Michel Jullian wrote:
That a chemical attack of the CR-39 occurs in those cells is not
debatable, see . . .
However, this problem was fixed by putting plastic film between the
CR-39 and the electrolyte.
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.
This criticism makes no sense to me. The newer experiments work
better. The researchers have made progress. Arata's experiment in
particular is much better than his previous DS-cathode method, and
probably better than any other gas loading experiment. (With the
possible exception of Celani.) Assuming it actually works, that is,
and I think it is vitally important to verify that it works by using
proper calorimetry. That should be a higher priority than doing yet
another confirmation of something like bulk palladium with
electrolysis. Once Arata or some other experiment is independently
verified 5 or 10 times it should be improved, not repeated.
I see no point to doing difficult experiments with low
reproducibility that have already been replicated hundreds of times
in the past, such as bulk palladium with electrolysis. Doing that
experiment manually, without the benefit of the Italian material and
diagnostics, takes months or years of painstaking effort. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf
Why go to all that trouble? You will not prove anything we do not
already know. You will not convince a single skeptic.
- Jed
