From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Latest News
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:35:25 GMT

We are running a pseudo Ying experiment - this is the present status.

It looks like it will be at least a week until I have some sources.  The 
weekend was spent trying to speed up the data collection process by making 
faster source switches.  At the end of this data we made up a dummy of the 
source so that the in - out is as much alike as possible.  With the speed up, 
the signal went down into the noise.  If there is a signal.  

This lead to an experiment to try to determine the relative intensity of the 
source and the background.  Two of us (my visiting brother in law is a solid 
state physicist) counted by ear as long as we could stand to hear the geiger 
counter ping.  A five minute background count gave 69 counts, a five minute 
count with the source at the same distance (but without any simulation of the 
calorimeter materials) gave 76 counts.  I conclude from this that an upper 
limit on the increase in radiation at the cell due to the source is 50%.  More 
probable it is of order 10% and so it is a fair match to the data.

By the time one considers what might be happening in the cell, and what the 
statistics might be, it does not look so good for short periods and I wish I 
had not changed.  One reason for the short periods is to better remove drift, 
like weather and relative humidity effects.  However, I am more or less 
committed to roughly eight hour periods now until the better source arrives.  
I do not want to run 12 hour periods because there is a hint in all my data 
that there is a day/night effect in the calorimeter balance that is there with 
heavy water but not there calorimeter empty.(No good light water data for 
this.)  It is only a few milliwatts, and enough of a puzzle that if "cold 
fusion" does not work out, I will go after the day/night effect.  The more I 
think about it, it would seem better to go back to 24 hour measurement and 
simply put in the stronger source on the next in period after it arrives. 

At the end of the data below, I made a small program change.  Before, the down 
sweep of the saw tooth was initiated when the command value exceeded a 
particular value.  Since the current is stepped every 10 seconds and the data 
is measured every minute there was a beat between the saw tooth down time and 
the data collection time.  The program change synchronized the down sweep with 
data taking.  The idea was to reduce the beat "noise" so that shorter data 
collection periods would be possible.  Note that I do *not* think that this 
effects the power computation over long periods either way.  (And there is a 
lot of data at a wide range of saw tooth period to argue my point!)

There is a 1000 hours or so of data where there is no "anomalous heat" 
indicated which can be compared to the data below.  This will be an 
interesting exercise if it is not possible to find a "knock your socks off" 
experiment.  

Pt  Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average 
#   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts

1   On      17760        4.9        532.8        49       0.0300  +/- 0.0027
2   Off     48060       13.4       1268.8        50       0.0264  +/- 0.0010
3   On      87300       24.3       2715.0       100       0.0311  +/- 0.0011
4   Off     77220       21.5       1621.6        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0006
5   On      82740       23.0       3607.5        50       0.0436  +/- 0.0006
6   Off     79980       22.2       2709.7        50       0.0339  +/- 0.0010
7   On      83640       23.2       3284.3        50       0.0393  +/- 0.0010
8   Off     57300       15.9       1201.0        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0010
9   On      25440        7.1        897.0        50       0.0353  +/- 0.0010
10  Off     20940        5.8       1365.4        50       0.0652  +/- 0.0010
11  On      34500        9.6       1663.3        50       0.0483  +/- 0.0010
12  Off     25500        7.1       1398.8        50       0.0548  +/- 0.0010
13  On      11760        3.3        685.5        33       0.0560  +/- 0.0028 

The promising thing about this data is that it is made up of 5150 individual 
power measurements with the source out which average to 0.0310 watts of excess 
heat.  There are 5719 source in power measurements which average to 0.0389 
watts.  Because of the saw tooth current, and the lag of the servo in 
response, the calorimeter power input measurements vary from 7 to 12 watts and 
are more or less evenly distributed over that range, with a mean refrigerator 
power of 10 watts.  Thus we are comparing two "box car" distributions with 
mean values that vary by 0.0089 watts source out to in but with widths of 5 
watts.  I really do think the calorimeter is good enough to make this 
measurement.  If there is anyone who thinks it can't, I offer to bet you $1000 
a crack that given wires and a resistor into my calorimeter, I can tell when 
you are putting in 10 mw.(some restrictions apply - write for details). 

The discouraging information is that the effect seems to have gone away or 
reversed with the shorter interval.  Perhaps there is a time lag.  But one as 
long as indicated boggles the synapses.  

Looks like I am where I always seem to be with "anomalous heat".  There is 
just enough to keep me looking for a better experiment.  

Tom Droege

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion