From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: anomolous heat &tc.
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:59:24 GMT

 
  Dr. Vesselin Noninski [Subject: Re: McKubre's talk;
     26 Sep 1992]  states:   {  quotes at << }  

<< "I also think that referring to this effect as "anomaly",
<<  as McKubre did, is very inappropriate. If this is not a
<<  real effect it cannot be called anomaly. In case it is a
<<  real effect, how can it be an anomaly (have e.g. 
<< Wien's displacement law, Compton effect, photoelectric 
<< effect etc. ever been referred to as anomalies since 
<< their reality has been confirmed; they were not 
<< called anomalies even when it was found that that 
<< they contradict the existing knowledge)?"


    We respectfully submit that "anomal(o)-" [or "anomo-"] is
prefix arising from the Greek "anomalos" which as a dictionary
 will denote [eg. Scientific Words, W. E. Flood, Duell, Sloan
 &   Pearce, NY (1960)]) means -- irregular, uneven, not even,
 or lawless.

   Are not anomophyllous plants (with irregularly placed
 leaves) real?

  Were not anomodonts (albeit extinct reptilians with
 mandibles containing irregular teeth) real?

   Therefore, perhaps "anomolous" ought to connote a spatial
 (or in this case, temporal)  characterization rather the
 describe if some phenomena are real.

  Regarding the discussed interactions of electromagnetic
 energy with materials: since beam interactions can be
 characterized by the superposition of the separate
 now-well-described radiation-material
 interactions, and as such photoelectric effects dominate only
 until photon energies of ca. 200 keV, whereupon the Compton
 effect has its significant appearance and dominates the
 photon-material interactions until a few MeV when the
 pair [and triplet when appropriate] productions
 arise, it hardly makes much sense to consider such routine
 photon-material interactions as "irregular".  These are not
 anomalies because the repeatably follow patterns over the
 electromagnetic spectrum.
                                    
  Therefore, it seems that the use of the word "anomolous", to
 describe these temperature parameter by which these systems
 are followed, is correct.

  Furthermore, given the dichotomy of types of excess heats
  now noted, these phenomena should be further subdivided
  into:

    "regular anomolous" (ie. the steady state excess heat) and

    "irregular anomolous" (ie. referring to the bursts).

<< "There was an evident effort on the side of McKubre
<<  to convince the audience that all possible systematic
<<  errors have been eliminated -- only very subtle such may
<<  be existing .... "

  My notes indicate that he may have stated that all of his
 laboratory's  measurements which demonstrated significant
 deviations from the control were characterized by 'positive'
 excess heats.  This being salient because if systematic
 errors  were an etiology, given the large number of
 experiments showing a significant effect, then to the degree
 that such systematic error would be important, one of them
 ought to have created a result with a 'negative' excess heat.

  In summary, using the terminology above, some of the results
 Dr. McKubre reported (in the above-cited lecture) were:

  -  regular anomolous heat  "baseline"   to 50% above input 

  - irregular anomolous heat "bursts"     >350%

  -   >45 MJ/mole Pd   [ reportedly implying 450eV/atom ].

  -    Pxs     >   200 watts/cc    {presumably palladium).

  -    No excess heat observed for light water.


                    Mitchell Swartz
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:2287 sci.physics:15730