Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yet another reply to V. Noninski
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:17:30 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

The voltage on the cell with Ni cathode *really* was approx. 1.5 V greater
than the voltage on the resistance-wire-heated control cell.  In a 17 Nov
1992 posting, V. Noninski claims I used "an apparently dreamed-up increase in 
voltage to compensate for what he calls 'hydrolysis loss', having nothing
to do with the measurement of his student."
BYU graduate student David Buehler made this posting on 18 Nov:
"Because there was question concerning the voltage on Dr. Notoya's electrolysis
cell, Steve Jones asked me to post a clarification.  As he explained, the
voltage on the electrolysis cell was about 1.5 volts higher than resistive
cell.  This was all explained with little signs in front of the two cells.
{at the Nagoya meeting}"
Yet on 20 Nov., V. Noninski continues to assert that my figures "were in fact
made up to sustain the initial claim for 'mistake' in Notoya's cell."
This is getting ridiculous.  First of all, David Buehler is not a liar.
Secondly, there were numerous witnesses to the very thin
wire going into the control cell.  At my suggestion, David Buehler made
careful measurements of the resistance of the wires entering the control cell,
with Dr. Notoya's help, as well as the resistance of the materials inside the
cell.  Then we replicated the resistances involved here, to show that a 10 C
difference in cells (as we saw at the meeting)
could indeed result from the resistances as measured.  It is
not the case, as Noninski asserts, that "it was enough for him [Jones] to just
hear some figures from some student and the moment he realized the figures fit
his goals he rushed to publish them."  (Nov. 20 posting by V. Noninski.) 
There are others who can explain that Dr. Notoya did, in fact, have approx.
1.5 V higher on the cell with the Ni cathode, as she reported on the signs in
front of the two cells.  As my next witness, I call on none other than Jed
Rothwell, who in his Nov. posting on the prescribed protocol for just this
type of Ni-cathode cell, states: 
   "The heat input to the cell that would ordinarily be expected from
electrolysis (the so-called "joule heating") is given by the expression:
(V - 1.48) I
where V is the voltage applied to the cell, and I is the current passing
through.  The "IX1.48" quantity here is the power lost by electrolytic
production of oxygen and hydrogen.   Because the cell is open to the
atmosphere, this "power" in the form of potentially recoverable chemical
energy simply escapes the cell."  Thus, the voltage on the electrolysis
cell was adjusted 1.48 V higher than the V on the resistance-heated control,
to balance the joule-heating in the two cells to permit comparison based
on temperature differences of the two cells.
V. Noninski states on 20 Nov. "my conviction that S.Jones has deliberately
adjusted the data, after my criticism (obviously the change of data was made
to support his initial denouncement of Notoya's experiment..."   Such statements,
in the face of postings by David Buehler (who is certainly no liar, Mr.
Noninski) to the contrary, and even Jed Rothwell (although Jed is speaking of
experiments generically) are unreasonable.
Respectfully if elegiacally,
Steven E. Jones

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion