Fleischmann's original response to Morrison's lies
Jed Rothwell
nonsense time after time, eventually he will win the debate. All of
his claims about the Harwell fiasco, the General Electric study and so
on, are false. For the sake of other readers, who might be taken by
his lies, here is Fleischmann's response to his original claims.
- JR
KEY: *text* means original text was underlined
**text** means original text was italicized
***text*** means original text was underlind AND italicized
Greek letters in the original have been spelled out in this
posting.
[[approx.]] substitutes for "tilde" notation used in the paper.
Subscripts are indicated by {x} bracket notation.
Superscripts are indicated by {{x}} double bracket notation.
==============================================================
Abstract
We reply here to the critique by Douglas Morrison [1] of our paper
[2] which was recently published in this Journal. Apart from his
general classification of our experiments into stages 1-5, we find
that the comments made [1] are either irrelevant or inaccurate or
both.
In the article "Comments on Claims of Excess Enthalpy by Fleishmann
and Pons using simple cells made to Boil" Douglas Morrison presents a
critique [1] of the paper "Calorimetry of the Pd-D{2}0 system: from
simplicity via complications to simplicity" which has recently been
published in this Journal [2]. In the introduction to his critique,
Douglas Morrison has divided the time-scale of the experiments we
reported into 5 stages. In this reply, we will divide our comments
into the same 5 parts. However, we note at the outset that Douglas
Morrison has restricted his critique to those aspects of our own paper
which are relevant to the generation of high levels of the specific
excess enthalpy in Pd-cathodes polarized in D{2}0 solutions i.e. to
stages 3-5. By omitting stages 1 and 2, Douglas Morrison has ignored
one of the most important aspects of our paper and this, in turn,
leads him to make several erroneous statements. We therefore start our
reply by drawing attention to these omissions in Douglas Morrison's
critique.
*Stages 1 and 2* In the initial stage of these experiments the
electrodes (0.2mm diameter x 12.5mm length Pd-cathodes) were first
polarised at 0.2A, the current being raised to 0.5A in stage 2 of the
experiments.
We note at the outset that Douglas Morrison has not drawn attention
to the all important "blank experiments" illustrated in Figs 4 and 6
or our paper by the example of a Pt cathode polarised in the identical
0.1M LiOD electrolyte. By ignoring this part of the paper he has
failed to understand that one can obtain a precise calibration of the
cells (relative standard deviation 0.17%) *in a simple way* using what
we have termed the "lower bound heat transfer coefficient,
(k{R}'){11}", based on the assumption that there is zero excess
enthalpy generation in such "blank cells". We have shown that the
accuracy of this value is within 1 sigma of the precision of the true
value of the heat transfer coefficient, (k{R}'){2}, obtained by *a
simple* independent calibration using a resistive Joule heater.
Further methods of analysis [3] (beyond the scope of the particular
paper [2]) show that the precision of (k{R}'){11} is also close to the
accuracy of this heat transfer coefficient (see our discussion of
stage 3).
We draw attention to the fact that the time-dependence of
(k{R}'){11}, (the simplest possible way of characterising the cells)
when applied to measurements for Pd-cathodes polarised in D{2}0
solutions, gives direct evidence for the generation of excess enthalpy
in these systems. It is quite unnecessary to use complicated methods
of data analysis to demonstrate this fact in a semi-quantitative
fashion.
*Stage 3 Calculations* Douglas Morrison starts by asserting:
"Firstly, a complicated non-linear regression analysis is employed to
allow a claim of excess enthalpy to be made". He has failed to
observe that we ***manifestly have not used this technique in this
paper*** [2], the aim of which has been to show that the simplest
methods of data analysis are quite sufficient to demonstrate the
excess enthalpy generation. The only point at which we made reference
to the use of non-linear regression fitting (a technique which we used
in our early work [4] was in the section dealing with the accuracy of
the lower bound heat transfer coefficient, (k{R}'){11}, determined for
"blank experiments" using Pt-cathodes polarised in D{2}O solutions.
At that point we stated that the *accuracy* of the determination of
the coefficient (k{R}'){2} (relative standard deviation
[[approx.]]1.4% for the example illustrated [2], can be improved so as
to be better than the *precision* of (k{R}'){11} by using non-linear
regression fitting; we have designated the values of (k{R}')
determined by non-linear regression fitting by (k{R}'){5}. The values
of (k{R}'){5} obtained show that the *precision* of the lower bound
heat transfer coefficient (k{R}'){11} for "blank experiments" can
indeed be taken as a measure of the accuracy of (k{R}'). For the
particular example illustrated the relative standard deviation was
[[aprox.]] 0.17% of the mean. It follows that the calibration of the
cells using such simple means can be expected to give calorimetric
data having an accuracy set by this relative standard deviation in the
subsequent application of these cells.
We note here that we introduced the particular method of non-linear
regression fitting (of the numerical integral of the differential
equation representing the model of the calorimeter to the experimental
data) for three reasons: firstly, because we believe that it is the
most accurate single method (experience in the field of chemical
kinetics teaches us that this is the case); secondly, because it
avoids introducing any personal bias in the data treatment; thirdly,
because it leads to direct estimates of the standard deviations of all
the derived values from the diagonal elements of the error matrix.
However, our experience in the intervening years has shown us that the
use of this method is a case of "overkill": it is perfectly sufficient
to use simpler methods such as multi-linear regression fitting if one
aims for high accuracy. This is a topic which we will discuss
elsewhere [3]. For the present, we point out again that the purpose
of our recent paper [2] was to illustrate that the simplest possible
techniques can be used to illustrate the generation of excess
enthalpy. It was for this reason that we chose the title:
"Calorimetry of the Pd-D{2}0 system: from simplicity via complications
to simplicity".
Douglas Morrison ignores such considerations because his purpose
evidently is to introduce a critique of our work which has been
published by the group at General Electric [5]. We will show below
that this critique is totally irrelevant to the recent paper published
in this Journal [2]. However, as Douglas Morrison has raised the
question of the critique published by General Electric, we would like
to point out once again that we have no dispute regarding the
particular method of data analysis favoured by that group [5]: their
analysis is in fact based on the heat transfer coefficient (k{R}'){2}.
If there was an area of dispute, then this was due solely to the fact
that Wilson et al introduced a subtraction of an energy term which had
already been allowed for in our own data analysis, i.e. they made a
"double subtraction error". By doing this they derived heat transfer
coefficients which showed that the cells were operating
endothermically, i.e. as refrigerators! Needless to say, such a
situation contravenes the Second Law of Thermodynamics as the entropy
changes have already been taken into account by using the
thermoneutral potential of the cells.
We will leave others to judge whether our reply [6] to the critique
by the group at General Electric [5] did or did not "address the main
questions posed by Wilson et al." (in the words of Douglas Morrison).
However, as we have noted above the critique produced by Wilson et al
[5] is in any event irrelevant to the evaluations presented in our
paper in this journal [2]: we have used the self-same method advocated
by that group to derive the values of the excess enthalpy given in our
paper. We therefore come to a most important question: "given that
Douglas Morrison accepts the methods advocated by the group at General
Electric and, given that we have used the same methods in the recent
publication [2] should he not have accepted the validity of the
derived values?"
*Stage 4 Calculation* Douglas Morrison first of all raises the
question whether parts of the cell contents may have been expelled as
droplets during the later stages of intense heating. This is readily
answered by titrating the residual cell contents: based on our earlier
work about 95% of the residual lithium deuteroxide is recovered; some
is undoubtedly lost in the reaction of this "aggressive" species with
the glass components to form residues which cannot be titrated.
Furthermore, we have found that the total amounts of D{2}0 added to
the cells (in some cases over periods of several months) correspond
precisely to the amounts predicted to be evolved by (a) evaporation of
D{2}0 at the instantaneous atmospheric pressures and (b) by
electrolysis of D{2}0 to form D{2} and O{2} at the appropriate
currents; this balance can be maintained even at temperatures in
excess of 90 degrees C [7]
We note here that other research groups (eg [5]) have reported that
some Li can be detected outside the cell using atomic absorption
spectroscopy. This analytic technique is so sensitive that it will
undoubtedly detect the expulsion of small quantities of electrolyte in
the vapour stream. We also draw attention to the fact that D{2}0
bought from many suppliers contains surfactants. These are added to
facilitate the filling of NMR sample tubes and are difficult (probably
impossible) to remove by normal methods of purification. There will
undoubtedly be excessive foaming (and expulsion of foam from the
cells) if D{2}0 from such sources is used. We recommend the routine
screening of the sources of D{2}0 and of the cell contents using NMR
techniques. The primary reason for such routine screening is to check
on the H{2}0 content of the electrolytes.
Secondly, Douglas Morrison raises the question of the influence of
A.C. components of the current, an issue which has been referred to
before and which we have previously answered [4]. It appears that
Douglas Morrison does not appreciate the primary physics of power
dissipation from a constant current source controlled by negative
feedback. Our methodology is exactly the same as that which we have
described previously [4]; it should be noted in addition that we have
always taken special steps to prevent oscillations in the
galvanostats. As the cell voltages are measured using fast
sample-and-hold systems, the product (E{cell} - E{thermoneutral,
bath})I will give the mean enthalpy input to the cells: the A.C.
component is therefore determined by the ripple content of the current
which is 0.04%.
In his third point on this section, Douglas Morrison appears to be
re-establishing the transition from nucleate to film boiling based on
his experience of the use of bubble chambers. This transition is a
well-understood phenomenon in the field of heat transfer engineering.
A careful reading of our paper [2] will show that we have addressed
this question and that we have pointed out that the transition from
nucleate to film boiling can be extended to 1-10kW cm-{{2}} in the
presence of electrolytic gas evolution.
Fourthly and for good measure, Douglas Morrison once again
introduces the question of the effect of a putative catalytic
recombination of oxygen and deuterium (notwithstanding the fact that
this has repeatedly been shown to be absent). We refer to this
question in the next section; here we note that the maximum
conceivable total rate of heat generation ([[approx.]] 5mW for the
electrode dimensions used) will be reduced because intense D{2}
evolution and D{2}0 evaporation degasses the oxygen from the solution
in the vicinity of the cathode; furthermore, D{2} cannot be oxidised
at the oxide coated Pt-anode. We note furthermore that the maximum
localised effect will be observed when the density of the putative
"hot spots" will be 1/delta{{2}} where delta is the thickness of the
boundary layer. This gives us a maximum localised rate of heating of
[[approx.]] 6nW. The effects of such localised hot spots will be
negligible because the flow of heat in the metal (and the solution) is
governed by Laplace's Equation (here Fourier's Law). The spherical
symmetry of the field ensures that the temperature perturbations are
eliminated (compare the elimination of the electrical contact
resistance of two plates touching at a small number of points).
