From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:22:02 GMT

In article <9967@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.151111.7971@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>     Funny, I have always felt that Jones' experiments were even more
>>     questionable than PF (no offense intended to Dr. Jones who could
>>     probably be more profitably employed doing something else).  At 
>>     least Pons and Fleischmann claimed a substantial effect.
>
>The issue in any experimental investigation is not how big an effect
>you claim, but whether the effect is real and reproducible.  In 
>particular, I always look for the control of systematic errors and 
>the significance of the signal. 

     Yes.  But part of whether the effect is 'real' is how close to 
     the edge of detection the effect is.  My guess (actually vague
     remembrance) is that Jones' current results would not even be
     seen by the old equipment and that the old results would be
     extremely substantial in the new equipment.

>One of the strengths of this latest work by Jones is that he has a 
>number of detectors and a setup where he can monitor coincident 
>events with particular emphasis on bursts.  His signal to noise in 
>that experiment looked very good; there were no coincident events 
>except for very rare cases that consisted of a burst of tens to 
>hundreds of neutrons.  A burst or nothing.  The "accidental" rate 
>is thus zip, although the energy produced is also zip because of 
>the low rate of bursts -- one every day or so I recall. 

     I am always afraid of the rare event that mimics such bursts.
     The problem with boosting signal to noise is that you make
     more important the source of noise that you had no experience with
     before.

>Thus I think it is more likely that Jones is close to establishing 
>a *nuclear* effect that is at variance with simple predictions than 
>that P&F(&H) have established a nuclear fusion effect.  

     Probably, but it seems that Jones is still not very close.

>I think it is, unfortunately, also true that P&F have not yet established 
>heat effects in a controlled and reproducible fashion ... at least in 
>the sense of a published paper or patent that describes a device that 
>anyone skilled in the art could construct and obtain a well-defined 
>effect in a reliable and consistent fasion.  (They may have done so to 
>their own satisfaction in private, but that is not the same thing.) 

     I agree.  However, certain people here seem to be doing very good
     work along these lines.  I suspect (and heartily hope) that people
     like Tom Droege will do such a thing and put this to rest one way
     or the other (at a substantial profit, one hopes).

                                  dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion