Morrison's Comments Criticized

11 views
Skip to first unread message

mitchell swartz

unread,
Aug 17, 1993, 9:30:44 AM8/17/93
to

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


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


John Logajan

unread,
Aug 18, 1993, 12:12:42 AM8/18/93
to
mi...@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>we have decided to post the document that follows, which was prepared
>by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann

Thanks. It is good to hear from these guys direct for those of us who
don't have easy access to their other papers and correspondences.

It certainly helps reduce the image of them as bumbling idiots as
they are often portrayed.

--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- log...@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages