From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Subject:  Fleischmann at press conference and Frank Close remarks
Reply-To: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:37:12 GMT

Statement by Frank Close in presence of Martin Fleischmann at BAAS press
conference and transcript of ensuing remarks.

FC: I have made my position clear on the nuclear physics aspects of these
claims in my book. I am not a chemist; I cannot comment on the chemistry but
others have done so. I have never seen evidence that watts of fusion power
are being produced in test tubes at room temperature. On quite general grounds
of energy conservation you know that for every watt of power of the order of
10**12 nuclear events have to take place independent of what particular nuclear
process is involved. Those products are either emitted from the cell as
radiation - and have not been seen - or are left behind and can be looked for.
Some experiments that have claimed to see heat have looked for these products
and have not found anything comparable by ORDERS OF MAGTNITUDE with 10**12
per sec per watt. I said this in my book; I stand by it and everything I
said about the science, its presentation and the history.
    Much of the documentation on which my book was based will in due course
be deposited with the History of CF archive at Cornell where others will be
able to assess my claims.

MF. [Something like "FC remarks based upon expectation from hot fusion
pathways"]--I see no reason why nuclear processes in the lattice need
compare with those in the gas phase.

FC.My statement relied solely on the fact that the energy available
in nuclear reactions comes from the binding energy which is of the order
of 1 million volts independent of the process and independent of where it
goes. [1 million volts per event is equivalent to some 10**12 events per
watt every second]

MF then described how his device undergo temp excursions and that they are
reluctant to shut it off, for safety. So they let it expire by ceasing to
top up the liquid and let it "boil away". [This is the origin of their much
advertised boiling cell].

MF It may be that one will never be able to make the [heat burst (?) -
my tape noisy here] for more than a day. Frank Close is quite right; there
are enormous ehergy releases in the system and the lattice does get disrupted
[I presume he is referring here to my comments on energy storage systems
of phys-chem type] --- Frank Close does not like the Bush [helium claims]
-- I [MF] bet it will probably turn out to be helium-4.

He was then challenged by reporter as to why he believed nuclear and he stressed
energy release greater than 1kW/cc "Think about it; what can I say?
Several people see this. Frank, what is 1kW/cc in nuclear terms?"

FC. How big is your device that you are scaling up?

MF. Small. It generates [about] 100 watts.

FC. *If* it generates 100W and *if* it is going to helium-4 then there are
some 10**13 helium [produced] every second and its very easy to find that
stuff whether its inside or coming off.

MF. Yes; sure

FC.If that is what you currently believe then *every* experiment that is
producing heat from the many that you cited should be able to go and prove
the fact by finding the helium-4

MF. 1992 must be the year when people must put on line mass spectrometers.

FC. Why so long?

MF. Because it costs lots of money.

FC.I know of experiments that believed they showed heat, that looked for
helium and found none [in 89/90].

[Debate then moved into other areas; MF claimed that it is "well established"
that neutrons are produced at "5-50 per watt". Wilkie, science editor of
the  Independent, (daily paper), who was trained as a particle physicist,
pointed out that 5-50 is irrelevant compared to 10**12. The answer was that
other experiments see tritium, electromagnetic radiation etc. These are also
well established apparently, though the relation to Wilkie's question was
not clear to me. When pressed for citations we were referred to the 2nd Ann
Conf now published in vol33 of the Italian Phys Soc. The fact that none of
the papers in that volume claim to see 10**12 of anything was not mentioned.
Reporter then pursued the question of nuclear remnants being left behind
in the cell if not emitted as radiation]

MF. - - - All experiments that produce a large amount of heat should sample
the gases. I accept that it must be done.

FC. Whether chemical or nuclear, *assuming* that there is something
happening - and that is a very wide open question - then there must
be some products *left behind*. If one could find the products then one would
know straight away what was going on.

MF. The nuclear ash [sic!] must be found.

[I am pleased from this remark that MF is aware of the discussions that
take place on this net. I hope too that people who are seriously researching
the H-metal system will note that MF and I agree on the importance of
finding the "ash". If the Japanese are indeed putting in as much money as
others would have us believe, and if MF is correct that "many" people
can now produce power at the level of "many" watts,then we can anticipate
hearing about many reproducible definitive measurements on nuclear ash,
specifically helium at the levels of greater than 10**15 atoms, very soon.
If we do not then one or more of these claims are false.Alternatively we could
recall the null measurements of helium that have already been made and
documented e.g. in Huizenga's book (Pons' obstruction of the helium assay)
or those analysed on this net (Bush et al).]