NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/physics/fusion/2738

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 6.8 KB | 144 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:46:43 GMT
Lines: 132

To: >INTERNET:[e-mail]

Dick Blue asks:

"I feel the need for a refresher course on what Yamaguchi's experiment
actually involves... Is this in vacuum or in liquid?"

A vacuum. I got his full paper recently. I will mail you a copy.


I faxed the comments of Steve Jones to Yamaguchi, and I summarized the
comments with the following question (in English):

"You told Nate Hoffman that there was no glass in the vacuum chamber; Later
on, you told him that there is a 5 cm glass vessel in the chamber. Which is
correct?"

Just as I expected, it was a misunderstanding based on a language problem.
That sort of thing happens frequently, as we translators well know. By the
way, if anyone here has a nagging question about a Japanese scientist's work,
I recommend that you be Mr. Nice Guy and fax him a specific question, in
plain, straightforward English. Those of us who struggle with a second
language know that a written question is much easier to deal with, and
respond to, than a verbal question on the phone. Anyway, Yamaguchi responded
in English, and here is what he said, verbatim:


        "Actually, our vacuum chamber has three glass windows. But during the
measurement, all of the window was sealed like this."

[A nifty schematic of a glass porthole, here. It is a pity I cannot upload...
>From outside to inside the chamber: it shows a stainless steel cover, 0.6 cm
air at 1 atm, a 5 cm thick glass window, and then the vacuum area. There are
two 6 cm ports, and one 13.5 cm.]

        "The stainless steel caps are for shutting the light as well as for
preventing the glass of touching abundant air. Within the space between glass
and the cap, there is at most 100 cc air. It was extremely difficult for me
to answer such a way in English for short time, so I answered simply 'no,'
which means No effect for leaking 4He through glasses."

        "Later on, I correctly answered to Hoffman and also told him that we
showed real evidence for no effect of leaking 4He (see results for Pd:H). If
you have further questions to me, please fax me."


I hope this makes it clear. Let me take the liberty of extrapolating from his
paper, this letter, and conversations I had with him, to explain a bit more:

There are glass porthole windows in the vacuum chamber, but the experiment is
not in a glass container and there is no glass in the experimental apparatus
that is inserted into the chamber.

There is no sign of any leak through the glass window during extensive
testing of the vacuum chamber.

The helium-4 is strongly correlated with bursts of heat during the
palladium - deuterium experiments. When similar bursts of heat occur during
palladium - hydrogen experiments, he does not detect helium-4, so the glass
could not be playing a role, since it could not selectively dump in a bunch
of helium with a deuterium chip but not with a hydrogen chip. I gather he is
going to tune the detector to try to figure out the Pd:H experiments.

The glass window is separated from the heat producing chip by a high vacuum,
so I cannot imagine how the heat from the chip could instantaneously cause
the glass to dump 4He into the vacuum at rates as high as 10^16 atoms per
second for three hours.


Terry Bollinger remarks:

"By the way, I truly do not think the kind of "ignore any problems, she's
right, she's right!" approach that Mr. Rothwell has taken in defending
Dr. Notoya..."

Incorrect! Wrong! First of all it isn't my "defense." It is her's, I am
merely translating her comments into English. Second, her defense has always
been, and remains:

        If you think this experiment is wrong, bring a meter, or an
        oscilloscope, or any gadget you want, and measure the resistance, the
        input power, or the heat yourself. The demo unit will be open for anyone
        to examine in any fashion they would like, for up to three days at
        M.I.T. The lab experiment, which is far better and more convincing, is
        also open to the public. If you want maximum details, go to Hokkaido.

This is the extreme opposite from an "ignore any problem" approach. Let us
have a reality check here: she is doing a public demonstration, plus she has
a paper, of course. These is no way on earth any scientist could possibly be
more open, and more candid, and more willing to expose an error than this. In
four years of CF, Notoya is the first scientist I have heard of who is
willing to boldly stick her neck out this far. She will show the world the
device, and she offers to let any other scientist poke around with it. If
Terry Bollinger, or someone else here, knows a better, more open way to
expose an error, let him tell us.

This is absolutely the opposite of a cover-up, cop out, or a plea to ignore
problems. She is publicly challenging anyone on earth to step up and *expose*
any problem.

Furthermore, if anyone wishes to replicate the experiment, they are invited
to contact me. I will e-mail the protocol Gene Mallove and I wrote, which
both Notoya and Srinivasan used.

Finally, let me add that it is cheaper to fly from L.A. to Hokkaido than from
L.A. to Boston, so a trip to the lab is not an outlandish suggestion. Also,
let me make it clear that I am a translator and facilitator of information. I
am not Dr. Notoya. If her experiment turns out to be in error, that is no
skin off my teeth. Lots of experiments turn out to be wrong.


A note about "credibility" -

I have been very upset here because Dieter Britz called Notoya and me a
fraud. That has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with science. It is
way, w-a-a-a-y beyond the bounds of reasonable, acceptable discourse. You can
call me uninformed, or a fool, or whatever you want, but if you say that I
have deliberately and consciously perpetrated a fraud, you step over the
line, and I will object in the strongest possible terms. Yesterday, someone
objected to me by private e-mail, saying that I had lost "credibility." I
don't buy that. I was publicly charged with fraud, and I made a VERY LOUD
NOISE. I did not lose credibility, okay? Would any of you people ignore such
a charge, or just let it slide by with a mild mannered objection? I hope not.

Furthermore, this 'charge' is illogical nonsense, as anyone with an ounce of
sense can see. I have no motive to make a laughingstock of myself in public.
Everyone knows that a fraud would come to a crashing end on December 3rd, so
why would I seek three weeks of glory? More to the point, why would Notoya,
Enyo and Mizuno?

- Jed