On Jan 20, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Horace Heffner <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 2:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Szpak papers uploaded
On Jan 20, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
What about Dash's experiment?
Harry
What about it (them)?
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
he did it with highschool kids.
wasn't it good enough to be unambiguous?
Harry
Apparently not. Probably good enough to get the students interested
though.
Why do you not bother to provide a reference?
I'll provide some references and cursory critiques.
One set of student experiments is described here:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/ICCF10.htm
and here:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm
The photos show the comparative (control cell and experimental cell
in series) calorimetry method used in a number of Dash experiments.
This is open to various forms of criticism (e.g. changing cell
thermal characteristics due to water loss), as are most excess heat
results not done with closed cells and/or sophisticated calorimetry.
Though heavy LENR is observed in various Dash experiments, defending
against the criticism of contamination is difficult. These
experiments just don't meet the test for a "holy grail" demonstration
experiment: (1) a clear nuclear signature (e.g. tritium production,
alpha tracks, neutron production, etc. (2) 100% reproducibility, and
(3) affordability for low budget student labs in colleges and high
schools.
A slide show of related interest is here:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJthequestfo.pdf
Here are some more descriptive articles:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJexcessheat.pdf
Criticism: Poor calorimetry, reproducibility problems for radiation,
requirement for SEM and EDS (expensive)
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJmicroanaly.pdf
Criticism: no calorimetry, no radiation, fibers identified with
unexpected elements but requirement for SEM and EDS (expensive)
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJsurfacestu.pdf
Criticism: Poor calorimetry, reproducibility problems for radiation,
requirement for mass spec., XPS, SIMS, AES (expensive)
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WarnerJsemandedsc.pdf
Criticism: no calorimetry, no radiation, requirement for SEM and EDS
(expensive)
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
