NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/physics/fusion/3375

Text File | 1993-01-23 | 6.3 KB | 115 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Path: sparky!uunet!UB.com!zorch!fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Swallow energy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:25:47 GMT
Lines: 103

To: >INTERNET:[e-mail]

Dick Blue says my problem is that there are far too many things relating to
nuclear reactions that I have never heard of. Dick's problem is that he never
finishes reading a sentence before responding. I asked for an example of a
simple, naturally occurring "energy-swallowing" reaction; one that occurs
slowly, at room temperature (or near room temperature). Dick gives us "heavy
ion fusion," which sounds to me like it needs an accelerator, lots of extra
energy to promote the reaction, and is barely observable. Dick says, "you
have to supply the energy needed to return the system to its initial
state..." and "there is a finite probability that [particles] they will stick
together..." Okay, but does it happen naturally, without prompting, at low
temperature, at macroscopic, readily observable levels? I am not suggesting
that CF is fission. I am just pointing out that we know of one common,
natural, exothermic, non-chemical process that can gradually produce
megajoules per mole: fission. So that raises the likelihood that nature
allows other, similar processes.


Regarding mercury thermometers being affected by current, Tom Droege suggests
we "get out the old envelope back and try to guess whether or not this is a
real problem."

Not a bad idea, but there is a much simpler, easier, much more certain
method. Get a mercury thermometer and hold it near a current. Now move it
away. Try that experiment in air, and try it under water. Do it many, many
times. If possible, do it with a current 10 times greater than any you expect
to encounter during the experiment. Do you see any change? Nope. I have done
that many times, and millions of other people have been doing it for 200
years, and nobody has ever observed any change as large as 1 C, as far as I
know. Naturally, we check mercury thermometers against other types (like
alcohol thermometers). Never assume that your instruments are working right,
always test and calibrate them. Also, never use the back of an envelope to
guess at something without *also* testing to be sure you are right. There is
no substitute for a real-world experiment.

I posted a long message about this, but it disappeared into the cybernetic
void. Too bad, it also included a response to poor old Frank Close. I should
stop picking on the man.


Steve Jones says: "I am reminded of nasty comments of Gary Taubes about me.
He attempts to discredit me, I find, by referring to my religious beliefs..."
Please do not let Taubes bother you. You are in excellent company being
attacked by him. You must worry if he *praises* you. That would be like
getting a political endorsement for honesty from Richard Nixon. His book will
be an excellent source of information. I know some "skeptics" who are
sweating bullets about it, because it reveals their sordid, attack-dog
tactics. A few years ago, some of these people were bragging to Taubes about
their knife-in-the-back, late night phone call tactics, and their bullying.
Now that CF has become slightly legitimate in the U.S., and fully recognized
in Japan, their actions will not look good.

Me: "[Negative heat] is always in the noise.  It is obviously due to
experimental error, or due to ultra-conservative, worst-case analysis of
the data."

Steve: "This attitude WORRIES me, Jed.  The negative xs power should be
understand as Tom tries to do, not dismissed as noise or error or
ultra-conservative analysis."

Now just one cotton-picking minute! Who said anything about DISMISSING it?
Who said I don't understand it? Good Grief. I *find* *out* the source of the
error, if I can, I don't just write it off. For example, I think that the
negative bias on one of my thermocouple pairs might have been due to
humidity, since the copper sleeve appeared to get wet, and the problem was
substantially ameliorated by putting a dehumidifier in the room. If I say a
deficit is due to an "ultra-conservative analysis" I mean that I found out
which analysis it was (or I think I did). If I say it is in the noise, it
means I got a less noisy gadget from Tom, or somewhere, and found the effect
disappeared. I am not dismissing anything, I am saying that unpublished
examples of heat swallowing devices have always turned out to have simple,
understandable, prosaic explanations, as far as I know.

Also, you are always claiming that theory disproves any possible excess heat
without neutrons, and you know a ton about theory (don't pretend otherwise!).
So if you really, honestly, think there is some possibility that Pd can
swallow up and store megajoules per mole, please tell us why this is
theoretically possible. And if it is possible, why can't Pd release those
megajoules later? Why do you seriously entertain the possibility of negative
heat, but so constantly dismiss reports of positive heat? The positive
reports are far more widespread and thousands of time farther above the
noise.

Anyway, here is a message to anyone out there who has a calorimeter with a
strong negative bias during calibration: It's broken. Fix it. You should have
no strong biases either way. A slight bias is inevitable. I recommend
measuring heat and temperature with 2 or 3 independent systems. Naturally,
there is no way 3 different types of thermometer can agree to 10 decimal
places. One or two decimal places is fine, because you must dismiss all
"excess heat" events less than a watt or two, and all Delta-T temperatures
less than 5C. Inconclusive evidence is useless. This is not 1989 anymore. If
you cannot get the kind of conclusive, obvious results other people see, far
above the noise, then you are doing something wrong, so there is no point in
reporting your results. It is like coming out in 1910 and announcing that you
don't know how to build an airplane. Who cares? Other people have succeeded,
so you don't count. You are not a programmer if your programs don't run; you
are not a pilot if you can't get off the ground; and you are not doing CF if
you have no massive, easily observable, excess heat. You are a CF wannabe,
like me.

- Jed