On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: > At 01:34 AM 4/11/2012, Eric Walker wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax >> <<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: >> >> Iwamura's results are certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and >> there have been replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed >> (or, in a recent case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an >> apparent transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a >> molecular ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not >> going to research and write about here. >> >> >> Ah, yes. Â This reminds me of these slides by Apicella and others: >> <http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf>http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf. >> Â A cautionary tale, indeed. Â Thanks for bringing this up. Â Do you have >> any additional references on this topic, even if you're not following it >> closely? > > > Well, this is the recent paper: > > http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf > > TOF-SIMS Investigation on Nuclear Transmutation from Sr to Mo with Deuterium > Permeation > through Multi-layered Pd/CaO > > A. Murase, N. Takahashi, S. Hibi, T. Hioki, T. Motohiro and J. Kasagi > > Page 34. (PDF page 43.) > > Disappointing result, eh? > > While the book is not absolutely closed, and if Murase et al have correctly > analyzed their data, this is a true replication. It confirmed Iwamura's > actual results (the peak at X-96), but demonstrated artifact with more > careful measurement and analysis.
It is not an exact replication since they used a different implantation method. Harry > Iwamura might come back with a response, but will need to address the > specific possible artifact. > > We are seeing here one of the dangers of single-result experimentation. The > most solid cold fusion work has been work that measured both excess heat and > helium, and that showed correlation over many cells. So each experiment > produces two results: anomalous heat and anomalous helium. There is little > reason why an artifact with one would produce a matching artifact with the > other! > > (yes, you can imagine that a hot cell might leak more, which ignores the > fact that, first of all, one of the research groups (McKubre) was using > isothermal calorimetry, so the cell was maintained at a constant > temperature, whether there was anomalous power or not. And then another > (Italian, ah, this memory is a bit spotty, Krivit tried to impeach this work > and didn't have a clue about what they had actually done) did not exclude > ambient helium, so they were only measuring elevation above ambient). And > isn't it amazing that somehow the leakage would allow *just the right amount > of helium*, out of a wide range of possibilities? No, heat/helium, once > demonstrated and replicated, should have damn near ended the controversy. > Miles was 1993. Just to show how long the silly charade went on. Miles did > not demonstrate the mechanism, though Preparata got a few points for > predicting the helium. But, from Miles, confirmed by more accurate > measurements later, it's fusion. Get over it.) > > (If W-L theory were more plausible, I'd consider allowing that neutron > induced transmutation, even if it takes deuterium and makes neutrons from > it, and leaves behind helium, is not *exactly* a fusion mechanism. But it's > not plausible, given the utter lack of experimental confirmation and the > multiple miracles it requires.)
