From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Comments on Natoya and McKubre
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:22:29 GMT

Here is a prediction on the Natoya experiment.  When the open experiment is 
carefully done, with good instrumentation, proper wire size, and the 1.48*I 
correction for the Nickel cell; excess heat will be seen.  When done in closed 
form, for a very long time, with the energy balance measured from the start of 
the experiment, and with equally good instrumentation; the experiment will be 
null.  

Thomas Kunich asks if anyone has tried to duplicate R.T. Bush.  Similar 
experiments were reported by me here January - March of this year.  I did not 
do all the versions of the Bush experiment, but I did do the Mills experiment 
on which the Bush work is based.  This is also similar to the Natoya 
experiment.  My results were that there are problems in assuming that the 
1.48*I correction is valid.  The problem that I have with the Bush work is 
that Bush fills up journals with long papers that are very short on 
experimental detail.  (This is about my limit for a "flame".)  I contrast the 
Bush work with the McKubre work, where I find many little details of 
experimental technique which demonstrate to me that his work is first class.  

Again I would like to complement Jones and Buehler for excellent work in 
pointing out problems with the Natoya demonstration.  While they did not get 
everything right the first time, as they digested the information that they 
had, they put up corrections until everything possible was presented.  I 
prefer this to waiting a long time until they were absolutely sure (which is 
never) before reporting.  The danger in not reporting a suspicion is that some 
of us (like me with Mills and Ying) may rush off and expend resources trying 
to duplicate a bad experiment.  

I had a very interesting meeting with Mike McKubre in Washington D.C. Tuesday 
Nov. 17.  There were only a few of us present so that I got to question him  
extensively.  My opinion remains that he is doing very good work, and that his 
measurement technique is first class.  I learned only a few new things that 
are not in the Como proceedings paper which I recommend to you all.  

After thinking about the meeting for some time I conclude that while McKubre 
freely answered every question, he did not answer questions that were not 
asked.  It is thus likely that he has un-revealed interesting results.  I 
believe that the last sequence of experiments he described were scale up 
experiments.  This means that he either thinks that he knows what he is doing, 
or that he feels he needs to demonstrate high power to keep his funding.  Not 
a pleasant thought.  The one funded researcher in the US may feel pressure to 
produce positive results to keep his job.  We learned that at SRI you keep 
your job only as long as you bring in research projects.  It did not sound 
like there was other funded work waiting.  I rush to say that in my opinion 
McKubre is an ethical, dedicated worker.  I do not like the pressure that 
exists at SRI. 

McKubre ends the Como paper as follows:

"As a final note, we are unable to account for the observed excess temperature 
by any artifact known to us and are forced to conclude, tentatively, that the 
source of the excess power is a property of the D/Pd system.  Further, we 
cannot account for the measured excess heat by any chemical or mechanical 
process with which we are familiar." 

The one knowledgeable skeptic present was not convinced and proposed a 
chemical explanation.  (My definition - there were several skeptics present, 
but one had worked hard to do the experiment in 1989.)  He did not fault 
McKubre's technique.  

Tom Droege