Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Original BYU expts/reply to D. Blue
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:41:54 -0700
Reply-To: Dick Blue
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University
Keywords: Original BYU expts
Summary: Response to Dick Blue regarding original BYU experiments

Having apparently lost another posting, and having received no response
on this posting, I re-submit it hoping to respond to questions previously
raised on this net.  It was originally posted on 15 Dec. 1992.

Dear Colleagues,

Dick Blue has raised a number of questions/comments regarding the original
BYU experiments that I should like to answer.  I will refer to the following
publications:
1.  S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr et al., "Observation of cold nuclear
fusion in condensed matter," Nature, 338:737 (27 April 1989)
2.  S.E. Jones, D.L. Decker, H.D. Tolley, Scientific Correspondance, Nature,
343:703 (22 Feb 1990)
3.  S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr et al., "Anomalous Nuclear Reactions
in Condensed Matter:  Recent Results and Open Questions," J. Fusion Energy,
9:199-208 (Dec 1990)
4.  H.O. Menlove, M.M. Fowler, E. Garcia, M.C. Miller, M.A. Paciotti, R.R.
ryan, and S.E. Jones, "Measurement of Neutron Emission from Ti and Pd in
Pressurized D2 Gas and D2O Electrolysis Cells," J. Fusion Energy, 9:495-
506 (Dec. 1990)
5.  A. Bertin et al., "First Experimental Results at the Gran Sasso Labora-
tory on Cold Nuclear Fusion in Titanium Electrodes," J. Fusion Energy 9:209-
213 (Dec. 1990), also same authors (including me) in Il Nuovo cimento
A101:997 (June 1989)
6.  AIP Proc. 228, "Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems,"
Provo,UT 1990 conference, S.E. Jones, F. Scaramuzzi, D. Worledge editors,
Am. Institute of Physics, NY, 1991.  (Over 1000 pages.  I have a few copies
left essentially at cost, $68, or can be purchased from AIP.)
7.  T. Ishida, "Study of the Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Solid/Deuterium
Systems," Masters Thesis printed as ICCR-Report-277-92-15, Univ. of Tokyo,
Feb. 1992
8.  S.E. Jones, "Current issues in cold fusion research:  heat, helium,
tritium, and energetic particles," Surface and Coatings Tech. 51:283-289 (1992)
9.  S.E. Jones, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker et al., "Response to queries regarding
"Observations of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter," RAL-90-022, Ruther-
ford Lab., Proc. of Internat. Symposium on Mu-Cat. Fusion, 1990.

Let us begin with Dr. Blue's 11 Dec. posting, "Re:  Rehash of Jones' Results."
Blue:  "First off I don't see how anything relating to the peak in question can
be called a '4 sigma difference.' "
The statistical significance of the originally-reported peak is calculated in
several different ways in refs 1&2, with significance approx. 4 sigma each time.
E.g., ref. 2 states:  "Reanalysis of the original data set of ref. 1.  This
method of analysis illustrates the merit of using an energy-sensitive neutron
spectrometer.  [details - please read in Nature 1990 correspondance] ...
The statistical significance of the peak is greater than 4 sigma, including
correlations between the parameters.  The centre of the gaussian is at channel
97 +- 16 with a full width at half maximum of 60 +- 11 channels.  Both the
position and width of this feature are consistent with expected for 2.5-MeV
neutrons detected in the BYU neutron spectrometer, based on calibrations with
neutrons of known energy.  This result adds to our confidence that the feature
represents neutrons generated by fusion of deuterons."

This also addresses Blue's question:  "I also wonder whether the detector
has ever been calibrated with a monoenergetic neutron source.  If not the
energy scale may also be shakey as well, in particular with regard to peak
shape."  In ref. 6, Fig. 4 on p. 402 juxtaposes the neutron- energy spectrum
obtained using the d-d reaction facility at Colorado School of Mines (2.5 MeV)
with that obtained at BYU, original "cold-fusion" data:  the peak shapes are
similar.

The reason we re-analyzed the original data and published the result in Feb.
1990 Nature was primarily to check the assertion of Douglas Morrison that the
data had a significance of only 2.2 sigma (e.g., Baltimore APS meeting May 
1989).   We found otherwise as noted above,
and furthermore checked Morrison's data set and found that the numbers used in
his analysis MATCHED those presented by me at CERN for a SUBSET of the data, so
that his conclusions were not valid for the entire data set. (See ref. 9 for
details.)

Blue:  "We will then agree that none of these low level neutron experiments has
ever been reproduced."
Au contraire, the results have been reproduced in the Gran
Sasso Laboratory:  "The results obtained provide a neutron emission rate
comparable in size to the one recently reported by Jones et al. " (ref. 5),
and at Los Alamos National Laboratory by Menlove et al.:  "Experiments using
high-efficiency neutron detectors have detected neutron emission from various
forms of Pd and Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas cells and D2O electrolysis
cells. ..Both random neutrons (0.05-0.2 n/s) and time-correlated neutron bursts
(10-280 n) of =< 100-microsec duration were measured..."  (Ref. 4)
Numerous other laboratories have reported similar effects, and many have not
detected the effect although often the sensitivity level of the latter was
insufficient to preclude our results.  (Quantitative juxtapostion of numerous
results is provided in ref. 9.)

At Kamiokande in Japan, "Some burst neutron emissions were observed especially
from the electrolytic cells.  The event rate (about 0.06 bursts per hour) was
comparable to that of Menlove et al."  "We have found a clear random neutron
emission from portland cement mixed with D2O at the level of 1*10E-4 neutrons/
second, which is, however, difficult to explain based on radioactivity
contamination in the cement..." (Ref. 7, see also my previous postings on
the Kamiokande experiment; I do not claim that all Kamiokande results are
consistent with earlier experiments.  In particular, we did not find bursts
larger than 20 n, so large bursts found at Los Alamos are indeed suspicious.)

Note that both multiple neutron bursts and random-neutron emissions 
(i.e., uncorrelated in approx. 100 microseconds) are reported in the latter two 
experiments.  Thus, Dr. Blue is incorrect in his Dec. 9 assertion:  "Both of
these experiments [Menlove-Jones collaboration and Kamiokande] involve the
detection of events with neutron multiplicities greater than 1. ... Until
someone makes a proposal as to what mechanism could be producing "neutron
bursts" I think the fact that the effect is seen ONLY as multiple neutron events
is an indication that it is a background of the type we have suggested." (Blue:
capitalization added for emphasis.)  These statements and the conclusions that
follow from them are simply incorrect:  both random and burst-type events are
reported both at Kamiokande and Los Alamos.

Blue (9Dec posting):  "the pulse height spectra recorded by Jones was dominated
by gamma rays, NOT NEUTRONS."  (His caps.)  Not true.
In our original experimental paper, we reported:
  "By comparing energy spectra from gamma-ray
and neutron sources we have determined that approximately one-fourth of the
observed background events arise from accidental coincidences of gamma-rays
and three-fourths from ambient neutrons." (ref. 1)  I rechecked this with
Bart Czirr; he wonders where Dr. Blue developed his misunderstanding.

Blue:  "Second point is that there were some few net counts left after
subtraction of the background only because of a renormalization of the
background."     There were fewer hours of foreground than of background,
so scaling is clearly needed; there were roughly 100 net counts;
see refs. 1 and 2 for details.  

Blue:  "And thirdly, while the detector has some capability for determination
of neutron energy  if the signals had been employed in one possible mode of
operation, the mode used in the Jones experiment was such that energy
information would be washed out due to the adding of a signal (with a finite
noise width) that was not dependent on neutron energy.  In short the results
of that experiment should be ignored.  They have no bearing on cold fusion."

Balderdash.  The fact is that the experiment was run in such a way as to
provide information on the neutron energies, a clear peak was observed, 
and "both the position and width of this feature are consistent with those
expected for 2.5-MeV neutrons detected in the BYU neutron spectrometer, based
on calibrations with neutrons of known energy."  (ref. 2)

The original BYU experiments cannot be so easily dismissed.  We have looked
and are still looking for possible errors, however.  (See esp. ref. 2)

Yours Truly,
Steven E. Jones

P.s.  Thanks to Terry Bollinger for his remarks on cavitation in D2O, which
seem to complement remarks I made on "Sonofusion at BYU" Dec. 11, I believe.
Sonoluminescence (SL) is indeed an intriguing phenomenon, and we aim to
determine whether SL in D2O can be accompanied by fusion.  If so, we may yet 
understand our original findings.  Still having fun, SEJ.




Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion