Uploaded Letters from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles

  • Mizuno and friend repeatedly stuck their hands in a bucket of boiling water to prove the 'heater' was still working. Is that really what you're saying?


    The power was turned off on April 22. The thermocouple pen recorder trace (which is in the book) showed that the temperature began to fall.


    On April 25, Mizuno and Akimoto saw the pen recorder trace was back up to the high temperature, above 100 deg C. They held their hands near the cell and confirmed that it was very hot. They decided to move the cell from Akimoto's lab to Mizuno's lab. They could not touch it, because it was too hot. They wrapped it in towels, moved it to the other lab, and put it in a bucket of water.


    So, yes, I am saying they held their hands near the cell to confirm it was hot, and to confirm the thermocouple was working correctly. Why does that surprise you? Why do you say "is that really what you are saying?" How would you confirm that a 10 kg steel object is hot? Is there anything wrong, unusual, or unscientific with using your sense of touch to confirm that an object is hot and the instruments are working correctly? It is common sense to do that.


    The next morning the water in the bucket was gone. The cell was still radiating heat, and still too hot to touch. The thermocouple was not connected to a pen recorder, but the voltage indicated 100 deg C.


    The next morning it was the same way. This went on for several days, until the cell finally cooled. When it cooled, both sense of touch and the thermocouple indicated it was at room temperature, so there was nothing wrong with Mizuno's sense of touch or with the thermocouple. The water no longer evaporated overnight. For details see the book, or at least see the introduction:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf


    (It was not a "friend," it was Prof. Akimoto, an expert in particle detection.)


    Not an error, a high airflow rate over the water.

    There was no airflow over the water. The bucket was sitting in the lab, on the floor. I have been in that lab and seen the location. There are no fans there, and no rats either. Also, the building was not "abandoned." I don't know where you picked up that bit of nonsense, but it was not. Neither was the first lab, where the cell remained hot for 3 days after the power was turned off. That was in Akimoto's lab, in the linear accelerator building. It is deep underground, with a very stable temperature and quiet conditions. There are no fans there.


    Also, you have to explain why the water stopped evaporating after the cell finally cooled down. That is, after the thermocouple and sense of touch showed that it was at room temperature. Was that a coincidence? Do you think the cell temperature had no connection to the evaporation? Why did your imaginary, non-existant fan stop working after the cell cooled down?

  • The problem with the nuclear fume hood hypothesis . . .

    The other problem is that the bucket was not in a hood. As stated in the book, and stated by me countless times, it was sitting on a concrete floor. There were hoods and an air-cooled constant temperature box in the lab, but the bucket was not in one of them.


    There was no fan placed over the bucket. Even if there had been, it is not possible to evaporate that much water overnight with an ordinary fan at room temperature. You cannot evaporate that much water in an ordinary fume hood either.


    See the photos of the air-cooled box and also Akimoto's underground lab neutron detection setup, where the cell was initially installed, and where it remained hot for 3 days before it was transferred to the bucket of water:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187#PhotosTMizuno


    (I say there "were" hoods because the building was subsequently torn down. They have a new Engineering Department building. The underground laboratory is still there, just behind it. Going down into it is a little like the opening scene in "Get Smart." You have to put on a detection badge and go down a few flights of stairs, and then through two sets of gigantic doors, each 1 m thick, mounted on railroad tracks. There are no fans. It is very, very quiet, dark, and wet, because there is 1 m of water under the floor, to stop neutrons.)

    • Official Post

    "J.M. Material Type A".


    I always wondered why Rossi name dropped "Johnson Matthey" before, and during the Doral 1 year test. Now I know; it has significance in early CF history. If you may recall, Rossi formed his fake "JM Products" company, so as to convince us and IH that it was associated with the real JM, so as to first tempt IH into agreeing to Doral, and again after the test to trick us, and Jones Day, into thinking he used JM palladium to absorb the 1MW heat. He also had his one JM employee James Bass, emboss his business card with the name "Johnson Matthew" to mimic Johnson Matthey...who would notice the difference?


    From Jed's letters, that special batch of palladium from JM (Material Type A), seemed to have made the difference between success and failure, and up the percentage of success, in many of the early CF experiments. It is mentioned frequently, and after JM stopped making it, Fleischmann corresponded with Jed about trying to get them to start making it again.


    Although I still have a lot of reading to go, I take it that JM never did open the line again?

    • Official Post

    Although I still have a lot of reading to go, I take it that JM never did open the line again?


