I should have read this transcript more carefully. As I said, on p.
5-21 we have Lewis asking a reasonable, informed question, and
getting an answer that should put all doubts to rest:
Lewis: If you consider the total amount of tritium detected, compared
with the total in the amount of electrolyte added, then do a
separation factor calculation, can you say that you really have made
the tritium in the cell?
Storms: More tritium was detected than was introduced into the cell.
Lewis: By what factor?
Storms: By a factor of 70-80.
Okay, so separation is not an issue. The cell has 70 times more
tritium in it than you can explain by separation (tritium
preferentially remaining in the electrolyte). There are other reasons
to believe this, such as the fact that when the effluent gas is
recombined outside the cell, the resulting heavy water contains high
levels of tritium, so it isn't stuck back down in the cell.
On to page 5-22 and . . . Lewis asks the same question:
Lewis: Some cells produce tritium, and some, no tritium. Could that
not simply result from different electrolysis separation factors on
surfaces which have received different treatment? Your curves seem to
indicate that the separation factor first increased, then fell to a
constant value.
Storms: The results do certainly vary a great deal. In some cases
bursts of tritium seemed to occur. The raw data which I show is very
new, dating from last Thursday.
If I had been Ed I would have said, "look, I just told you, that's
impossible. Stop harping on it!"
If you don't believe the concentration actually is 70 to 80 times too
high to fit your hypothesis, then say so. Give us a reason to doubt
the measurement. But if you have no reason to doubt the figures then
it is time for you to drop the hypothesis. It is refuted. It is
childish to bring it up again 5 minutes later! The discussion goes
nowhere, and no issue is resolved, when you refuse to accept that you
are wrong.
We have all seen skeptics do this sort of thing. It is irritating indeed!
Elsewhere, Appleby reports tritium at levels of ">10E6 counts/ml/min
compared with background values (200 counts/ml/min) at the start of
experiments." (p. 17-10) That is convincing too, and I can't imagine
anyone ascribing it to separation. Lewis did not challenge this
result. Rafelski takes a turn at being annoying, challenging this
with a newly invented rule of experimental science -- and was
promptly shot down by the facts:
Rafelski: The anomalous heat effect is only of significance if it is
there on demand. Have you run several times in heavy water, with each
instance giving a positive result?
Appleby: In every single case where we have tested palladium in heavy
water, we have had positive results, though in some cases the effects
were small. However, the more changes one makes in operating
conditions on a given electrode, the less the effect seems to become
a function of time.
Appleby should have added: "and by the way, your 'on-demand' demand
is ridiculous." Some of these comments make you want to shout out. I
can understand how an ignorant layman might imagine that a result
must appear "on demand" before it is significant, but how could a
professional scientist think so? Is he ignorant of history?!? Does he
not realize how many important results were irreproducible at first,
and only later produced on demand?
On a positive note, it is surprising how many strong results were
already reported in October 1989.
- Jed
