Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: COLD FUSION



REPOSTING TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE. SORRY
FOR DOING THIS AGAIN.

On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, Brian Whatcott wrote:

The cynic sees that the electrolyte is heavy in oxygen
and that the plasma reaction produces scum.
It would be well to address conventional avenues for
the excess heat noted - say burning a cell component
in oxygen.

This reminds me, there was always the nagging concern
in the Pons-Fleischmann arrangements, that the 700
volumes of hydrogen that palladium metal
can take up, might be released exothermally.

The situation is without precedent. Highly qualified Japanese
scientists, Mizuno et al., published an article describing
experiments in which generation of excess heat was said to
be highly reproducible. According to Mallowe (see item #74
on my list *), Mizuno's findings were confirmed by four other
teams. They were also confirmed by Naudin (see my item #73*).
But no excess heat was found in several ETI experiments in
Texas, as reported at:

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/index.html

At one point the ETI team sent their cathode to Mizuno and in
his laboratory this cathode produced excess heat. The same
cathode, however, did not produce excess heat in Texas.
Likewise, Mizuno's cathode worked in Japan but not in Texas.
And this happened despite the fact that scientists cooperated
to make the experiments as identical as possible. How can
this be explained? What shoul one think about a situation in
which six groups are able to demonstate excess heat and
one is not able to demonstrate it? Storms would say (see
my item #50*) that NAE, the unrecognized nuclear active
environment, is absent in the ETI setup. Why is cold fusion
unique in that respect? Experiments are usually reproducible,
more or less, in other areas of science.

Suppose the situation were different, one team claiming excess
heat and six not able to confirm it. In that case most physicists
would conclude that the claim is not valid. But an extraordinary
claim calls for extraordinary demonstration and 100%
reproducibility is expected. I suppose this is fair, provided only
honest, and highly competent, teams are allowed to be involved.

* Referred items are at http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/