We believe that the onus is on Douglas Morrison to devise models
which would have to be taken seriously and which are capable of being
subjected to quantitative analysis. Statements of the kind which he
has made belong to the category of "arm waving".
*Stage 5 Effects* In this section we are given a good illustration
of Douglas Morrison's selective and biased reporting. His description
of this stage of the experiments starts with an incomplete quotation
of a single sentence in our paper. The full sentence reads:
**"We also draw attention to some further important features:
provided ***satisfactory electrode materials*** are used, the
reproducibility of the experiments is high;** following the boiling to
dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless
remain at a high temperature for prolonged periods of time (fig 11);
furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the
cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300 degrees C".
Douglas Morrison translates this to: "Following boiling to dryness
and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at
high temperature for prolonged periods of time; furthermore the Kel-F
supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the
local temperature must exceed 300 degrees C".
Readers will observe that the most important part of the sentence,
which we have underlined, is omitted; we have italicised the words
"satisfactory electrode materials" because that is the nub of the
problem. In common with the experience of other research groups, we
have had numerous experiments in which we have observed zero excess
enthalpy generation. The major cause appears to be the cracking of
the electrodes, a phenomenon which we will discuss elsewhere.
With respect to his own quotation Douglas Morrison goes on to say:
"No explanation is given and fig 10 is marked 'cell remains hot,
excess heat unknown'". The reason why we refrained from speculation
about the phenomena at this stage of the work is precisely because
explanations are just that: speculations. Much further work is
required before the effects referred to can be explained in a
quantitative fashion. Douglas Morrison has no such inhibitions, we
believe mainly because in the lengthy section *Stage 5 Effects* he
wishes to disinter "the cigarette lighter effect". This phenomenon
(the combustion of hydrogen stored in palladium when this is exposed
to the atmosphere) was first proposed by Kreysa et al [8] to explain
one of our early observations: the vapourisation of a large quantity
of D{2}O ([[approx.]] 500ml) by a 1cm cube palladium cathode followed
by the melting of the cathode and parts of the cell components and
destruction of a section of the fume cupboard housing the experiment
[9]. Douglas Morrison (in common with other critics of "Cold Fusion")
is much attached to such "Chemical Explanations" of the "Cold Fusion"
phenomena. As this particular explanation has been raised by Douglas
Morrison, we examine it here.
In the first place we note that the explanation of Kreysa et al [8]
could not possibly have applied to the experiment in question: the
vapourisation of the D{2}O alone would have required [[approx.]]1.1MJ
of energy whereas the combustion of all the D in the palladium would
at most have produced [[approx.]] 650J (assuming that the D/Pd ratio
had reached [[approx]] 1 in the cathode), a discrepancy of a factor of
[[approx.]] 1700. In the second place, the timescale of the
explanation is impossible: the diffusional relaxation time is
[[approx.]] 29 days whereas the phenomenon took at most [[approx.]] 6
hours (we have based this diffusional relaxation time on the value of
the diffusion coefficient in the alpha-phase; the processes of phase
transformation coupled to diffusion are much slower in the fully
formed Pd-D system with a corresponding increase of the diffusional
relaxation time for the removal of D from the lattice). Thirdly,
Kreysa et al [8] confused the notion of power (Watts) with that of
energy (Joules) which is again an error which has been promulgated by
critics seeking "Chemical Explanations" of "Cold Fusion". Thus
Douglas Morrison reiterates the notion of heat flow, no doubt in order
to seek an explanation of the high levels of excess enthalpy during
*Stage 4* of the experiments. We observe that at a heat flow of 144.5W
(corresponding to the rate of excess enthalpy generation in the
experiment discussed in our paper [2] the total combustion of all the
D in the cathode would be completed in [[approx.]] 4.5s, not the 600s
of the duration of this stage. Needless to say, the D in the lattice
could not reach the surface in that time (the diffusional relaxation
time is [[approx.]] 10{{5}}s) while the rate of diffusion of oxygen
through the boundary layer could lead at most to a rate of generation
of excess enthalpy of [[approx.]] 5mW.
Douglas Morrison next asserts that no evidence has been presented in
the paper about stages three or four using H{2}0 in place of D{2}0. As
has already been pointed out above he has failed to comment on the
extensive discussion in our paper of a "blank experiment". Admittedly,
the evidence was restricted to stages 1 and 2 of his own
classification but a reference to an *independent review of our own
work* [10] will show him and interested readers that such cells stay
in thermal balance to at least 90 degrees C (we note that Douglas
Morrison was present at the Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion).
We find statements of the kind made by Douglas Morrison distasteful.
Have scientists now abandoned the notion of verifying their facts
before rushing into print?
In the last paragraph of this section Douglas Morrison finally
"boxes himself into a corner": having set up an unlikely and
unworkable scenario he finds that this cannot explain Stage 5 of the
experiment. In the normal course of events this should have led him
to: (i) enquire of us whether the particular experiment is typical of
such cells; (ii) to revise his own scenario. Instead, he implies that
our experiment is incorrect, a view which he apparently shares with
Tom Droege [11]. However, an experimental observation is just that:
an experimental observation. The fact that cells containing palladium
and palladium alloy cathodes polarised in D{2}0 solutions stay at high
temperatures after they have been driven to such extremes of excess
enthalpy generation *does not present us* with any difficulties. It
is certainly possible to choose conditions which also lead to "boiling
to dryness" in "blank cells" but such cells cool down immediately
after such "boiling to dryness". If there are any difficulties in our
observations, then these are surely in the province of those seeking
explanations in terms of "Chemical Effects" for "Cold Fusion". It is
certainly true that the heat transfer coefficient for cells filled
with gas (N{2}) stay close to those for cells filled with 0.1M Li0D
(this is not surprising because the main thermal impedance is across
the vacuum gap of the Dewar-type cells). The "dry cell" must
therefore have generated [[approx.]]120kJ during the period at which
it remained at high temperature (or [[approx.]] 3MJcm-{{3}} or
26MJ(mol Pd)-{{1}}). We refrained from discussing this stage of the
experiments because the cells and procedures we have used are not well
suited for making quantitative measurements in this region.
Inevitably, therefore, interpretations are speculative. There is no
doubt, however, that Stage 5 is probably the most interesting part of
the experiments in that it points towards new systems which merit
investigation. Suffice it to say that energies in the range observed
are not within the realm of any chemical explanations.
We do, however, feel that it is justified to conclude with a
further comment at this point in time. Afficionados of the field of
"Hot Fusion" will realise that there is a large release of excess
energy during Stage 5 at zero energy input. The system is therefore
operating under conditions which are described as "Ignition" in "Hot
Fusion". It appears to us therefore that these types of systems not
only "merit investigation" (as we have stated in the last paragraph)
but, more correctly, "merit frantic investigation".
*Douglas Morrison's Section "Conclusions" and some General Comments*
In his section entitled "Conclusions", Douglas Morrison shows yet
again that he does not understand the nature of our experimental
techniques, procedures and methods of data evaluation (or, perhaps,
that he chooses to misunderstand these?). Furthermore, he fails to
appreciate that some of his own recommendations regarding the
experiment design would effectively preclude the observation of high
levels of excess enthalpy. We illustrate these shortcomings with a
number of examples:
(i) Douglas Morrison asserts that accurate calorimetry requires the
use of three thermal impedances in series and that we do not follow
this practice. In point of fact we do have three impedances in
series: from the room housing the experiments to a heat sink (with two
independent controllers to thermostat the room itself); from the
thermostat tanks to the room (and, for good measure, from the
thermostat tanks to further thermostatically controlled sinks);
finally, from the cells to the thermostat tanks. In this way, we are
able to maintain 64 experiments at reasonable cost at any one time
(typically two separate five-factor experiments).
(ii) It is naturally essential to measure the heat flow at one of
these thermal impedances and we follow the normal convention of doing
this at the innermost surface (we could hardly do otherwise with our
particular experiment design!). In our calorimeters, this thermal
impedance is the vacuum gap of the Dewar vessels which ensures high
stability of the heat transfer coefficients. The silvering of the top
section of the Dewars (see Fig 2 of our paper [2] further ensures that
the heat transfer coefficients are virtually independent of the level
of electrolyte in the cells.
(iii) Douglas Morrison suggests that we should use isothermal
calorimetry and that, in some magical fashion, isothermal calorimeters
do not require calibration. We do not understand: how he can
entertain such a notion? All calorimeters require calibration and
this is normally done by using an electrical resistive heater
(following the practice introduced by Joule himself). Needless to
say, we use the same method. We observe that in many types of
calorimeter, the nature of the correction terms are "hidden" by the
method of calibration. Of course, we could follow the self-same
practice but we choose to allow for some of these terms explicitly.
For example, we allow for the enthalpy of evaporation of the D{2}0. We
do this because we are interested in the operation of the systems
under extreme conditions (including "boiling") where solvent
evaporation becomes the dominant form of heat transfer (it would not
be sensible to include the dominant term into a correction).
(iv) There is, however, one important aspect which is related to
(iii) i.e. the need to calibrate the calorimeters. If one chooses to
measure the lower bound of the heat transfer coefficient (as we have
done in part of the paper published recently in this journal [2]) then
there is *no need to carry out any calibrations nor to make
corrections.* It is then quite sufficient to investigate the time
dependence of this lower bound heat transfer coefficient in order to
show that there is a generation of excess enthalpy for the Pd-D{2}0
system whereas there is no such generation for appropriate blanks
(e.g. Pt-D{2}0 or Pd-H{2}0). Alternatively, one can use the maximum
value of the lower bound heat transfer coefficient to give lower bound
values of the rates of excess enthalpy generation. It appears to us
that Douglas Morrison has failed to understand this point *as he
continuously asserts that our demonstrations of excess enthalpy
generation are dependent on calibrations and corrections.*
(v) Further with regard to (iii) it appears to us that Douglas
Morrison believes that a "null method" (as used in isothermal
calorimeters) is inherently more accurate than say the isoperibolic
calorimetry which we favour. While it is certainly believed that
"null" methods in the Physical Sciences can be made to be more
accurate than direct measurements (e.g. when a voltage difference is
detected as in bridge circuits: however, note that even here the
advent of "ramp" methods makes this assumption questionable) this
advantage disappears when it is necessary to transduce the primary
signal. In that case the accuracy of all the methods is determined by
the measurement accuracy (here of the temperature) quite irrespective
of which particular technique is used.
