Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Think About It.
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 9 Dec 92 18:38:06 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,

In his "Review of Third Intl. Cold Fusion Conf.", Dr. Morrison states:
"S. Jones and H. Menlove have tried to detect neutrons in the large
(3000 ton) Kamiokande detector; with palladium and titanium, upper limits
corresponding to 10 E -14 Watts were found.  Previously they had claimed
to have observed two types of bursts, some lasting for a few hours and
the others lasting only about a hundred microseconds.  However such
effects were not observed in Kamiokande and with the much lower background,
all the previous claims were disproved.  They then tried cement in 
Kamiokande and not unnaturally in view of the high radioactivity of cement,
observed counts."

These remarks are incorrect.  I hope Douglas will take time to respond to
my postings addressing similar earlier remarks, posted by me on 3 and
5 Dec.  In the meantime, I will quote briefly again
 (this is becoming rather tedious by now)
from a Master's Thesis on the Kamiokande/BYU/Los Alamos Nat'l Lab experiment:
 
"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. (1990), but the maximum multiplicity was limited to four (source
neutrons of about 11, Fig. 7-2)."
"Electrolytic cells experiment"  "We have OBSERVED 9 BURSTS with maximum
multiplicity of 4.  The probability that these bursts originate in uranium
contamination is less than 2 * 10 -4, probably at the level of 10 -6."
"Cement experiment"  "We have found a CLEAR RANDOM NEUTRON EMISSION from the
portland cement mixed with D2O at the level of 1 * 10-3 neutrons/second, which
is, however, difficult to explain based on radioactivity contamination in the
cement..."

Beginning on p. 63 of his thesis, Ishida-san describes the cement experiments.
Please note that the first sample was run on April 20, 1991, shortly after we
began the first electrolysis experiments in Kamiokande in mid-April.  During
curing, the neutron yield was 8.43 +- 2.62 10 -4 n/s (observed, photomultiplier
tubes hit > 28).  After curing, the SAME sample gave 0.02 +- 1.11 n/s observed,
which is consistent with zero.  Explain that.
(It was the high neutron yields during the CURING of the D2O+cement that led
Prof. Totsuka to ask us to continue the experiments at BYU, since these yields
interfered with the neutrino measurements.  The cement itself was not the 
problem.)               
                     Similar time dependences of the neutron yields
are reported by Ishida and seen in studies which followed his writing (both in
Kamiokande and in the Provo Canyon Lab. near BYU):  unexplained neutron
emissions are seen DURING cement+D2O curing (chemical reactions giving
non-equilibrium conditions).  The magnitude of the change cannot be 
accounted for by loss of D2O -- we checked.  We also checked for conventional
explanations due to radon, uranium, thorium contaminations -- including effects
of gammas and alphas such as deuteron disintegration, and have ruled these out,
as far as we have been able.  A crucial check was to run using the BYU detector
which discriminates against low-energy neutrons, E<1MeV, e.g., from deuteron
photodisintegration due to 2.6 MeV gammas from Thallium-208 decay (thorium
decay chain.)
(See Ishida's thesis and "Systematic Investigations of Neutron Emissions from
Cement Prepared with Heavy Water", BYU 1992).

A prosaic explanation for these data should be prepared to account for the
TIME DEPENDENCE in the neutron production rate for the cements prepared with
D2O.  Note also that no neutron signal was detected with cement prepared with
H2O, e.g. run 3462 yield = -0.30 +- 1.17 n/h during curing.  (Ishida Thesis
p. 63).

Therefore, Dr. Morrison's statements that the observed neutron emissions
are due to "the high radioactivity content of cement" are very misleading.
The results of the Kamiokande experiments to the BYU and Los Alamos experiments
are not so devastating as Dr. Morrison would have us believe.  (See postings
also by Dr. Chuck Sites who has read the Ishida thesis.)

Part Two.
I find that much of the remainder of Dr. Morrison's review is useful and
enlightening.    However, he does a terrible disservice in linking too
closely the efforts of Jones with the dissimilar claims of Pons and
Fleischmann:  
"Now these two original experiments have been severely contested over the
years and it is clear that if the two original experiments which began the
current Cold Fusion excitement, are shown to be untenable, then the very
foundations of of Cold Fusion should crumble."  (Morrison posting Dec. 8)

This seems to be a key point to Dr. Morrison, almost a crusade.
If the low-level emissions such as we have reported are shown wrong, will
the nuclear-excess-heat claims "crumble?"  No.  The xs heat boys have since
moved on to exotic (even unknown) nuclear reactions.  Our tiny effects even
if real in no way support the nuclear-xs heat claims-- they are far too small.  

There are a number of good physicists continuing to 
investigate the low-level nuclear effects in deuterided materials, including
Menlove (a fellow of the Los Alamos Nat'l Lab), Kevin Wolf, Ed Cecil, Graham
Hubler, Bart Czirr, Paul Palmer, to name a few in the U.S., and
good geophysicists such as Gary McMurtry (U. Hawaii) and Fraser Goff (Los
Alamos Nat'l Lab).  Their work is conducted quietly for the most part, in
large measure because of the concern of most that their results would be
used as a prop for those claiming that excess heat is nuclear in origin.
  
Suppose -- for the sake of argument now -- that one of these finds definitive
evidence for low-level nuclear reactions, e.g., (non-prosaic) tritium
from magmatic waters from volcanic fumaroles, or neutrons and other
emissions from electrolytic cells -- at small but non-zero levels.
Does this mean that the excess heat claimed by Pons and Fleischmann is nuclear
in origin?  Of course not:  the two claims are distinct and are separated by
many orders of magnitude.  What a sham to connect them!

If Dr. Morrison could only separate these "two original experiments," I think
his presentations would be more fair.
To bring this point into perspective further, I would ask Morrison and other
readers of this net:  "Is Jones a 'True Believer' (in the sense used previously
by Douglas Morrison)?"        Pondering this question would disclose, I trust,
distinct differences between myself and Pons/ Fleischmann.
I am happy to note that Frank Close makes a clear distinction between the
two experiments in his noteworthy book, as does John Huizenga:  
"The thirteen orders of magnitude difference between watts of excess power
and his claim of neutrons are irreconcilable to Jones and most other nuclear
physicists.  Jones has taken this position from the beginning.  ... Only time
will tell whether there are processes such as, for example, 'fracto-fusion'
that can account for very low levels of fusion products."  (p. 214 of
Huizenga's book, which book I heartily recommend to all readers.)
I agree with Huizenga (as I am confident does Douglas Morrison):

"Room-temperature nuclear fusion without commensurate amounts of fusion 
products is a delusion and qualifies as pathological science." 

That is a clear warning to which all should pay careful heed.

Best Regards,
Steven E. Jones 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion