From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Subject: Reply to John Farrell
Reply-To: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:16:09 GMT

>From John Farrell's 5 Jan 93 message, noting my comments about Mills being a 
"moving target":

"This is pure, unadulterated rubbish."  

I have never claimed that these were good experiments.  Only that there was 
something about them that did not make sense.  As my experiments went on, 
Mills kept telling me other things that I should do that were not in the 
original recipe.  After discussing the 24 Feb 1992 posting with him, he really 
out talked me, and I came away from the conversation thinking that I would 
never see an end to my attempt at a replication.  Thus my moving target 
comment.  While all parts of the experiment did not follow the Mills recipe, 
some of it did.  I think the extensions were a proper attempt to verify an 
anomalous result.

Here is the sequence reported here 24 Feb 1992:

1) Cell in the calorimeter, gas vented to atmosphere.  With 1.48*I correction 
see "anomalous heat".  Note that this is the basic experiment as reported in 
"Fusion Technology", and except that I see somewhat lower levels than Mills 
(in a more precise calorimeter) agrees with his measurements.  

2) Cell in the calorimeter, gas connected to mercury bubbler, then to 
catalyst, then to servo gas measurement system.  With 1.48*I correction 
**still see "anomalous heat"**.  Also see the same levels of "anomalous heat" 
as in 1).

So from 2) I can conclude that the mercury bubbler and the catalyst does not 
affect the cell operation.

3) Cell in the calorimeter, mercury bubbler and catalyst in the calorimeter, 
any excess gas to external servo gas measurement system.  No excess gas seen 
by servo.  Maintain same physical configuration i.e. tubing length as when 
separated inside and outside.  Now do not take 1.48*I correction.  *** No 
longer see "anomalous heat". *** 

4) Now restore conditions as in 2) and again see "anomalous heat", indicating 
that the phenomena was not in some way time dependent.  

To accept Farrell's current position, I have to assume that there are two 
kinds of "anomalous heat".  One is an erroneous small amount that deceived me 
into thinking that the above sequence was a demonstration that there was 
nothing to the Mills claim, and a second is a large "real" "anomalous heat" 
that is presently being produced by the Mills team.  OK, I will admit I was 
misled by the "false" "anomalous heat".  Bring on your heater for my house.  I 
will be happy to sign a ten year contract at say half the natural gas rate.

I think Occam's razor tells me the conclusion to make.  

I quote from my 2 Mar 1992 posting:

"Some of you seem to think that I have refuted MKF.  This is not true.  I have 
done several rounds of experiments which indicate enough problems to me that I 
have decided to go back to P&F type experiment.

My results would seem to indicate that there could be a problem with the 
calorimetry, or that there is less gas than expected from 1.48*I, or that the 
gas which does come off has less than 1.48*I heating value, or all or none of 
the above.  Further it is obvious to me that complex chemistry can be taking 
place which requires long running times to eliminate.  

Whatever is going on is probably worth looking at or we all could have quickly 
provided an explanation.  But not by me as there are better people (those out 
of work chemists who have to work as computer programmers) to explore this 
phenomena."

Farrell says "I remind you that Droege was getting excess heat without the 
recombiner."  I was getting it with the recombiner too, John.  See 2) above.  
So can you explain the sequence?  I will be the first to admit that my 
experiments were not very good.  But not quite rubbish. (I know you did not 
call them rubbish, John.)  At the time I figured it would have taken about six 
months to do a good experiment.  I could not see a reason to try.  

Tom Droege

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion