home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!fusion
- From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
- Subject: Fleischmann at press conference and Frank Close remarks
- Message-ID: <199209031244.AA12966@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
- Sender: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
- Reply-To: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
- Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:37:12 GMT
- Lines: 102
-
- Statement by Frank Close in presence of Martin Fleischmann at BAAS press
- conference and transcript of ensuing remarks.
-
- FC: I have made my position clear on the nuclear physics aspects of these
- claims in my book. I am not a chemist; I cannot comment on the chemistry but
- others have done so. I have never seen evidence that watts of fusion power
- are being produced in test tubes at room temperature. On quite general grounds
- of energy conservation you know that for every watt of power of the order of
- 10**12 nuclear events have to take place independent of what particular nuclear
- process is involved. Those products are either emitted from the cell as
- radiation - and have not been seen - or are left behind and can be looked for.
- Some experiments that have claimed to see heat have looked for these products
- and have not found anything comparable by ORDERS OF MAGTNITUDE with 10**12
- per sec per watt. I said this in my book; I stand by it and everything I
- said about the science, its presentation and the history.
- Much of the documentation on which my book was based will in due course
- be deposited with the History of CF archive at Cornell where others will be
- able to assess my claims.
-
- MF. [Something like "FC remarks based upon expectation from hot fusion
- pathways"]--I see no reason why nuclear processes in the lattice need
- compare with those in the gas phase.
-
- FC.My statement relied solely on the fact that the energy available
- in nuclear reactions comes from the binding energy which is of the order
- of 1 million volts independent of the process and independent of where it
- goes. [1 million volts per event is equivalent to some 10**12 events per
- watt every second]
-
- MF then described how his device undergo temp excursions and that they are
- reluctant to shut it off, for safety. So they let it expire by ceasing to
- top up the liquid and let it "boil away". [This is the origin of their much
- advertised boiling cell].
-
- MF It may be that one will never be able to make the [heat burst (?) -
- my tape noisy here] for more than a day. Frank Close is quite right; there
- are enormous ehergy releases in the system and the lattice does get disrupted
- [I presume he is referring here to my comments on energy storage systems
- of phys-chem type] --- Frank Close does not like the Bush [helium claims]
- -- I [MF] bet it will probably turn out to be helium-4.
-
- He was then challenged by reporter as to why he believed nuclear and he stressed
- energy release greater than 1kW/cc "Think about it; what can I say?
- Several people see this. Frank, what is 1kW/cc in nuclear terms?"
-
- FC. How big is your device that you are scaling up?
-
- MF. Small. It generates [about] 100 watts.
-
- FC. *If* it generates 100W and *if* it is going to helium-4 then there are
- some 10**13 helium [produced] every second and its very easy to find that
- stuff whether its inside or coming off.
-
- MF. Yes; sure
-
- FC.If that is what you currently believe then *every* experiment that is
- producing heat from the many that you cited should be able to go and prove
- the fact by finding the helium-4
-
- MF. 1992 must be the year when people must put on line mass spectrometers.
-
- FC. Why so long?
-
- MF. Because it costs lots of money.
-
- FC.I know of experiments that believed they showed heat, that looked for
- helium and found none [in 89/90].
-
- [Debate then moved into other areas; MF claimed that it is "well established"
- that neutrons are produced at "5-50 per watt". Wilkie, science editor of
- the Independent, (daily paper), who was trained as a particle physicist,
- pointed out that 5-50 is irrelevant compared to 10**12. The answer was that
- other experiments see tritium, electromagnetic radiation etc. These are also
- well established apparently, though the relation to Wilkie's question was
- not clear to me. When pressed for citations we were referred to the 2nd Ann
- Conf now published in vol33 of the Italian Phys Soc. The fact that none of
- the papers in that volume claim to see 10**12 of anything was not mentioned.
- Reporter then pursued the question of nuclear remnants being left behind
- in the cell if not emitted as radiation]
-
- MF. - - - All experiments that produce a large amount of heat should sample
- the gases. I accept that it must be done.
-
- FC. Whether chemical or nuclear, *assuming* that there is something
- happening - and that is a very wide open question - then there must
- be some products *left behind*. If one could find the products then one would
- know straight away what was going on.
-
- MF. The nuclear ash [sic!] must be found.
-
- [I am pleased from this remark that MF is aware of the discussions that
- take place on this net. I hope too that people who are seriously researching
- the H-metal system will note that MF and I agree on the importance of
- finding the "ash". If the Japanese are indeed putting in as much money as
- others would have us believe, and if MF is correct that "many" people
- can now produce power at the level of "many" watts,then we can anticipate
- hearing about many reproducible definitive measurements on nuclear ash,
- specifically helium at the levels of greater than 10**15 atoms, very soon.
- If we do not then one or more of these claims are false.Alternatively we could
- recall the null measurements of helium that have already been made and
- documented e.g. in Huizenga's book (Pons' obstruction of the helium assay)
- or those analysed on this net (Bush et al).]
-