    It may not even be possible to make it 'that way' anymore- the reasons for which are just part of a fascinating tale which Mike McKubre might be induced to tell at some point. But in brief, the crucible used was an ancient ceramic one which was retired, the ammonia gas 'blanket' method they used then was obsolete, and key foundry staff (the master-chefs) had also retired by the time production of more of the same kind of Pd was a matter of great interest. It is indeed a fascinating tale.

  • One swallow does not make a summer.


    One experiment does not make a science.

  • I wonder if James Patterson's beads came from this same batch:


    Shane D. : Pattersen used the right cavities with 0.45,..,0.55nm - used for water desalination. According to my calculations they are the most active ones. May be the original platinum provided the needed magnetic stabilization and the later batch did not... Some doping may explain the effect...

  • The problem with the nuclear fume hood hypothesis is that the airflow would have to be turned down each day to match the diminishing amount of water evaporated...


    The problem with your comment is that you continue to believe the numbers presented. I'll agree that, if true, they present an interesting anomaly. But are they true, that is the question isn't it? Personally I lean towards no.


    But the key point that everyone refuses to deal with is that this event is a one-time event, that was never replicated. That means the best it can be is suggestive. It helps explain why Mizuno continued on with CF work. But it proves nothing scientifically. That requires replication, which, Jed's objections notwithstanding, never occurred.


    I am done with the speculations on this event, because we can never get beyond that, and persisting is a waste of time.


    As an aside, while trying to find where I picked up the 'abandoned' descriptor for the building (didn't find it yet, may not), I ran across an amusing thread in the old spf archives. You all might find it interesting too.


    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/sci.physics.fusion/rothwell$20$20mizuno/sci.physics.fusion/cFgl1mvoxRc/A_k0ZPcDaecJ


    Make sure you note the dates.

  • The problem with your comment is that you continue to believe the numbers presented


    ....Another mind-reader! Was it the tea-leaves or the goat entrails that gave me away?


    But nevermind... we finally get to the bottom of it. After various harebrained attempts at 'solutions' to the Mizuno bucket problem, you have arrived at just refusing to believe Mizuno is telling the truth. Fair enough. Can't point out any fundamental thermodynamic flaws in that, at least.

    Of course, some might argue that puts you firmly in the camp of the pathological skeptic, and well, maybe some others might not be too surprised by that.


    But the key point that everyone refuses to deal with is that this [Mizuno's Bucket] is a one-time event, that was never replicated. That means the best it can be is suggestive.


    I don't think anyone refuses to deal with it - it's just so flippin' obvious, that it doesn't really bear mentioning. Apart from maybe as a last resort.



    ...And a genuine thank you, for the google groups link - I was looking for that a while back, but gave up.

  • The problem with your comment is that you continue to believe the numbers presented. I'll agree that, if true, they present an interesting anomaly. But are they true, that is the question isn't it? Personally I lean towards no.

    THANK YOU for saying this. At last you have clarified your position. As Zeus46 put it:


    "After various harebrained attempts at 'solutions' to the Mizuno bucket problem, you have arrived at just refusing to believe Mizuno is telling the truth. Fair enough."


    It is "fair enough." Seriously. This is what most skeptics said about Mizuno, and about all of the other cold fusion experiments.


    But the key point that everyone refuses to deal with is that this event is a one-time event, that was never replicated.

    No, that is not at all true. Fleischmann and Pons replicated heat after death hundreds of times, in the boil off experiments. Others observed this at power levels up to ~20 W, lasting a day or so.


    However, I am sure you do not believe any of these reports either. That's okay. You can always say "personally I lean toward no." That is a "gut feeling" with no rational or scientific basis. It does not need any basis. Anyone can have a "gut feeling" about any subject. It does not violate thermodynamics, as Zeos46 put it.

  • From Jed's letters, that special batch of palladium from JM (Material Type A), seemed to have made the difference between success and failure, and up the percentage of success, in many of the early CF experiments.

    See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf


    Especially the discussion starting on p. 5.


    Type A palladium was designed for hydrogen filters. The newer hydrogen filter palladium might work equally well. I do not know anyone who has tried it. People at NASA and BARC used deuterium gas palladium filters installed in filtering machines. They reported that this produces anomalous heat. I do not know if these filters were made with the old methods or the newer one.


    Other types of palladium work well, especially the kind developed at the ENEA by Violante et al.

  • No, that is not at all true. Fleischmann and Pons replicated heat after death hundreds of times, in the boil off experiments. Others observed this at power levels up to ~20 W, lasting a day or so.


    However, I am sure you do not believe any of these reports either. That's okay. You can always say "personally I lean toward no." That is a "gut feeling" with no rational or scientific basis. It does not need any basis. Anyone can have a "gut feeling" about any subject. It does not violate thermodynamics, as Zeos46 put it.


