From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Shifting ground
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:16:42 GMT
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>

>D.B. writes:
>
>"Jed, I have been, and am willing to bend over backwards a bit and admit to
>the possibility that some exotic, perhaps even nuclear, process is responsible
>for what many people regard as "the observations"; I do not push the
>pathological science line. But if you mean the above, i.e. you are now going
>to propose a multitude of new, hitherto unknown (nuclear?) processes, you are
>approaching pathological science, by needlessly multiplying entities. Each
>time you pile on a new entity, your science looks more pathological."
>
>Dieter,
>
>I did not say anything about multiplying entities. Not one word. I just
>pointed out that Mizuno and many others have found that the ratios of each
>product to the heat is not consistent. Sometimes you get a lot of tritium, and
>sometimes you get practically none. Sometimes you get lots of neutrons, and
>sometimes you don't. This is the most elementary and firm observation cold
>fusion has yielded so far. What is so controversial about it? Hot fusion
>always gives X number of neutrons for each watt of heat, and cold fusion does
>not. That's all there is to it, and the experimental evidence supporting that
>statement is overwhelming.
>
>I will grant, it is a surprising fact, and nobody understands it yet, but
>facts are facts.
>
>Let me add that *I* did not propose anything, I am merely reporting, in my own
>words, what many others like Mizuno have written.
>
>Why don't you forget about your multiplying entities for a second and tell us
>whether you agree with what *I* said. Based upon the evidence you have seen,
>do you or do you not think that each type of CF product must always exist in
>some exact and fixed proportion to the heat. Don't tell us that God will not
>allow any possibility other than a fixed, exact proportion. Tell us what you
>think the experiments say.

You did indeed multiply entities, with more than one word, by proposing that
there are several processes responsible for "cold fusion".
Facts are facts, true. But what ARE the facts? You and I will have to agree
to disagree here. You see a multitude of results that support cold fusion.
Like so many supporters of CNF, you grab at every straw, and have decided that
the weight of all these straws is overwhelming. Someone observes XS heat,
nothing else: that's CNF. Someone else observes tritium: fine, it's d-d
fusion, no doubt about it. Elsewhere they find (4)He: you beauty, the small
branch, greatly enhanced. And so it goes. I, on the other hand, say that the
"evidence" I have seen so far is unconvincing. I do not, mind you, totally
reject some exotic phenomenon maybe producing heat from somewhere. If only I
were to see a reproducible experiment producing a positive result well outside
its error limits, I'd have to believe it. So my "facts" are not the same as
yours. They say nothing to me.
 From all we (i.e. scientists) know, cnf should not happen. Someone says it
does so; OK, so we entertain the possibility of some exotic, maybe even
nuclear, process. That's already a big step, a sort of temporary suspension
of disbelief. The available evidence does not fit any known process, but
each bit of evidence can be believed to fit, just barely maybe, one known
process; the process varies from one set of evidence to another. The natural
conclusion, if you want to be conservative, is that there is indeed no effect
at all. If you really WANT to believe it, though, you can imagine a new
process for each bit of evidence. The first one (normal d-d fusion) was
extremely audacious; the second, third, etc, become exponentially worse and
worse, i.e. less and less likely, more and more pathological.
 As for Tom's results, they are very low-level, in fact down at the level
where you cannot rule out a chemical origin. If the Belzner et al results
are true (i.e. can be repeated), then a chemical origin would be ruled out
because they found about 10% XS heat, and this is comparable with the heat of
water formation from its elements. Anyone would be hard put to come up with
a chemical reaction in the cell yielding so much energy. Unfortunately, the
Belzner et al (alias "Huggins") results are a one-off, a great pity. I still
include them in my small list of "quality positives". With all respect for
Tom, his XS is at a level that most people would regard as being well within
experimental error, despite his assurances that it's 100 sigma. We tend to
scoff at FPH's claim of 0.1% accuracy in XS heat, and some practiced
electrochemical calorimetrists have written that one can expect about 3% if
one knows the business. If not, the error is larger. If Tom now has outdone
them, this should be reproducible elsewhere - if he publishes a description
of his gear. How about it, Tom?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------