In point of fact and with particular reference to the supposed
advantages of isothermal versus isoperibolic calorimetry, we note that
in the former the large thermal mass of the calorimeter appears across
the input of the feedback regulator. The broadband noise performance
of the system is therefore poor; attempts to improve the performance
by integrating over long times drive the electronics into 1/f noise
and, needless to say, the frequency response of the system is
degraded. (see also (vii) below)
(vi) with regard to implementing measurements with isothermal
calorimeters, Douglas Morrrison recommends the use of internal
catalytic recombiners (so that the enthalpy input to the system is
just E{cell}.I rather than (E{cell} - E{thermoneutral, bath}).I as in
our "open" calorimeters. We find it interesting that Douglas Morrison
will now countenance the introduction of intense local "hot spots" on
the recombiners (what is more in the gas phase!) whereas in the
earlier parts of his critique he objects to the possible creation of
microscopic "hot spots" on the electrode surfaces in contact with the
solution.
We consider this criticism from Douglas Morrison to be invalid and
inapplicable. In the first place it is inapplicable because the term
E{thermoneutral,bath}.I (which we require in our analysis) is known
with high precision (it is determined by the enthalpy of formation of
D{2}0 from D{2} and 1/2 0{2}). In the second place it is inapplicable
because the term itself is [[approx.]] 0.77 Watt whereas we are
measuring a total enthalpy output of [[approx.]]170 Watts in the last
stages of the experiment.
(vii) We observe here that if we had followed the advice to use
isothermal calorimetry for the main part of our work, then we would
have been unable to take advantage of the "positive feedback" to drive
the system into regions of high excess enthalpy generation (perhaps,
stated more exactly, we would not have found that there is such
positive feedback). The fact that there is such feedback was pointed
out by Michael McKubre at the Third Annual Conference of Cold Fusion
and strongly endorsed by one of us (M.F.). As this issue had then
been raised in public, we have felt free to comment on this point in
our papers (although we have previously drawn attention to this fact
in private discussions). We note that Douglas Morrison was present at
the Third Annual Conference on Cold Fusion.
(viii) While it is certainly true that the calorimetric methods need
to be evolved, we do not believe that an emphasis on isothermal
calorimetry will be useful. For example, we can identify three major
requirements at the present time: a) the design of calorimeters
which allow charging of the electrodes at low thermal inputs and
temperatures below 50 degrees C followed by operation at high thermal
outputs and temperatures above 100 degrees C b) the design of
calorimeters which allow the exploration of Stage 5 of the experiments
c) the design of calorimeters having a wide frequency response in
order to explore the transfer functions of the systems.
We note that c) will in itself lead to calorimeters having an
accuracy which could hardly be rivalled by other methods.
(ix) Douglas Morrison's critique implies that we have never used
calorimetric techniques other than that described in our recent paper
[2]. Needless to say, this assertion is incorrect. It is true,
however, that we have never found a technique which is more
satisfactory than the isoperibolic method which we have described. It
is also true that this is the only method which we have found so far
which can be implemented within our resources for the number of
experiments which we consider to be necessary. In our approach we
have chosen to achieve accuracy by using software; others may prefer
to use hardware. The question as to which is the wiser choice is
difficult to answer: it is a dilemma which has to be faced frequently
in modern experimental science. We observe also that Douglas Morrison
regards complicated instrumentation (three feedback regulators working
in series) as being "simple" wheres he regards data analysis as being
complicated.
Douglas Morrrison also asserts that we have never used more than
one thermistor in our experimentation and he raises this issue in
connection with measurements on cells driven to boiling. Needless to
say, this assertion is also incorrect. However, further to this
remark is it necessary for us to point out that *one does not need any
temperature measurement in order to determine the rate of boiling of a
liquid?*
(x) Douglas Morrison evidently has difficulties with our application
of non-linear regression methods to fit the integrals of the
differential equations to the experimental data. Indeed he has such
an idee fixe regarding this point that he maintains that we used this
method in our recent paper [2]; we did not do so (see also 'stage 3
calculations' above). However, we note that we find his attitude to
the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm hard to understand. It is one of
the most powerful, easily implemented "canned software" methods for
problems of this kind. A classic text for applications of this
algorithm [12] has been praised by most prominent physics journals and
magazines.
(xi) Douglas Morrison's account contains numerous misleading comments
and descriptions. For example, he refers to our calorimeters as
"small transparent test tubes". It is hard for us to understand why
he chooses to make such misleading statements. In this particular
case he could equally well have said "glass Dewar vessels silvered in
their top portion" (which is accurate) rather than "small transparent
test tubes" (which is not). Alternatively, if he did not wish to
provide an accurate description, he could simply have referred
readers to Fig 2 of our paper [2]. This type of misrepresentation is
a non-trivial matter. We have never used calorimeters made of
test-tubes since we do not believe that such devices can be made to
function satisfactorily.
(xii) As a further example of Douglas Morrison's inaccurate
reporting, we quote his last paragraph in full:
"It is interesting to note that the Fleischmann and Pons paper
compares their claimed power production with that from nuclear
reactions in a nuclear reactor and this is in line with their dramatic
claims (9) that **"`SIMPLE EXPERIMENT' RESULTS IN SUSTAINED N-FUSION
AT ROOM TEMPERATURE FOR THE FIRST TIME**: breakthrough process has
potential to provide inexhaustible source of energy". It may be noted
that the present paper does not mention "Cold Fusion" nor indeed
consider a possible nuclear source for the excess heat claimed."
