RE: Arthur C. Clarke on Cold Fusion

[Martin Simon <msimon@physics.ucla.edu>]

> Later reports showed that only certain "magic" batches of palladium would
> demonstrate the effect.  

> Another problem I heard about later: unless the palladium is melted down
> under vacuum and recast, and the process repeated a number of times, 

> Another: the surface of the palladium was critical.  I don't remember
> exactly what the issue was, but I vaguely recall that sanding or polishing
> the palladium would eliminate the "cold fusion" results.
>
> Another: unknown factors cause the experiment to fail, and so it was
> common for P & F to run a great number of cells simultaneously, and then
> only obtain interesting results for a tiny percentage of them.
>
> Another: the "window" of V and I versus T, the place where the CF effects
> would turn on, is said to be narrow.  

> Another: P & F claimed to obtain neutron radiation and excess heat.  In
> hindsight, the neutron radiation was most probably a mistake, and the
> excess heat was not.  
>
> In addition, I've heard it said that there are a number of "secret" 
> techniques involved, 

> It all comes down to reading the continuing papers on the subject. 

As one who attempted a different style of experiment to verify the P+F
results (unsuccessfully), the above is all too familiar and is one reason
that I am now an extreme skeptic of any cold fusion effect.  In fact, the
literature and conference proceedings are full of totally contradictory
experimental results.  At the same conference one group reports that the
effect is only possible in pulsed mode and not CW and another group reports
the exact opposite.  One reports that the pulse rise needs to be sharp or it
won't work and another group claims it must be slowly ramped or it won't
work.  
One group claims the palladium has to be prepared this way and some other
group
a totally different way.  Same disputes about duty cycle, electrolyte
condition,
paladium preparation, cast vs extruded, and annealing.  Even then, with the
same batch of paladium and electrolytes, the experiments are not reproducible.
Controls are not performed as they should be and then sometimes the controls
show the same or better results with plain water.  The cells are not always
continously monitored.  It is truly a mess and until there are reproducible
experiments, I won't waste much time thinking about it.  
    In the last few years, the major supporters and funders like the Japanese
and EPRI have cut support.  The conferences have been dominated by things
like 
the Patterson cells which "work" with plain water and only vaguely resemble
cold
fusion.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, even the excess heat claims fall
apart if the Faraday efficiency is less than 100% and then there is nothing
anomalous to explain.  The people who discovered experimentally that the
Faraday efficiency was less than 100% started out supporters of cold
fusion.  They were
funded by a private company, BOSE, to confirm excess heat.  Instead, they
found 
when the correct, experimentally determined Faraday efficiency is used in the 
calorimetry, there is no excess heat, including in P+F's published data.
     One reason for the hostility some scientists have to this subject is
that 
there was some dishonesty about results early on.  Data was "shifted" to
fit the
idea of fusion better and other data was clearly erroneous.  Don't forget, 
F's own lab in England could not reproduce his results under his direction.  
With all that history, we should be skeptical until there are independent 
reproducible experiments.