These EPRI papers I have uploaded, and the upcoming ICCF-3 book, are in image-over-text Acrobat format. I have discussed this previously. With this format, the page you see on the screen is a facsimile of the original scan, but there is underlying text which was OCR'ed. Unfortunately, the EPRI documents were of poor quality in the first place, and scanning them did not improve them. You end up with a very blurry, noisy image on the screen.
I am tempted to convert parts of it into a pure text Acrobat format, such as the talk by Teller. I output his talk in HTML format and appended it below. As you see, the OCR worked remarkably well. This is not edited. He did not use any Greek letters or equations, and only a couple of superscripts, so it is close to 100% accurate. I did not check. I am tempted, but I am not going to proofread 710 pages. No thanks! Anyway, if you would like to see the underlying text in one of these files, a couple of methods are available: 1. Put a block around the image, copy, and paste into a word processor or text editor. 2. Get an Acrobat reader such as PDF Converter Professional ($100) or FoxIt Reader (free) that show underlying text, or save a file as text. Or, I guess -- 3. Ask me for a copy which I can output in several different formats. eBook (*.opf) HTML 4.0 (*htm) HTML 3.2 (*htm) InfoPath (*.xsn) Microsoft Excel 97, 2000 (*.xls) Microsoft Excel XP, 2003 (*.xls) Microsoft Excel 2007 (*.xlsx) Microsoft PowerPoint 97 (*.rtf) Microsoft Publisher 98 (*.rtf) Microsoft Reader See note 1(*.lit) Microsoft Word 2007 (*.docx) Microsoft Word 2003 (WordML) (*.xml) Microsoft Word 2000, XP (*.doc) Microsoft Word 97 (*.doc) PDF, normal (*.pdf) PDF Edited (*.pdf) PDF Searchable Image (*.pdf) PDF with image substitutes (*.pdf) RTF Word 2000, 97, 6.0/95 (*.rtf) RTF 2000 ExactWord (*.rtf) WordPad (*.rtf) WordPerfect 12, X3 (*.wpd) XML (*.xml) See note 1 XPS (XML Paper Specification) (*.xps) XPS Searchable Image (*.xps) Text (*.txt) Text and Text with line breaks (*.txt) Text - Comma Separated (*.csv) Text - Formatted (*.txt) Wave Audio Converter (*.wav) Unicode Text (*.txt) Unicode Text - Comma Separated (*.csv) Unicode Text - Formatted (*.txt) Unicode Text with line breaks (*txt) OmniPage Document (*.opd) See: http://www.nuance.com/imaging/resources/userGuides/OPUserguide/chapter6/ch6_3.asp - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - REMARKS OF DR. EDWARD TELLER: ANOMALOUS EFFECTS ON DEUTERIDED METAL We are further than ever from a real agreement on cold fusion. What has been seen has a widedivergence in results. I do not remember any case in my lifetime in science when so many experts have differed for such a long time on such relatively simple and inexpensive experiments. We are seeing a greatdeal of variability in the results -- whether due to surface effects or cracks or small changes in some unknown parameter. The experiments differ in many more ways than a simple theorist can explain. I feel like the visitor looking at the giraffe and concluding, "there ain't no such animal." According to nuclear theory -- from the point of view of the Gamow factor -- there cannot be such an effect. The Gamow factor is not as simple as it is normally considered. Indeed, one must consider the temperature average over the Gamow factors. But before the hydrogen nuclei really have a chance of interacting with each other, they must be within a fraction of an angstrom and at that point the Gamow factor has a value of about 10-50. On that basis alone, what we are seeing must be a series of mistakes. But this is not the end of the controversy. Some of the good experiments show that something isreally wrong with the branching of D+D3T + H and D+D- 41e3 + n. While I will not exclude a small variation in the ratio, the actual value reported is 108! Proton producing reactions (the Tritium branch) being 108 times more likely than neutron producing reactions. This is simply out of the question if D-D fusion is what is happening. However, the history of science and experimental physics is full of examples of predictions that things are impossible and yet they have happened. I remember what Ernest Lawrence once said about me: "When Teller says it is impossible, he is frequently wrong. When he says it can be done, he is always right." But what if we are presented with the fact that the results are correct? Then we will have to askourselves what are the minimum changes which we need to make in nuclear physics to explain the facts. If the giraffe exists, how does his heart pump blood into his brain? If the results are correct, then you must assume that nucleons can interact not just when they touch. We need to be able to explain how the nucleons interact at distances as great as 1/10 of an angstrom. I think it would help if we postulated that the nuclei can interact at 104 nuclear radii and that theinteraction is not through tunnelling but some exchange of "particles" which can extend outside of the nucleus. It will be remarkable but not impossible that "quarks" could exchange or interact at 10-9 cm with very low probability. This would be a low probability but still much greater than the Gamow factor. The probability that this could result in cold fusion is possible even if it is unlikely. If there is such an effect, we will then learn something very important. This would be a scientific discovery of the first order, the kind for which we are willing to spend 5x109 dollars (SSC). I therefore applaud the National Science Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute formaintaining enough interest and enough support so that a real clarification of the apparent contradictions can be pursued. If that clarification would lead to something on which we can agree and to a reaction probability which is small, but much bigger than the Gamow factor would allow, this would be a great discovery. Perhaps a neutral particle of small mass and marginal stability is catalyzing the reaction.
