Michel,
You mention an interesting point, although most observers would have
dismissed it immediately - and that is the SPAWAR cell and in peculiar
construction and the intimate positioning of CR-39 film ... and the
possibility that in this cell design, a thin clear layer of Pd is
deposited on a polycarbonate surface (or to the cell walls). Actually
CR-39 uses a slightly different polymer which still has the C=O double
bond in the chain.
In the world of plastics, the various polycarbonate grades and
variations are somewhat of an anomaly and singularity in physical
properties. It (Lexan is one trade name) is far stronger "than it should
be". It is the "bullet-proof" material used instead of glass in the
CEO's limo, for instance. Plus it is somewhat unusual for having that
C=O double bond. Wiki has an entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarbonate
Therefore - let me add this remote possibility into the SPAWAR mystery,
and invite Robin to expound on this point - the "double bound oxygen"
which is located in an exposed portion of the polymer chain presents an
open invitation for a hydrino (deuterino) "hole" which would itself
benefit from having a few Pd atoms adjacent in order to provide
monatomic D.
Here is Robin's page with O++ listed as a catalyst:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/Hydrinos_explained.html
Remember that Mosier-Boss does see tracks with light water !
... but not as many as with heavy water; but she has found zero tracts
with copper electrodes, for instance.
Without the tracks showing up with light water, the hydrino skeptic
could say that this type of LENR does not require a below-ground-state
excursion - but sorry! that is not the case here.
There are tell-tale tracks in the SPAWAR cell with light water, and
since the tracks have been heretofore been best explained as having a
neutron decay source (Widom/Larson are usually given credit, although
Swartz may have beaten them by 9 years), then this makes the
"below-ground-state excursion" and the possibility of a resultant "faux
D" (from light water) or Faux dineutron (from heavy water) at least
arguable. More than arguable for those who appreciate R. Mills' insight.
Therefore Widom/Larson are both only-half-right and possibly not even
the originators, so why are they being given any credit at all?
Jones
PS. from New Energy Times on the SPAWAR explanation:
Summary:
In 2005, Dr. Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen began publishing papers that
presented a new theory to explain the experimental anomalies observed in
"cold fusion" experiments. Their theory claims these anomalies are due
not to a fusion reaction, which would involve the strong force, but to
other low energy nuclear reactions that involve weak interactions,
namely neutron formation from electrons and protons/deuterons, followed
by local neutron absorption and subsequent beta-decay processes. The
following published papers and news items provide more details on the
Widom-Larsen theory.
Highlights of claims:
- Not fusion or fission, but weak interactions—explains Huizenga's three
miracles*
- Explains most of the well-accepted experimental data in "cold fusion"
field
- Matches Miley experimental transmutation data
- Suggests an explanation for Iwamura transmutation effect
- Explains light and heavy hydrogen experiments
- Requires no "new physics"
