From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Subject:  Martin Fleischmann talk at British Association; part 1
Reply-To: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:37:04 GMT

Martin Fleischmann held a press conference at the British Association on
27 Aug. He had refused to take part in a debate with me and the advertised
debate "with a panel of experts" turned out to be no more than a talk by
him. I was in the audience as was David Williams (ex Harwell) and other
experts. It is unfortunate that none of these people was able to take
part in a genuine debate with Dr Fleischmann.


He showed a video of a cell "boiling" dated 21 June 92 (though the actual
boiling occurred when noone was present - `we had taken a visitor to the
airport'. He commented that `interesting things happen when we take visitors
to the airport or when there are lightning strikes'. Those of you who remember
the suing of Salamon in 90, where Pons claimed that cells had been producing
radiation but that Salamons instruments had been nulled `by a lightning strike'
will find this remark ironic.) The video then continued with pictures of
lump of palladium at bottom of dry cell. Then a further video was shown
of very violent bubbling that we were assured was boiling. I would have
liked to have been in a genuine debate where an electrochemist could have
commented on whether it was significant that, if the water had all disappeared,
then the Pd block could not have been submerged throughout.

The talk began with MF holding up a blue (or so it appeared in the dim
llighting) covered book and recommending everyone to read it. For a moment
I thought he was advertising John Huizenga's "Cold Fusion, the scientific
fiasco of the century" which was on display in the hall, however it turned
out to be the vol33 of the Italian Phys Soc, Proc of 2nd Ann Cold Fusion Conf.
He wrote the ISBN number on the chalkboard; unfortunately I was not able
to copy this down as it was written in a red chalk on a dark green background
and although a handful of people might have been able to see it, it was
invisible to most of the audience; an allegory of cold fusion perhaps.

MF began with claims that CNF had been found by Rutherford et al in
the 30s and also by P Dee at the same time. This was astonishing to me as
I had already pointed out (chapter 18 of THTH, second and third pages) that
the former is at 20keV incident energy and hence "hot" fusion and the Dee expt
also is in contradiction with the cold fusion claims.
The rest of the talk was full of such vague generalisations, with "proofs"
of CF that have been known on the fusion network for more than one or two years.
It generated a feeling of deja vu. It was interesting that MF claimed that
he bet that helium is being produced and that it is "well known" that "we"
produced helium in August 89; those who know the history will appreciate how
this is rather less than the whole truth. It was announced that someone (who?)
had found helium at "up to about 600 times background"; even allowing for the
"up to" it was not said that even if correct this would be several orders of
magnitude below what would be required to substantiate what was being sold.
The claims were in this mode; data from 1989/90 that have been widely
dismissed were presented as if new and significant.  He claimed he and Pons
found neutrons in 89 "but probably thought there were more than there were",
he said that they saw tritium and that "one photomultiplier didnt work
properly and we were criticised quite rightly".

He said that as there was no panel to debate with he would also play the
role of "contra" and so showed data from Kamiokande (Steve Jones, are you
there?) which showed neutrons but the "sceptics say its all from natural
radioactivity; that would require all the uranium etc in the cave to decay
at once but thats what they say nonetheless" (this is not an exact quote
but I was scribbling in my logbook). And here again, it was not said that
even *if* these were genuine neutrons, they offered nothing in support of
his claims of hundreds of watts of fusion power.

He did not say *why* there was no panel to debate with; he did not disclose that
I had been asked in 1990 to appear with him but that he had then written to the
BAAS in 91 refusing to appear on stage with me and suggesting that various well
known supporters of cold fusion should appear. There was no explanation as to
why the programme had advertised that he would be questioned by a panel of
(unnamed) experts; it was unfortunate that people arrived at the hall in
expectation of this only to find a row of seats on the stage but no panel.

There was so much that I would have loved to have been able to criticise
with the aid of an overhead projector but to give chapter and verse from
the body of the hall would have been confusing and counterproductive.
However, in the press conference earlier I did manage to  make a statement
and gain a response from MF about the significance of helium. I am posting
this as a separate item.



Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion