Re: COLD FUSION

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 22:30 US/Eastern, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> To clarify the essential issue raised by Brian the following
> email message was sent to Jean_Louis. I hope to have
> his answer tomorrow morning.
> > . . . I remember reading that chemical origin of excess heat
> > was discussed extensively for the Fleischmann and Pons
> > cells. The accepted conclusion was that their excess heat
> > could not possibly come from chemical processes. What
> > evidence do you have that the same is true for your cell?

No answer so far. Perhaps Jean-Louis is not ready to
answer. He might be waiting for results of the isotopic
analysis of reaction products (to verify Muzino's findings.)
Or perhaps he is vacationing and is away from the Internet.

An interesting message was sent to me from Denmark
this morning. It contains a URL to a list of links to
descriptions of several experiments performed by those
who attempted to verify (not very successfully) cold fusion
conclusions. The author wrote:

> I am following your exploration of the CF phenomena
> with great interest; I am hoping there may be something
> in it after all. I am especially interested in the Karabut type
> experiment [item 13 on my cold fusion list]. However, I
> think your comments on the  Ohmori-Naudin experiments
> need additions from constructive skeptics, for example, the
> results of Little at EarthTech at:
>
> http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/index.html
>
> They have seen no excess heat, and they are in close
> collaboration with Ohmori.

Most of the descriptions are too technical for me but
conclusions are usually clear; they are as clear as
opposite conclusions made by those who reported initial
results.  A teacher like myself is not prepared to decide
which claims are valid and which are not. That is why we
 need a new panel to investigate recent findings. The
November 1989 panel report was based on what was
known in the year in which the discovery was announced.