Path: santra!tut!draken!kth!mcvax!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!unh.cs.cmu.edu!agn
From: agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu (Andreas Nowatzyk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.fusion
Subject: APS Cold Fusion Session notes
Keywords: Cold-Fusion, RIP
Message-ID: <4879@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 2 May 89 21:43:17 GMT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 135
Xref: santra sci.physics:6466 alt.fusion:848

Jon Webb already stated the bottom line of our trip to the APS
meeting. Here are a few more details:

The first sign that things may not look too great was the absence of long
lines at the registration counter. We planned to be there very early in
order to secure a good seat. It turns out that the session was very well
organized in a large auditorium and they had a closed circuit TV setup
to an other room (just in case, but wasn't needed).

P&F were invited but did have time to attend.

The 18 of the 40 papers (Vince will scan the abstracts) were presented on
Monday from 7:30pm to 0:28am:

*1*: Jones (BYU) presented his result in a low-key, professional manner.
     [I really liked him for staying through the entire session, heroically
     taking the heat] He started with an unequivocal 'NO' (in writing)
     to possibility of significant heat generation via cold fusion.
     He proceeded to present his neutron data and a copy of his lab-book
     from May 22, 1986 describing the electrolytic cell.

     Some questions were quite hostile, and several experts in the neutron
     detection business (one from CERN) were clearly unimpressed.

*2*: Rafelski (BUY) presents the theoretical part to the BUY experiments.
     An other 'NO' to the heat question on theoretical grounds. This theory
     stresses the dynamics of D in the metal crystal to enhance fusion and
     makes several favorable assumptions for DD-fusion to explain the BUY
     results.

*3*: Koonin (UCSB) start by tearing Rafelski's theory apart (sort of an
     introductory act). Once accelerated to full speed, he destroys P&F's
     gamma-spectrogram (their evidence for neutrons). To wit: the graph
     underwent strange shape and data-point changes between different versions
     of the same paper, lacks anything but the 'neutron' peak and peaks
     at the wrong place. It perfectly matches the peak from a 214Bi-decay
     which is part of the Radon decay chain. Radon is frequently present in
     concrete buildings and the Rn level of typical basements are more than
     sufficient to account for the data. (Many other made the same point
     later). He is the first to call P&F incompetent.

*4*: Lewis (Caltech) delivers the decisive kill with a very good presentation
     of a long list of data. Lewis is chemist ant the list of collaborators
     list many physics, chemist, electro-Chemists and material scientists.
     plenty of data from various Pd rods (cast, annealed, etc). In particular,
     he collaborated with Texas A&M and got one of their 'working' rods.
     He shreds P&F's evidence one by one:
     - no radiation.
     - no tritium (show how easy it is to fool yourself: an fresh electrolyte
       shows high T-levels if chemical reactions are not properly neutralized)
     - too much He (uses the same mass-spectrometer as F&P, implies
       sloppy operation because the unit has a higher resolution than claimed
       by UU) and shows how much He is present in typical labs. The UU He
       measures too much He to be produced by fusion.
     - Deals in depth with calorimetry and how not to do it in electrolytes
       (needs stirring and a careful balance of the produced gases).
       He reconstructs P&F's data (down to cell geometry) and shows how to
       get there if you are careless.
     - Shows gross thermodynamics error in F&P efficiency calculation.
     - much more...
     This talks was rapid machine-gun fire of facts, an in-depth analysis of
     F&P and leaves little room for hope. All arguments seen on usenet to date
     were addressed very convincingly.
     After much applause, 1/2 of the audience left. The remaining talks were
     merely reduced to a dozen nails for the coffin.

*5*: Whaley (UCB) had to fight the noise of the leaving audience. She gave
     an theoretical talk on how boson (such as D) may be helped by the Pd
     lattice to get closer. Some questioner was not impressed by her math
     and the results did seem directly applicable to the cold fusion problem.
     She did not comment on fusion rates.

*6*: Brooks (OSU) presented F&P replication attempts. Again (as in most
     cases, a long list of chemist and physicist worked on this).
     no heat, no n, no gamma, no He.  "future work - *IF* warranted - ..."

*7*: Rocester team: same as *6*, but less impressive set up.

*8*: more of the same: over 300 runs, various Pd shapes, treatments
     (annealed, preloaded, cold-worked, ...), negative results.

*9*: Stanford/SRI team: in-depth analysis on calorimetry. Destroys the
     Stanford 'confirmation' in passing. Computer model of F&P cell with
     respect to heat transfer characteristics. Almost replicates the F&P
     data (the volume-effect of Pd) analytically. Then throws in residual
     D/Pd reactions (known to occur slowly in volume) and the last points
     for thick rods fall in line. Very convincing and in line with Lewis.

*10*: Bailey (Toronto) looks for gammas from D+D->He, doesn't find any
      and has fun with F&P's gamma-spectrum. Old news by now.

*11*: I has to take a break, so I only got the gloom conclusion.

*12*: Berkely team reports negative results with better equipment.

*13*: withdrew.

*14*: This is the GDR work that was reported on the net earlier. No heat.
      ONE experiment produced some neutrons (these numbers were posted).
      All the other didn't work.

*15*: Florida team reports theoretical limits on fusion rates in metals.
      Notes that P-D should work better here (that was echoed in several
      other presentations). Rates a bit to low to explain the BYU results.
      F&P is out of the question.

*16*: U.Washington team: like *15*, but more pessimistic.

*17*: no show

*18*: Cantrell (Miami U) showed lots of slides of funny looking ZrPd
      electrodes. He run his set-up several time and got different results:
      100% heat, no heat and wrong temp. coefficient, 50% heat. He indicates
      that the heat is due to a reaction with the glass that he placed between
      the electrodes. The electrodes show a contamination of Cu,Si,Zn,Fe,...
      It look like a rather uncontrolled environment. "We used a ZrPd
      electrode with unknown history because that's what we had on hand".

*19*: Florida State U. team looks for X-rays of exited Pd atoms that should
      be present if fusion occurs (even for D+D->4He+lattice). None seen.

*20*: Gai (Yale team): long list of negative results (as mentioned on the
      net). Is trying cast electrodes now.

The abstracts to talks 21-40 on Tue. promise more of the same. The organizers
seemed to anticipate that: they scheduled the session in a smaller room.

I think that there is no need for sci.physic.fusion any more.


-- 
   --  Andreas Nowatzyk  (DC5ZV)

   Carnegie-Mellon University	     agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu
   Computer Science Department       (412) 268-3617
--