From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Subject: Cold Fusion
Reply-To: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:40:12 GMT

Dear Colleagues,

It is of no doubt that the wide interest in the so called 'cold fusion' 
was provoked by the claims for observation of excess heat (EH)(ovecoming
the energy breakeven). There is also no doubt that a significant interest, 
beyond just academic, in the neutrons, tritium, gamma-rays and other 
emissions expected if *known* nuclear reactions are taking place will be 
reasonable only if the main claim (production of excess heat) proves to 
be real. Why discuss the claim for EH in sci.physics.fusion then ? 
Because for those who wish to discuss what might cause EH to appear, 
nuclear fusion is the only viable possibility to hypothesize about 
EH, if real. Other speculation about the origin of EH such as 
violation of the first and the second principles of thermodynamics are 
outside the realm of contemporary professional science. Of course, these 
principles are also not sacred since we have accepted them solely based on 
experimental evidence and only solid experimental evidence should be the 
criteria for accepting exceptions to these principles. 

It seems bizzare to me, however, to try to conjecture far out possibilities 
like 'cold fusion', not to speak about violation of the principles of 
thermodynamics, before the clear experimental determination of the reality 
of EH is carried out. This is putting the cart before the horse. Can you 
imagine in what position all those "theorists" would be if the claimed EH 
turns out to be a subtle triviality -- say due to unaccounted for 
heat-transfer problems ? The situation would be similar to that with 
"polywater" -- some people were creating theories to explain that 
"phenomenon".

Thus, we face a situation where there is an extraordinary claim 
(production of EH)  whose reality is to be determined 
and a working hypothesis (cold nuclear fusion) to explain this eventual 
phenomenon. Unfortunately, from the very beginning a significant confusion 
occured as to which to come first -- explanation of the eventual phenomenon 
or determination of the reality of this same phenomenon. The things were 
muddled even further by trying to prove that EH is not real by showing that 
it does not fit the explanation (e.g. overwhelming majority of the scientists 
looking into this problem found no netrons or other products from known 
nuclear reactions and some take this as enough proof against the reality 
of EH).

It cannot be emphasized too strongly, however, that whether 
the claimed excess heat is real or not can (and should !) be proved solely 
by calorimetry no matter how unattractive, non-prestigious and old-fashioned 
this technique may seem to some (science is not a fashion show). 
Refuting the existence of excess heat e.g. by calculations 
based on known nuclear reactions is irrelevant. Such arguments for refuting EH 
are similar to any attempts to question the reality of the Wien's displacement 
law,  Davison Germer's experiments, Compton effect, photoelectric effect etc. 
using calculations based on classical physics. The 'ultraviolet 
catastrophy' is one of the well known results from such calculations. 
Such 'catastrophic' results from calculations based on classical physics, 
however, did not suffice to reject the experimental reality of the mentioned 
phenomena. Further, the opinion created that calorimetry is somehow an 
approximate technique since innumerable parameters should be controlled is 
incorrect. Also, the opinion expressed by some physicists that calorimetry is 
a technique that only the chemists should meddle with can only cause eyebrows 
to raise. Is not calorimetry used to determine physical changes as well ? Are 
thermodynamics, statistical mechanics or heat-transfer used only in chemistry ? 
In other words all kinds of excuses and explanations were created to present 
calorimetry as too difficult, too complex, too approximate and so forth (which 
itis not) in order to bypass it and direct all the attention towards the nuclear 
measurements. Thus the attention of the community was redirected from the 
real problem -- determination of the reality of excess heat through calorimetry 
-- to marginal problems (detection of products of nuclear reactions) 
concerning the cause of the EH phenomenon (a phenomenon that may not even be 
there !?).

As a result an impression was created that reputable labs have been unable to 
replicate the claims for EH and somehow this impression is always sneaked when 
discussions concerning CF in general take place. It should be stated very 
clearly, however, that despite the impression that some may have that there 
is a clear experimental evidence against the reality of EH, the facts presented 
in the literature so far show that there is no such evidence. I agree with one 
critic saying that "darned few of the experimental results ... [are] worthy 
of giving of second thought". And that applies not only to the "experimental 
results put forward in support of CF". Most of the widely cited "negative" 
papers are not worthy a second thought. For instance, if one is not willing 
to just take the word of the authors that their experimental results were 
negative with regard to EH, but wants to look and analyse for himself those 
results papers like:

G.Kreysa et al, J.Electroana.Chem., 266, 437 (1989)
T.R.Jow et al, J.Electrochem.Soc., 137, 2473 (1990)
R.D.Armstrong et al, J.Electroanal.Chem., 272, 293 (1989)
R.H.Wilson et al, J.Electroanal.Chem., 332, 1 (1992)
G. Olofsson et al, J. Chem. Thermodyn., 23, 95 (1991)
M. Chemla et al, J.Electroanal.Chem., 277, 93 (1990).
V.L.Shapovalov, Pisma Zh. Eksp.Teor. Fiz., 50, 109 (1989)

and many others

can be of little assistance. Such papers report no raw data and there are 
evident problems with the experiments and the analysis. I do not consider it 
worthwhile to go into more detais here. No appropriate raw data contains 
also the paper from the Harwell lab: 

D.E.Williams et al, Nature, 342, 375 (1989).

Try to obtain the raw data for the D2O cells from Dr. Williams. I have tried 
without success. Do not forget that Harwell lab's results together with 
those from the Caltech group had the greatest negative impact on the scientific 
world. You may also wish to contact Dr. Worledge from EPRI who has made a 
critical analysis of Harwell's results. I agree with Worledge's comments and 
find out (in the correspondence between Williams and Worledge which David 
Worledge kindly allowed me to look at) that Williams is unable to answer some 
serious questions concerning his calorimetric resullts. Other notorious examples 
of badly performed experiments and analysis found in papers coming 
from well-established and equipped labs are those from the Caltech group 
and the MIT group:

N.Lewis et al, Nature, 340, 525 (1989)
N.Lewis and collaborators, Science, 246, 793 (1989)
R.R.Parker, M.Wrighton and collaborators, J.Fusion Energy, 9, 133 (1990)

Comments on R.R.Parker, M.Wrighton and coworkers' paper are already published in 

V.C.Noninski, C.I.Noninski, J.Fusion Technology, 19, 579 (1991) 

and another exchange is forthcoming in another journal. I will notify you 
promptly upon its publication. As it concerns N.Lewis et al's papers we 
submitted to Nature still on August 30, 1989 a commentary on this 
paper. The discussion with Nature continued more than 
two years and the result is that N.Lewis is unable to come out with answers to 
the questions we are addressing. Unfortunately, Nature still is refusing to 
publish our commentary (despite the fact that at a certain point there was a 
verbal promise to do so; in connection with this I was asked to shorten our 
note which I did -- neverhteless, without further explanation, it was not 
published). When a second look is taken at Lewis' paper one 
can easily see that the very method of investigation chosen by Lewis is 
fundamentally inappropriate for the studies he has undertaken. The method of 
calibration which Lewis uses contains the same unknown which he wants to 
determine. Despite the inappropriate calibration which makes his method 
inapplicable there are further arguments that can be given, based on the 
presented data, which lead to conclusions different from those stated by 
the authors. For instance, from the scant data presented one sees a clear 
difference, unnoticed by the authors, 
in the thermal behavior of the D2O and the H2O cell despite the 
verbal asserion to the contrary from the authors. Even further, analysis of 
the data presented by Lewis (if we are to believe them) show that the 
they are in fact reproducing F&P claims and apparent EH of the F&P order of 
magnitude has been produced by the Lewis' group.

I do not want to be understood erroneously. There are many sloppy papers 
among the "positive" ones too (contrary to some opinions, however, I do 
not consider the initial publication of F&P as sloppy; never forget that 
it was only a preliminary note). It is very clear, however, that flaws in 
the "negative" papers are of greater importance and should be emphasized 
more energetically since namely these papers are considered respectable 
and representative of the field by most of the scientific community. 

Especially discouraging, however, is that groups with proven record 
in scientific research have dropped the subject before reaching a conclusive 
answer one way or the other or are continuing driven by other than scientific 
motives. I know of no serious effort here, in Japan or elsewhere, 
at present (except for dabbling by some enthusiasts having little or no 
expertise in the field) to get to the bottom of the EH problem. Of what I hear 
is mostly incompetence and battle of words among journalists ('science writers') 
and enthusiasts. There is also an evident fear among both camps ('critics' and 
'advocates') to face the truth about EH. Noone wants to be a loser and therefore 
noone really wants to get to the bottom of the problem ("what if the answer is 
the opposite to what I have already committed myself to ?"). This kind of 
intelectual slavery does a great disservice to science and violates one of the 
fundamental freedoms of the scientist -- the freedom to be wrong while honestly 
pursuing the truth. 

I feel also that the driving force in this field is less the money factor and 
more the proper atmosphere and conviction among scientists (especially outside 
the mentioned two camps of "advocates" and "critics") that such studies are 
really necessary to be performed. Therefore, I do not sympathise with those 
complaining about the lack of financial support and explaining the failures 
in the field with such lack. I know that most of those complaining about lack 
of financial support do have enough money to carry out conclusive experiments 
if they really have the expertise and determination to do so. 

Truly yours,

Vesselin Noninski                                   Otober 11, 1992
        
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics