Topic sparked my interest so i did a little 5 minute home research project.
Here's the total url
TONS of info, links, references. The information is there - let's see if we can turn it into knowledge.
Thought it was interesting to point out their experiment.
"Experimental set-up and observations"
"Fleischmann and Pons reported more energy coming from their electrolysis cell than they contributed.In their original set-up, Fleischmann and Pons
used a Dewar flask (a double-walled vacuum flask) for the electrolysis, so that heat conduction would be minimal on the side and the bottom of the
cell (only 5 % of the heat loss in this experiment). The cell flask was then submerged in a bath maintained at constant temperature to eliminate the
effect of external heat sources. They used an open cell, thus allowing the gaseous deuterium and oxygen resulting from the electrolysis reaction to
leave the cell (with some heat too). It was necessary to replenish the cell with heavy water at regular intervals. For the temperature observations to
be meaningful the cell must be kept at a uniform temperature. Rather than using a mechanical method of stirring, sparging with the generated D2 gas
was done to equalize the temperature "when necessary"; however, the efficacy of this method of maintaining the cell at a uniform temperature would
later be disputed. Special attention was paid to the purity of the palladium cathode and electrolyte to prevent the build-up of material on its
surface, especially after long periods of operation.
The cell was also instrumented with a thermistor to measure the temperature of the electrolyte, and an electrical heater to generate pulses of heat
and calibrate the heat loss due to the gas outlet. After calibration, it was possible to compute the heat generated by the reaction.
A constant current was applied to the cell continuously for many weeks, and heavy water was added as necessary. For most of the time, the power input
to the cell was equal to the power that went out of the cell within measuring accuracy, and the cell temperature was stable at around 30 °C. But then,
at some point (and in some of the experiments), the temperature reportedly rose suddenly to about 50 °C without changes in the input power, for
durations of two days or more. The generated power was calculated to be about 20 times the input power during the power bursts. Eventually the power
bursts in any one cell would no longer occur, and the cell was turned off.
Pons and Fleischmann also initially reported that a cell was generating 2.45 MeV neutrons at a rate three times the natural background rate. There
was, however, no equipment directly measuring neutron energies, and this report was based on a mistaken inference from a gamma-ray spectrum. The most
spectacular result they reported was that in one cell the most of the electrode melted and part of it vaporized, destroying the cell and the fume hood
In the months after the initial report went public, a physicist colleague of Pons at the University of Utah, Michael Salamon, was invited into Pons'
laboratory. In the five week period he and his research group observed the cells, no fusion products were detected. Pons stated that none of the cells
were actively producing the excess heat at the time those observations were taking place, except during one two-hour period during which the detection
equipment was unable to function because of a power failure. As neutron irradiation would produce small amounts of 24Na in the detector, Salomon
quickly performed an analysis for that product, and found no amount consistent with power production of more than one microwatt. When Salomon and his
co-workers had published their results in the journal Nature, each of them received a letter from attorney C. Gary Triggs, declaring that the "paper
as published was untenable" and that it should be "voluntarily retracted." Triggs had, he said, been instructed by his clients "to take whatever
action is deemed appropriate to protect their legal interests and reputations." Salomon and other scientists, perceiving this as an unprecedented
threat against open scientific controversy, rejected the claims categorically and angrily; later, the threats were largely withdrawn."
[edit on 6-1-2005 by Aether]