Douglas Morrison's reference (9) reads: Press release, University of
Utah, 23 March 1989. With regard to this paragraph we note that:
a) our claim that the phenomena cannot be explained by chemical or
conventional physical processes is based on the energy produced in the
various stages and not the power output b) the dramatic claim he
refers to was made by the Press Office of the University of Utah and
not by us c) we did not coin the term "Cold Fusion" and have avoided
using this term except in those instances where we refer to other
research workers who have described the system in this way. Indeed,
if readers refer to our paper presented to the Third International
Conference on Cold Fusion [13] (which contains further information
about some of the experiments described in [2]), they will find that
we have not used the term there. Indeed, we remain as convinced as
ever that the excess energy produced cannot be explained in terms of
the conventional reaction paths of "Hot Fusion" d) it has been
widely stated that the editor of this journal "did not allow us to use
the term Cold Fusion". This is not true: he did not forbid us from
using this term as we never did use it (see also [13]).
(xiii) in his section "Conclusions", Douglas Morrison makes the
following summary of his opinion of our paper:
**The experiment and some of the calculations have been described as
"simple". This is incorrect - the process involving chaotic motion,
is complex and may appear simple by incorrectly ignoring important
factors. It would have been better to describe the experiments as
"poor" rather than "simple".**
We urge the readers of this journal to consult the original text [2]
and to read Douglas Morrison's critique [1] in the context of the
present reply. They may well then come to the conclusion that our
approach did after all merit the description "simple" but that the
epithet "poor" should be attached to Douglas Morrision's critique.
*Our own conclusions*
We welcome the fact that Douglas Morrison has decided to publish
his criticisms of our work in the conventional scientific literature
rather than relying on the electronic mail, comments to the press and
popular talks; we urge his many correspondees to follow his example.
Following this traditional pattern of publication will ensure that
their comments are properly recorded for future use and that the
rights of scientific referees will not be abrogated. Furthermore, it
is our view that a return to this traditional pattern of communication
will in due course eliminate the illogical and hysterical remarks
which have been so evident in the messages on the electronic bulletins
and in the scientific tabloid press. If this proves to be the case,
we may yet be able to return to a reasoned discussion of new research.
Indeed, critics may decide that the proper course of inquiry is to
address a personal letter to authors of papers in the first place to
seek clarification of inadequately explained sections of publications.
Apart from the general description of stages 1-5, we find that the
comments made by Douglas Morrison are either irrelevant or inaccurate
or both.
*References*
[1] Douglas Morrison, Phys. Lett. A.
[2] M.Fleischmann andd S. Pons, Phys. Lett. A 176 (1993) 1
[3] to be published
[4] M.Fleischmann, S.Pons, M.W.Anderson, L.J. Li, and M. Hawkins,
J. Electroanal. Chem. 287 (1990) 293.
[5] R.H. Wilson, J.W. Bray, P.G. Kosky, H.B. Vakil, and F.G Will,
J. Electroanal. Chem. 332 (1992) 1
[6] M.Fleischmann and S.Pons, J.Electroanal.Chem. 332 (1992) 33
[7] S. Pons and M.Fleischmann in : Final Report to the Utah State
Energy Advisory Council, June 1991.
[8] G. Kreysa, G. Marx, and W.Plieth, J. Electroanal. Chem. 268
(1989)659
[9] M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261 (1989)301
[10] W.Hansen, Report to the Utah State Fusion Energy Council on the
Analysis of Selected Pons-Fleischmann Calorimetric Data, in: "The
Science of Cold Fusion": Proc. Second Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion,
Como, Italy, 29 June-4 July 1991, eds T. Bressani, E. del Guidice and
G. Preparaata, Vol 33 of the Conference Proceedings of the Italian
Physical Society (Bologna, 1992) p491; ISBN-887794--045-X
[11] T. Droege: private communication to Douglas Morrison.
[12] W.H. Press, B.P. Flannery, S.A. Teukolsky, and W.T. Vetterling,
"Numerical Recipes", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
[13] M.Fleischmann and S. Pons "Frontiers of Cold Fusion" ed. H.
Ikegami, Universal Academy Press Inc., Tokyo, 1993, p47; ISBN
4-946-443-12-6
Dieter Britz
> D. Morrison hopes that if he posts the same tired, discredited
> nonsense time after time, eventually he will win the debate. All of
> his claims about the Harwell fiasco, the General Electric study and so
> on, are false. For the sake of other readers, who might be taken by
> his lies, here is Fleischmann's response to his original claims.
>
> - JR
[...]
This is interesting. Rothwell, would you please tell us the origin of
this text? I take it you have reproduced it as was, but I do not have
this text as you present it. I do have the paper by Fleischmann & Pons
in Phys. Lett. A 187 (1994) 276-280, which is very similar, but the
text you reproduce, deviates from that paper in a lot of details. Is
this a preprint, that was revised later, or a paper in another place?
I'd guess at the revision scenario; the paper was "received 28 June
1993; revised manuscript received 18 February 1994...".
Let me comment on the revision, lest someone takes that as a sign that
there was something gravely wrong with the original MS. That sort of
sentence, "received... revised... accepted..." is very common for
papers that are refereed. If the referees are doing their jobs, they
almost invariably find something to niggle at, and the author(s)
make(s) the required revisions. Steve Lajoie would say that the
authors waited for the referees to tell them what to think, but in
fact an outsider looking at a MS can usually improve it, and it ends
up more taut and clear. That sentence, then, is no disgrace, and it
shows as well that this journal does indeed use referees.
So, where does that text come from, please, JR?
-- Dieter Britz alias d...@kemi.aau.dk; http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db
*** Echelon, bomb, sneakers, GRU: swamp the snoops with trivia! ***
Jed Rothwell
>This is interesting. Rothwell, would you please tell us the origin of
>this text?
It was originally posted here, in sci.physics.fusion, in August 1993,
with the attached introduction. I believe a version of it was later
publish in Phys. Letters A, in response to the Morrison paper
published there.
- JR
Originally-From: mi...@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Morrison's Comments Criticized
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 13:30:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Dear Colleagues:
There has been considerable misinformation circulating about
the paper by Drs. Fleischmann and Pons in Physics Letters A,176
(1993), May 3. We were particularly repelled by the various outlandish
criticisms made repeatedly in this electronic forum by Douglas O.
Morrison, which were transparently intended to tear down the work of
other scientists without regard for the facts. Dr. Morrison's stubborn
belief that cold fusion research is "pathological science" is
incorrect. Continuing to push that idea does not serve him well, nor
does it help the cause of understanding the extraordinary phenomena
associated with hydrogen-loaded metals that have been revealed in
numerous experiments these past several years. Accordingly, we have
decided to post the document that follows, which was prepared by Drs.
Pons and Fleischmann and which was previously circulating within the
cold fusion community.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz
Stephen Lajoie
Dieter Britz <d...@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>Let me comment on the revision, lest someone takes that as a sign that
>there was something gravely wrong with the original MS. That sort of
>sentence, "received... revised... accepted..." is very common for
>papers that are refereed. If the referees are doing their jobs, they
>almost invariably find something to niggle at, and the author(s)
>make(s) the required revisions. Steve Lajoie would say that the
>authors waited for the referees to tell them what to think,
I seriously doubt I would say that. What I have said in the past is that
there exist people (Dr. J. Carr, for example) who insist that if it isn't
in certain peer reviewed journals, that it isn't valid; and apparently
take anything published in certain peer reviewed journals as gospel, unless
apparently there is a conflict with another gospel.
Clearly, authors do believe in their own papers, or else they would not
have submitted them for publications, and are not waiting for the peer
reviewer to tell them what to think.
I do call that behavior "waiting for the referees to tell them what to
think". Proper peer review doesn't consider the dignity of the journal,
and frequently that is a factor. I agree with much of what you said about
peer review. Too bad it is also used as an excuse to reject new findings
that are controversial.
Bob Sullivan
cold fusion don't fuse no more, no more. But, despite the Rothwellian
huffing and puffing to the contrary, substantial evidence supports the
conclusion that it never did.
"Jed Rothwell" <JedRo...@infinite-energy.com> wrote in message
news:39746e4...@news.mindspring.com...
Jim Carr
Dieter Britz <d...@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
}
} Let me comment on the revision, lest someone takes that as a sign that
} there was something gravely wrong with the original MS. That sort of
} sentence, "received... revised... accepted..." is very common for
} papers that are refereed. If the referees are doing their jobs, they
} almost invariably find something to niggle at, and the author(s)
} make(s) the required revisions. Steve Lajoie would say that the
} authors waited for the referees to tell them what to think,
In article <8l33a0$3kn$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>
laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
>
>I seriously doubt I would say that.
You have made similar comments about the process of refereeing papers.
>What I have said in the past is that
>there exist people (Dr. J. Carr, for example) who insist that if it isn't
>in certain peer reviewed journals, that it isn't valid; ...
That is a lie. What Carr (and most physicists) insists is that one
cannot judge an experimental claim without seeing at least a preprint
of an article that presents the full story, just as a journal article
would do.
>and apparently
>take anything published in certain peer reviewed journals as gospel, unless
>apparently there is a conflict with another gospel.
That is also a lie. You should know that I have posted many articles
pointing out flaws in published articles and have pointed out here in
sci.physics.fusion that some of my own publications have been directed
at errors in "certain peer reviewed journals".
Your misrepresentations of my position, particularly after having
been corrected on it several times, can only be deliberate.
>Clearly, authors do believe in their own papers, or else they would not
>have submitted them for publications, and are not waiting for the peer
>reviewer to tell them what to think.
Yet they do revise it in response to the comments by the referees,
often only to increase the clarity of the exposition -- thereby
making it easier for the reader to draw his or her own conclusions
about the validity and relevance of the result.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
steve lajoie
Jim Carr wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.21.0007...@kemi.aau.dk>,
> Dieter Britz <d...@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
> }
> } Let me comment on the revision, lest someone takes that as a sign that
> } there was something gravely wrong with the original MS. That sort of
> } sentence, "received... revised... accepted..." is very common for
> } papers that are refereed. If the referees are doing their jobs, they
> } almost invariably find something to niggle at, and the author(s)
> } make(s) the required revisions. Steve Lajoie would say that the
> } authors waited for the referees to tell them what to think,
> <... snip by Lajoie ...>
>
> In article <8l33a0$3kn$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>
> laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
> >
> >I seriously doubt I would say that.
>
> You have made similar comments about the process of refereeing papers.
