From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Ying Experiment
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:07:31 GMT

We are running a pseudo Ying experiment - this is the present status.

First, let me explain the following obscure language.  I have agreed to keep 
the details of Ying's process secret until he has time to publish.  The 
advantage to me is that I get a head start on his process.  The advantage to 
Ying is that he gets a replication attempt by an experienced worker.  It is a 
fair bargain and I expect to keep it even though it goes against some of our 
ideas of free interchange of intellectual information. 

>From only the press release, we see that the Ying process involves a source of 
bosons.  Whether the source of bosons is a cyclotron or something else, it 
should be clear to most of you that the source can be turned on and off.  For 
the time being, you must trust me that I have found a way to do this that does 
not disturb the calorimeter balance.  Later in this experiment we will repeat 
with light water in the cell to check this.  I hope that by now most of you 
will agree that I will worry that, for example, turning the cyclotron on and 
off does not disturb the power supplies or air currents in the room and thus 
change the calorimeter balance.  

For this experiment we simply "modified" the running Takahashi experiment to 
add "incident stimulation bosons".  We are now at about run hour 1900.

The press release further states "We used alpha and gamma rays as incident 
stimulation bosons."  At present, I have only a producer of gamma rays.  I 
hope to have the official alpha and gamma ray producers soon.  The geometry is 
such, that when on, it provides an estimated one ten thousandth of the flux 
used by Ying.  Ying has apparently not attempted to operate with alternate 
stimulation on and off periods.  (Source for this either Gene Mallove or Jed 
Rothwell from conversations with Shults.)  This seemed like an obvious 
experiment to me and this process was started as soon as it looked like there 
might be some effect.  The first few points were taken while still feeling out 
the experiment.  The last period is not yet complete.  We are attempting to 
alternate 24 hour periods of gamma on and off.  Sometimes I sleep or go to 
parties, etc., so the period is irregular.



Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average 
Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts

On      17760      4.9        532.8        49          0.0300  +/- 0.0027
Off     48060     13.4       1268.8        50          0.0264  +/- 0.0010
On      87300     24.3       2715.0       100          0.0311  +/- 0.0011
Off     77220     21.5       1621.6        50          0.0210  +/- 0.0006
On      82740     23.0       3607.5        50          0.0436  +/- 0.0006
Off     51840     14.4       1658.9        50          0.0320  +/- 0.0010

The error limits are based on an eleven day calibration run.  They are 
relative measurements only and reflect the stability of the calorimeter.  The 
maximum change from balance during any one hour was 10 joules.  Over any 24 
hour period it was 50 joules.  Over any 10 day period it was 100 joules.  The 
calorimeter configuration is not quite the same as during the calibration 
runs.  See the Como proceedings paper for a few more details on the 
calibration.  In spite of spending many, many hours on calibration I think the 
numbers are optimistic.  But they are all I have.  There is no good way to 
insert a feeling of mistrust for being fooled by calorimetry.  I just do the 
calibration experiments and that is what they show.  Note that this "worst 
observation over n hours" is more like a three sigma than one sigma error 
limit - but I am not statistically literate.  Still, I am nervous. 

The measurements should be considered to have only relative accuracy.  I do 
not know the location of the calorimeter zero any better than 150 milliwatts.  
The calorimeter constant was set to give zero after the power problem during a 
time that I believed that there was no "anomalous heat".

I leave it to you, my jury, to decide what if any significance these 
measurements have.  The next obvious experiment is to change the intensity of 
the source, and to use the recommended procedure.  All in good time as we get 
the stuff.  I remind you all that god has a gamma ray source and he (used she 
last time) capriciously turns it on and off. 

Tom Droege