> Famous last words... That's a fair comment. Let me try it a different way.
If you look at the Dash paper at ICCF, they appear to give quite specific directions about preparation of the material. This in contrast to Celani, Schwartz, Rossi, and Godes, who do not give such directions, as best I read the publications available to me (and not confined solely from ICCF-17). For example, from the Dash paper: Ti foil (Alfa Aesar stock #43676, 99.99%, metals basis) and Pd foil (Alfa Aesar stock #11514, 99.9%, metals basis) were cold rolled from 0.5 mm thickness to about 0.3 mm thickness. Strips (10 x 30 mm2) were cut from the cold rolled foils to be used as cathodes during electrolysis. The electrolyte consisted of 1.5M H2SO4 (Fisher) in D2O (Aldrich). [ . . . elided . . . ] A cell with a cathode made from cold rolled Ti was attached to the Pt cathode wire. A control cell was identical except that its cathode was a Pt foil. Each cell had a Pt foil anode and the same H2SO4/D2O electrolyte. Recrystallization was achieved by heating the cold rolled foils for 40 minutes at an average temperature of ~700°C with a Bunsen burner, after which a recrystallized Ti foil was crimped to the Pt cathode wire. Electrolysis was performed with constant cathode current density of about 0.3 A/cm2. Cell voltage and temperature were monitored with an automated data acquisition system. [ http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf ] Now I didn't mean to imply that repro was easy. But to me, this looks like a science paper, i.e. like they are attempting to make it possible for others to replicate their work by providing a sufficiently detailed description of their procedures. Unlike some of the others I named, I find it likely that they would assist in efforts to replicate the work by providing clarifications (I haven't contacted them, although coincidentally I live in the same metropolitan area.) Has anyone tried? Not tried? Tried and failed? I'd be tempted to try it myself, it doesn't look horribly expensive (measuring instrumentation aside). But my total lack of academic credibility would mean I'd be unable to influence the larger discussion in a meaningful way. Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > At 07:30 PM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: > >> I am curious about the "weak and erratic" comment. What about evidence >> like this - >> >> <http://newenergytimes.com/v2/**conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-** >> 17-Dash-Effect%20of%**20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf> >> >**http://newenergytimes.com/v2/**conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-** >> 17-Dash-Effect%20of%**20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf> >> >> This doesn't look that hard to reproduce - the main problem is access to >> the spectrometer-equipped SEM, which is not the sort of power tool found in >> the average garage. ;-) I've no idea how common these devices are. >> Anyway, have their been attempts/failures to reproduce this kind of work? >> > > Famous last words in cold fusion: "That doesn't look that hard to > reproduce." > > As to the SEM, so equipped, Dr. Storms has one in his basement. Nifty, eh? > He does do analyses for others, sometimes, if someone has a real need, and > especially if they are doing work of interest to him. I'd encourage anyone > in that position to contact him. >
