NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/physics/fusion/2767

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 7.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!tulane!uflorida!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!sun13!ds8.scri.fsu.edu!jac
From: [e-mail] (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' posting of November 19
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:33:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University
Lines: 146

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>It seems that exactness  in his  statements  is  not  of  primary
>concern  to  S.Jones.  For instance, on November  19 he writes:
>
>"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)".
>
>What does this statemen mean ?

It means he corrected his statement once (14 Nov 92) and had his
student, who made the measurements clarify it as well (18 Nov 92).

So clearly this was his third try to clarify it.

>Correcting  of  his  mistake  was  not  such  innocent   an   act
>as  S.Jones  would  like  to  present   it.   He  "endeavored  to
>correct" the figures he posted only  after   he   was  shown  and
>"learned"   that   these   figures    do    not    support    his
>sensational "discovery" of Notoya's "mistake".

 ...

>"Contributions" of this type, based  on  adjusting  the  data  to
>support one's point at any rate, are  the  least  needed for  the
>discussions of  scientific  matters  and  particularly  for   the
>debate  about  the reality of the excess heat during electrolysis
>of  H2O  solutions with Ni  cathodes,  claimed   by   Fleischmann

 ... etc ...

OK, so lets have an independent third party (I have never worked with
Steve Jones and have no vested interest in anything but the truth here)
look at what was actually posted:

 |From: [e-mail]
 |Subject: Re: the Notoya Demo
 |Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 |Date: 11 Nov 92 23:28:57 GMT
 |
 |The following measurements were recorded by David Buehler (BYU graduate
 |student) on the Notoya cells.  I post these to meet the request by D. Britz,
 |without comment.
 |Cell with Ni cathode AND control cell with resistor, initially:
 |3.4 volts,  0.6 amps.
 |Buehler moved alligator clip from power supply about 5 cm closer to the cell
 |on very thin lead entering the control cell, result:
 |3.0 volts,  0.6 amps (constant current supply).
 |Adjusting both clips to points on two wires close to entry into cell,
 |presumably by Dr. Notoya after Buehler pointed out his concern (control cell):
 |2.57 volts, 0.72 amps (current evidently adjusted also).
 |(Don't know why current was adjusted on control cell.)
 |
 |This is all the data I collected from D. Buehler and recorded in my logbook.

That is pretty clear.  Steve Jones reported exactly what he had recorded, and
the details he recorded were the values for the control cell.  There is a lack
of clarity in the sentence "Cell with Ni cathode AND control cell with
resistor, initially: 3.4 volts", which can be read two different ways but
only makes sense when interpreted one way -- referring to the control cell
only.

 |From: [e-mail]
 |Subject: Notorious Notoya Demonstration
 |Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 |Date: 12 Nov 92 21:15:36 GMT
 |
 |We have repeated Notoya's demonstration of excess heat performed before
 |the world at the Nagoya, Japan meeting in October 1992, based on data from
 |this demo. garnered at the meeting by BYU graduate student David Buehler.
 |We find that a temperature difference between cells of approximately 10 C
 |is readily obtained, with the "control cell" being cooler.
 |But the heat is not nuclear.
 |Here are the data from the Nagoya demo:
 |Control cell, initially: 3.4 V at 0.61 amps, so total R = 5.57 ohms (+ or -).
 |The "nuclear" cell with nickel anode ran at approx. the same voltage and I.

Here is the mistake Steve Jones made.  However, as the calculations and
experimental design that followed this statement (omitted to save space)
made clear, he used the 3.4 volts for the "nuclear" cell to calculate
the heat dissipated in that cell -- which is correct.

Actually, since one (trusting Notoya) that the control cell was set up
to dissipate the same power as the nuclear cell, all that one really
needs to worry about is the fraction of the cell resistance in the
wire leads.

 |From: [e-mail]
 |Subject: RE: Notoya Demo/ No No Noninski
 |Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 |Date: 14 Nov 92 00:08:26 GMT
 |
 |I appreciate the responses and questions to recent postings; return responses
 |follow.
 |Dr. Noninski objects that the Notoya "nuclear" cell drops power (1.5V x I)
 |due to decomposition of water to hydrogen + oxygen.  True, but the voltage
 |on the "nuclear" cell shown by Notoya in Nagoya was INCREASED BY 1.5 V to
 |compensate for the hydrolysis loss.  That is, the voltage on the control cell
 |was 3.4V (first two days) while the voltage on the cell with Ni cathode was
 |3.4 + 1.5 volts.  Both cells had about 0.6 A current.  So the objection
 |of Noninski fails.

That is, as one would expect if Notoya was doing the experiment with a
suitable control, the two were run with the same current and voltages
differing by the amount taken up by the electrolysis.

I guess the only thing that puzzles me is why Notoya did not notice that
she had to use the "wrong" resistor for this combination of voltage and
current.  It is easy to see how this mistake could get overlooked if the
experiment was done in a hurry to get results for the conference.  Would
not be the first time *that* happened in physics!

Further:

 |From: [e-mail] (David Buehler)
 |Subject: Re:Notoya demo
 |Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 |Date: 18 Nov 92 19:59:57 GMT
 |
 |Because there was question concerning the voltage on Dr. Notoya's electrolysis
 |cell, Steve Jones asked me to post a clarification.  As he explained, the
 |voltage on the electrolysis cell was about 1.5 volts higher than resistive
 |cell.  This was all explained with little signs in front of the two cells.

So it would be pretty hard to miss.  Clearly Notoya set them up this way
and the original error when Steve Jones said "The 'nuclear' cell with
nickel anode ran at approx. the same voltage and I" was a simple
misstatement caused by his focus on the heat dissipation and not the
details of her setup.

I find it hard to see how this is some sort of scandalous manipulation
of the data by the noted cold fusion skeptic, Steve Jones.  ;-)

Jed was there, and can state if such a sign existed, so I assume he would
have already corrected David Buehler if he was making this up.  The only
question I can see is that Jed noted that, after the leads were adjusted,
the cell stayed cooler; however, Steve Jones records that the voltage and
current were also adjusted when the leads were moved, which would explain
this effect.

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
[e-mail]                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)