    No Jed, you 'misrepresent' again. I have repeatedly said several things in relation to your misrepresentaions above:


    1) F&P, and all other CFers using calorimetry, to my knowledge don't do it right.

    2) Their data is usually OK, with certain exceptions.

    3) F&P's big Heat-after-death claim in their 1993 paper is based on a bogus

    measurement. I showed this in my whitepaper.

    4) most other HAD events aren't long enough to prove it isn't just bad calorimetry again (that old CCS-thing, remember)


    But you refuse to understand the criticisms, even after years of trying to get you to, so I'm sure you will just blather on the same way as you do.


    BTW, I don't think Mizuno, et al, are liars, I believe they are self-deluded about the temperature in the bucket incident.

  • Of course, some might argue that puts you firmly in the camp of the pathological skeptic, and well, maybe some others might not be too surprised by that.


    No, I believe it is properly skeptical to distrust data that suggests physics textbooks need to be rewritten when based on 'measurements' that aren't confirmed by replication and verification of functionality, and instead supported by pre-conditioned human sense responses. Sounds too much like n-rays to trust blindly.


    Replicate the experiment and then I might revise my opinion.

  • THANK YOU for saying this. At last you have clarified your position.


    Except I don't think you have a clue what it really is.


    I have never hidden the fact that I am conservative in my approach to this field, meaning I need good solid evidence of LENR to convince me the observations are not grounded in mundane chemistry and physics. I have found that CFers routinely neglect to probe mundane explanations of their results to the necessary level, so my efforts in this area are to do that. I don't need to repeat what they have done, I do what they have not. While doing that, I have found that in those cases where enough replication attempts have been made, mundane explanations are as viable as the astounding LENR ones.


    The Mizuno bucket thing, Rossi's demos, the Patterson Power Cell...all insufficient info. You can spend forever trying to guess what happened, or you can just not worry about it and concentrate on cases with enough data to work with, which is what I have done with the Storms' work and the subsequent CCS/ATER thing.


    What really gives away that I am on the right track are the facts that Jed feels it is so important to 'prove me wrong', and that group of ten authors had to resort to a false strawman argument to try to do so as well.

  • It was your continued refusal to understand what I was doing with my "Patho-max" (as you put it) calculations.


    I understood only too well what you were doing with your calculations. As I put it back then, you were taking "figure[s] plucked from God-knows-where, for the purposes of, sorry to say it, stretching reality to your pathologically-skeptical heart's content." Link. You probably claim it's "error analysis" or something, but who knows, as you seem to have a hard time organising your thoughts into a concise and effective description of whatever is it you're currently wittering on about. No joke... That's some genuine advice for you.


    ...Maybe the 'ten scientists' had the same problem I, and presumably everyone else, seems to have? Interestingly both Huxley and ABD seem to only have a limited clue as to your issues with the 'ten scientists', and clearly, they both ain't short on IQ points.


    No, I believe it is properly skeptical to distrust data that suggests physics textbooks need to be rewritten


    Well yes, but by this stage you are having to "distrust" a lot of scientists / data... In fact, an excellent example of your blanket dismissal is contained a couple of posts above: "F&P, and all other CFers using calorimetry, to my knowledge don't do it right." A very bold statement, especially when considering your obvious struggles with the first law of thermodynamics (and arguably the second law as well), as recorded here.


    Replicate the experiment and then I might revise my opinion.


    That's what 'they' all say - until an experiment gets replicated, of course. In which case it becomes "they are also doing it wrong". See above for an example of this.

  • I understood only too well what you were doing with your calculations.


    No, you didn't, as is obvious.


    Interestingly both Huxley and ABD seem to only have a limited clue as to your whole issues with the 'ten scientists',


    Really, you think so. So you think claiming XYZ said "It's random!" when XYZ actually said "It's systematic!" and "It's non-random." is hard to understand? Hmmm...


    Well yes, but by this stage you are having to "distrust" a lot of scientists / data


    No, not really. Normally I take the data as give, such as for Storms and McKubre's published data sheets. Now the recent Mizuno stuff Jed put up left me with some questions, and I showed figures as to why, but that's unusual.


    "F&P, and all other CFers using calorimetry, to my knowledge don't do it right." A very bold statement


    Not really. F&P and Miles implicitly recognize it as true when they spend hours figuring out which is the best mathematical method to determine their calibration constants(oh, excuse me, heat transfer coefficients) from their calibration runs. They clearly know that using the 'wrong' constants give the wrong answer. That's all the 'CCS' is.


    That's what 'they' all say - until an experiment gets replicated, of course. In which case it becomes "they are also doing it wrong". See above for an example of this.


    Typical character assassination.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.