What I said is that your continued and persistent argument
for articles on cold fusion that appeared in prestigious
journals rather than addressing the work that has been published
on its own was waiting for a reviewer to tell you what to
think, that is true I said it and it is true that is what
you're doing.
Waiting for a reviewer to allow publication in a prestigious
journal is not thinking on your own; it's second hand thinking.
I never said that "authors waited for the referees to tell
them what to think". The authors that they have submitted
their papers for publication, have not waited for a reviewer
to tell them what to think. What they think is in their papers,
written, of course, before any reviewer sees it.
> >What I have said in the past is that
> >there exist people (Dr. J. Carr, for example) who insist that if it isn't
> >in certain peer reviewed journals, that it isn't valid; ...
>
> That is a lie.
That is a tired rebuttal used by people who have no argument,
but wish they had one.
> What Carr (and most physicists) insists is that one
> cannot judge an experimental claim without seeing at least a preprint
> of an article that presents the full story, just as a journal article
> would do.
You're well on record as persistantly asking for peer reviewed
articles. You and Mitchell Swartz use to go round and round
over that.
> >and apparently
> >take anything published in certain peer reviewed journals as gospel, unless
> >apparently there is a conflict with another gospel.
>
> That is also a lie.
Same as above.
> You should know that I have posted many articles
> pointing out flaws in published articles and have pointed out here in
> sci.physics.fusion that some of my own publications have been directed
> at errors in "certain peer reviewed journals".
You haven't addressed my point at all.
> Your misrepresentations of my position, particularly after having
> been corrected on it several times, can only be deliberate.
Let's see. You misrepresent my position as saying that authors are
waiting for peer reviewers are telling them what to do when really
I was saying that people who don't accept anything not in a peer
reviewed paper are the ones waiting for the peer reviewer to tell
them what to think.
And after a large number of post where you challenged Mitchell Swartz
for peer reviewed papers, you say that I am misrepresenting your post?
And I'm doing it deliberately? You know that, huh?
Your back and forth with Dr. Swartz has given me good reason to
believe that is how you view works not published in prestigious
journals.
If you now find that position hard to defend, FEEL FREE to change
your mind. If you feel that I've formed my opinion of your attitude
in error, there is nor reason to call anyone liars about it. You can
simply say "Let me clarify my position ..." and state what you want
to stand on today.
To me, it looked for all the world like you were capitalizing on the
fact that little cold fusion work has appeared in your favored journals.
It seemed a lame argument at the time and I am glad that you now
renounce such thinking!
> >Clearly, authors do believe in their own papers, or else they would not
> >have submitted them for publications, and are not waiting for the peer
> >reviewer to tell them what to think.
>
> Yet they do revise it in response to the comments by the referees,
> often only to increase the clarity of the exposition
I'm sure that some points are valid. But Lots of changes are made just
to humor the reviewer. I've been there and done that with internal
company published work were the company reviewer wanted something
pointless put in, and the customer found the work quite satisfactory
without it. I got atta boys from the customer. The company reviewer
simply didn't understand what he was reviewing.
> -- thereby
Jim Carr
|
| In article <Pine.OSF.4.21.0007...@kemi.aau.dk>,
| Dieter Britz <d...@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
| } Let me comment on the revision, lest someone takes that as a sign that
| } there was something gravely wrong with the original MS. That sort of
| } sentence, "received... revised... accepted..." is very common for
| } papers that are refereed. If the referees are doing their jobs, they
| } almost invariably find something to niggle at, and the author(s)
| } make(s) the required revisions. Steve Lajoie would say that the
| } authors waited for the referees to tell them what to think,
| <... snip by Lajoie ...>
|
| In article <8l33a0$3kn$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>
| laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
| >I seriously doubt I would say that.
|
| You have made similar comments about the process of refereeing papers.
In article <397C80C1...@eskimo.com>
steve lajoie <laj...@eskimo.com> writes:
>
>What I said is that your continued and persistent argument
>for articles on cold fusion that appeared in prestigious
>journals rather than addressing the work that has been published
>on its own was waiting for a reviewer to tell you what to
>think, that is true I said it and it is true that is what
>you're doing.
A statement that applies to the authors above as well, as
I pointed out.
Jim Carr
Jim Carr wrote:
|
| In article <8l33a0$3kn$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>
| laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
| >What I have said in the past is that
| >there exist people (Dr. J. Carr, for example) who insist that if it isn't
| >in certain peer reviewed journals, that it isn't valid; ...
|
| That is a lie.
In article <397C80C1...@eskimo.com>
steve lajoie <laj...@eskimo.com> writes:
>
>That is a tired rebuttal used by people who have no argument,
>but wish they had one.
It can be, but in this case it is a factual statement and the only
reasonable response to someone whose only "argument" is to post ad
hominem attacks based on statements that have been shown to be false.
| >and apparently
| >take anything published in certain peer reviewed journals as gospel, unless
| >apparently there is a conflict with another gospel.
|
| That is also a lie.
>Same as above.
And your non-defense of your indefensible comment is just as
empty as it was above.
| You should know that I have posted many articles
| pointing out flaws in published articles and have pointed out here in
| sci.physics.fusion that some of my own publications have been directed
| at errors in "certain peer reviewed journals".
|
| Your misrepresentations of my position, particularly after having
| been corrected on it several times, can only be deliberate.
>You haven't addressed my point at all.
Wrong. I have shown your "point" to be based on a lie.