haven't given up -- how can
we with what we have seen and with a sense of responsibility to clear this up?

Someone asked about radon in the cement+D2O expts.  The Kamiokande group
checked this by adding air with high radon content to D2O, then placing this
in the Kamiokande.  No neutrons were produced.
Muon-catalyzed fusion research continues; colleagues and I just completed a
paper on muon-alpha sticking following muon-induced fusion.  Now here is a
puzzle:  why is it that mu-cat-fusion is just one order of magnitude *below*
what is needed for commercial power production?  (A factor of roughly 20.)
So close.  We haven't given up on this either.
Best Regards to all,
Steven E. Jones