Re: Re[2]: cold fusion?

["Dale E. Boyce" <dale@radpro.uchicago.edu>]

During the months that followed the announcement by Pons and
Fleischman literally hundreds of different research groups
around the world began experiments to try to prove or disprove
cold fusion.  Early results of experiments rocketed around the
world via FAX and the infant internet.  Scientists shared raw
data and preliminary results in an unprecented manner.
A conference was held in Santa Fe several months after the annoucement.
As I remember there were presentations by about 70 different
groups.  The conference was video taped and distributed to those that
couldn't attend.  If memory serves it was also broadcast via satellite
to Universities with the proper equipment.

I was part of one group that spent some time trying to prove
or disprove, depending on the individuals point of view, cold
fusion.  Our results were negative and unpublished.  Our techniques
were considerably different than the electrolysis experiments,
and for the entertainment of the audience I'll describe it.

One day, shortly after the annoucement, several of us were
drinking coffee and talking about the subject.  We were discussing
how exothermic the formation of some hydrides were, and that
some would form sponaneously if the elemental metal were exposed
to hydrogen gas.  I believe it was the following day, also at
morning coffee, we came back to the subject and added the fact
that H-D fusion should produce a high energy gamma.  Since we
had a low background Ge setup, we decided to try to look for
the gamma. (everyone else was looking for D-D fusion.)

About two hours later, we had assembled the materials for a jury
rigged experiment, but then decided to take a more scholarly
approach.  We obtained outside collaborators who could provide
a variety of interesting metals and FUNDING :).  In particular
we used Ti surface alloyed with Pd and other metals that helped
prevent surface oxidation.

The first experiment had 7 grams of the metal placed in a 300 gram
steel bomb connected to a supply of H2 and D2.  We expected the reaction
to occur slowly over say an hour, but for some reason we attached
a thermocouple to the bomb.  We were going to crack the valve raise
the pressure in the bomb, close the regulator, and monitor the pressure
drop to determine the amount of gas absorbed by the material.

When we cracked the valve things did not seem right.  Our gauge on
the bomb read too low.  Within ten seconds the temperature on
the outside of the bomb began to raise.  At one minute the
temperature on the outside of the bomb was 100 C.  I remember
jokingly asking if anyone had a survey meter handy!

Well as we said, the hydrides were very exothermic.  The heat
was from the heat of formation of the hydride.

Gamma ray measurements were made during several repeated experiments.
No clearly positive signal was observed, but tantalising statistical
fluctuations in the very low background (ten to twenty events per
day as I recall) caused us to take the experiments one step
further.  Some theorists (and who they were is lost to me) had suggested
that if it occurred it might occur it bursts.

So we retooled our experiment to look for both neutrons from D-D
and gammas from H-D.  We measured the time corelations of neutron
events by triggering a MCS sweep on a neutron event and looking
for additional neutron events in the following second or so. If
another event occur the sweep was recorded for further analysis
of the time distribution.  The ROI for the H-D gamma was also checked
for correlated events.  If a gamma in the ROI was recorded since the
previous MCS sweep the gamma was recorded as having come in with
the current sweep and the time the sweep occured was recorded.

Fairly early in this experiement, we had a cluster of one gamma
and I think three neutron events.  Since our gamma background
was of the order 0.01 cpm and our neutron background was about
2 cpm our eyebrows raised considerably.  The neutron events
were separated from each other by something like 13 msec.  After
analysis of the data we concluded that IF all the detectors were
functioning properly we would expect to see a random event like
this about once every 30 years!

All we could do was to continue to take data.  We were recording
about 1 MByte of time info per day.  After weeks of taking data
we had enough statistics to say that our neutron detector was
multiple pulse a small, but reliable fraction of the time,
perhaps two or three times per day.  The 13 msec separation
became a marker for the detector miss behavior.  When this
was accounted for we were left with a null result.

The lessons learned were that even "simple" science requires
a lot of time and effort, and that effort can be easily 
mislead by not fully understanding ALL of the processes
in the system.  Since we had so much data, the problems
in our system identified themselves.  We could have been
burned by using a simpler coincidence system.

Some investigators were "burned".  One group claimed to have
found tritium in their electrolysis electrodes.  In fact
they did, but it was from contamination from an unknown source
prior to the use of them in the experiments.  The group
self identified the problem, but not before the word got out
that they had seen tritium.

As far as I have heard there may still be some excess heat
unaccounted for in the electrolysis systems.  I had heard that
it was only observed when Li was present in the electrolyte.
I will ask around to see if any of my colleagues have
heard anything recently.  I'm still betting on chemistry and
not nuclear physics as the source of any anomalous heat.

Dale E. Boyce

The information in this Email is purely from memory and comes
with no warranty as to its accuracy.  The musings enclosed are
purely those of the author and not those of any other person
or entity.  Never trust a neutron detector.