From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Various Replies
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:10:49 GMT

Mark Hittinger wonders if there could be a simple reaction product like H2O.  
I will settle for anything that gives up heat.

The calorimeter is not as slow as you all seem to think.  The main beast has a 
time constant of 14 minutes it is true.  But if we consider the cell as a 
conduction calorimeter inside of the null-balance calorimeter, then if we just 
look at the temperature change rate, the quantity of water in the cell, the 
specific heat of water, etc., we can get a power estimate for a pulse.  This 
way we have a measurement with about a 1 minute time constant.  Not so bad.  
There are a lot of heat pulses where the cell temperature jumps up in 2 or 3 
20 second data ticks, then comes down with a one minute time constant.

Thomas Kunich says:

"This is_not_the same problem.  The second event_still_ionizes the 
gas in the Geiger tube and the resulting current_still_has to be recharged
by the power supply. ..."

Sorry, Thomas you are confusing a Geiger counter with a proportional counter.
An ionizing particle makes a few primary ionized molecules in either type of 
detector.  In the proportional counter, these ionized molecules are avalanched 
in a controlled way to produce more ionized pairs, seldom with a gain of more 
than 10,000.  This means that with a proportional chamber we can just barely 
see single tracks with the best electronics that we can build. (Best 
sensitivity of order 600 electrons without looking it up.)   The Geiger tube 
is an entirely different beast.  Here the amplification is allowed to go to 
near infinity.  The avalanche is allowed to propagate down the entire length 
of the central wire.  So the answer is that if you look at the current drain 
of a Geiger tube, you will *miss* multiple hits since the second event only 
adds 20 or so ion pairs to the zillions produced by the first one.  To see 
closely spaced hits (millisecond or so) you need to operate in the 
*proportional* mode, or use an ion chamber for an average value. 

Thomas Kunich also worries that IR will not couple very well to water.  That 
is good news (if true, does anyone know for sure?), as it lets us look for it 
outside the cell.  But it would stay in the calorimeter as there is 5/8" of 
aluminum around the cell. 

Nick Haines wants me to let the electrolyte boil away to stop my cell.  
Sorry, this won't work as it is a closed system.  

Steven Jones says reverse the cell.  We have done that now twice.  The gas 
comes out but the heat does not stop (yet).  It does reduce.  I will try to 
get together with Steve, and have sent him a note.  I think it is time for me 
to build a wall of calorimeters so that I can do more than one thing at a 
time.  I like Steve's little x-ray counter and am anxious to put it in my 
device.  But I really need to design a calorimeter around it to make a proper 
experiment.  Don't worry about me turning off the cell Steve, I think I have 
seen heat at a low level almost every time.  It has just taken a while for me 
to accept it.  

If these cells put out low energy x-rays, then it is going to be really tough 
to find them.  There is some chance that there is enough of them so that a few 
make it through all the cell material.  But we may end up having to do 
something like building a proportional counter inside a hollow cathode!  Not 
easy!

Roger Books suggests putting an electrometer near the cell to detect an 
intense burst of ionizing radiation.  Such a burst would set off the geiger 
counter - and fry my cat.  But low energy x-rays would neither make it through 
the calorimeter walls (5/8" of Aluminum) or into the electrometer or Geiger 
counter.  So I count on the Geiger counter to tell me when to run, and my 
Fermilab film badge to provide evidence for the inquest.  

Dieter, I think you have me wrong.  I am not "echoing Jed's repeated cry for 
more money" just expressing amusement at the way the government works.  It 
also turns out that I was wrong, the government is not even supporting the 
documentation of this affair.  Something that my Libertarian view would allow.  
As to constantly invoking new processes, I only see one.  Excess heat.  I now 
think that I have seen it from the beginning.  All my experiments have given 
about the same result.  About 0.1 to 1 watt per cc excess heat.  So now the 
problem is to set up a row of devices and to start in with my Thomas Edison 
approach, something that I am at least 50% equipped to do.  No money needed, 
just shouts of encouragement.  I am getting those.  Dieter says that he can't 
afford the Cold Fusion Proceedings.  If someone out there will figure out how 
to buy ACCF1 and ICCF2 and send them to Dieter, I will pay the cost.  We want 
to keep Dieter's nose stuck in a good book, no telling what might happen if he 
looks up at those topless Dainish girls. 

Dieter, you bet that I am skeptical too.  I keep looking for problems.  But my 
recent revelation is that I have been looking at experiments just like this 
one for three years.  I don't have some experiments that drift positive and 
some that drift negative.  They all drift positive.  Now one of the funny 
science rules that Douglas Morrison keeps reminding us of is that it takes 
more and more sensitive apparatus to see the effect.  To me, the effect seems 
to be staying the same size, but my confidence builds as my apparatus becomes 
more accurate.  Not quite a fit for funny science.  I see, however, at least 
two more years of work before I can do enough experiments to make a strong 
claim.  

J.R. Bass reminds us of the good work of Cecil.  Would also like to hear of 
follow up work.

To those worrying about the "charging energy", we keep an energy balance from 
the start of the run.  If some energy is lost in the charging process, as it 
is, I can properly add it back in to the balance if I have some evidence to do 
so based for example on the gas absorption measurements.  But this is only 2 
or so kilojoules out of 120.  For the skeptics, I am presently claiming an 
accumulation of 120 kilojoules out of 30 megajoules that have passed through 
the calorimeter.  It should be obvious that I have taken the difference of 
some pretty big numbers to get the total.  But since it is so hard to believe, 
I get all the more time to play.  I agree with John Logajan's comments on the 
heat start up.  That is why I am still working.

Just Faxed John Logajan the original of the Como paper.  I did *not* sign a 
copyright license to the Como people, they did not ask for it.  I do not give 
up my copyright to any conference.  It is OK to me if they copyright the 
complete work, as they have put out an effort to compile and distribute, but I 
never sign away my right to distribute the original.  So John, you have it now 
and can copy it to any one who wants it.  I will also send several papers to 
anyone who sends me a stamped 8 1/2 by 11 envelope.  It is not the money I 
care about, it is getting to the post office.  So if I have the envelope, I 
just have to copy, insert, and throw into the out basket and I get around to 
it.  Otherwise I procrastinate.  Thomas F. Droege, Fermilab MS331, P.O. Box 
500, Batavia, IL 60510.

Jim Carr says "What remains to be done is to put a 10 mW (or 10 W) cell that 
operates under known and predictable conditions ..."

You bet, Jim.  That is what I am working toward.  I think there is no nuclear 
detection equipment that I cannot build or borrow once I get a sniff of what 
to measure.  You can bet that I know a few physicists at Fermilab that will 
show up with their favorite detectors once they believe there is something to 
detect.  

Tom Droege