From: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Subject: Re: Ying Experiment
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:19:27 GMT

In article <920722135155.242008a0@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>  
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
> We are running a pseudo Ying experiment - this is the present status.
> 
(etc)
  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

I had only hoped to get vague hints as to what you were doing with Ying's  
stuff, so I very happy that you can reveal as much as you have.  Thanks  
Tom!  

From conversations with Shults and Dr. Chow in the UCF physics Dept. (who,  
by the way does not believe Ying's results.  He says that the probablity  
of tunneling is 10e-70 and so no amount of boson addition will help.  He  
worked with Ying on the experiment for 8 months with gamma only and got no  
results, but back to my point)  the setup doen't work with Co60 gamma  
alone or Po210 alpha alone, but only when they are combined!  Personally,  
I don't understand why this could be true, unless a more conventional  
series of transmutation and decay processes are going on, as opposed to  
Ying's stimulated emission.  Any ideas as to why they need to be combined?


--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu