2009/9/8 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>: > At 09:08 AM 9/8/2009, you wrote: >> >> Yes indeed, codeposition + looking for tracks in CR-39 are the keys to >> low cost (very low material cost, very low equipment cost), the >> question is, as I asked recently in another thread where I got no >> answer, are the numerous pits observed in those CR-39 experiments the >> result of (electro?)chemical attack or genuine energetic particle >> tracks? Or only some of them maybe? Your opinions welcome. Ed? Jed? > > I find the chemical attack explanation rather thin.
That a chemical attack of the CR-39 occurs in those cells is not debatable, see: http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html <<During our investigation, we observed one effect that was clearly caused by chemical damage to the CR-39. We carefully measured the thickness of the CR-39 at various stages of the experiment. The thickness did not change after exposure to the electrolyte. However, when chips that had been exposed to the electrolyte for weeks were placed in the etching solution, the etch rate was unusually high at first, but returned to a normal rate after a few hours. Normally, CR-39 will etch at a rate of 1.5 microns per hour using TGP etch parameters. However, these chips lost 80 microns in the first 1.5 hours.>> They also observed damage to the plastic cell walls, see their expts A and B. > I'm concerned about the difficulty of reproduction angle. I had assumed that > the codep technique avoids the materials issues, i.e., having just the right > palladium for Fleischmann cells. Just how variable can a thin layer of > palladium be? Palladium doesn't seem to be required, the Earthtech people claim in the above page that they also got pits in CR-39 by codepositing Cu or Ni (using respectively CuSO4 and NiCl2 instead of PdCl2 in the electrolyte). > Had a long talk with Storms yesterday, he was generous with his time. On the > one hand, quite negative. Apparently he's tried to reproduce the SPAWAR work > without success. If I didn't misunderstand him, there may be some very > serious obstacles. I was under the impression that the success rate in TGP was quite high on the contrary, Steve Krivit may want to infirm/confirm. > On the one hand, but Ed and Jed are very negative about the prospects for a > kit that anyone could use; every proposal is met with very negative > response, such as I suggested infrared imaging and Ed said maybe you could > get a camera to do it for $10,000 (actually the first number he gave was > higher). But what I had in mind wasn't a full blown industrial camera, but a > kludged setup using a night vision device and lenses, fixed focus. > > The idea is to get different kinds of data from the cell, besides ones that > are necessarily proof of nuclear activity. I mentioned sound. Well, > electrolytic cells are noisy, apparently, from the bubbles. Noisy at what > frequencies? Are there any effects *associated* with excess heat and/or > radiation and/or helium? > > Lots and lots and lots of questions. > > Jed has recommended pursuing Arata-type replications. I find it unfortunate that the most recent /less verified CF experiments always seem to be the most fashionable among most CF researchers and friends, as if the old ones were considered worthless. I have myself enquired about the proverbial "indisputable CF demo experiment" in the past, without much more success than you're having now, and I also think it's about time we had one. Even if it's only say 10% reproducible, who cares? If hundreds of people attempt it, there will still be tens of positive replications! I also recall an old SPAWAR codeposition experiment claiming to produce tritium, which they mentioned in a recent review of their work. If that was not bogus, tritium being very easy to detect unmistakably, what else is needed to prove CF is indisputably real? We need ONE SINGLE multiply replicated positive experiment to defend, not tens, not hundreds, as I am sure you agree considering your present approach. Michel
