From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: No bathing suits?
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:42:55 GMT


Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE

>Dieter Britz notes that the best one can expect for calorimetry is 3% and that
>my results are well within that number.  He also says "Are you sure about your
>errors?"  Well Dieter, I would not want you to miss out on the splendid
>opportunity that I have offered Dick Blue.  So come and bring lots of money.
>I do think that I have outdone the standard calorimetry.  I am somewhere
>between 0.1% and 0.01% and plan to get better.  Sorry Dieter that you cannot
>read proceedings as I have published the designs in the ACCF1 and ICCF2.  I
>guess if you go to the beach you do not look at girls who are not wearing
>bathing suits.  If I get a reasonable ending calibration and H2O run I will

I certainly do look at them, with and without bathing suits - here in Denmark
you see lots of both. Very nice, too. I can't take you up on your offer to
show me your set-up, though, especially the bit about lots of money. Don't
have it. I look forward to seeing your paper in FT. I do, by the way, read
conference proceedings, I just don't let them into my bibliography. The cnf
ones, however, are too expensive for me to get hold of, someone is raking it
in with these.
 I don't think, by the way, that I put it in quite the way you quote me. I
said that expert calorimetrists generally feel that 3% is about it. It is of
course quite possible that you have outdone them all - even that FPH have done
the same thing and actually got 0.1%, although there I am much more skeptical.

>Dieter also worries about heat of solution of the LiOD.  On the average, the
>cell is held constant to under a 0.001 C with an rms of 0.02 C.  So it does
>change temperature a little, but what goes up must come down, so I think the
>net energy contribution of the LiOD should be zero.  Dieter says that "the
>excess is at a level where a chemical effect might suffice."  I don't think so
>Dieter, if nuclear processes must leave nuclear ash, then chemical processes
>must leave chemical ash.  I don't find enough.

Fair enough; I hadn't noticed that you run at constant cell temperature. I do
agree, of course, that a chemical process would leave chemical products. My
point is that until you came along, people have claimed so much heat that they
could reasonably say that it can't be chemical, ash or no ash. Your small
levels of excess heat are down at the level where a chemical process is not
quite ruled out - I think. I haven't looked at your numbers lately but I guess
your accumulated excess Joules would still require a few grams of product, so
again we're in trouble, maybe. I will also admit that I seem to be backing off
a condition I made a while ago: that an effect has to be somewhere around 100
sigmas, rather than the usual piddling 3, to be convincing. Well, here you are
with 100 sigmas, and I'm still skeptical. Not fair, I know. I guess I am
waiting for you to tell us that you've found an error (knowing that you're
doing your damndest to find one, just like Paneth et al in 1926), and it all
balances now...
 Let me also say, however, that I'd be delighted if it is you, Tom, who comes
up with real, incontrovertible evidence that there is some sort of new effect
here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion