2009/10/29 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: > Michel Jullian wrote: > > Why? Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009 SPAWAR > paper http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf , and > as Abd is planning now following Horace's advice, are much easier to > measure, much more sensitive, and much less disputable proofs of LENRs > than calorimetry aren't they? > > Not in my opinion. I will not put words in Martin's mouth but I doubt this > is his opinion either, and it is his dictum. > > Nuclear reactions were first discovered in the late 19th century because > they produce excess heat.
Are you sure? I thought they were discovered because a solid state detector was impressed (Becquerel's photographic plate). The rest of your post below doesn't make much sense to me either, low neutron production or not, if nuclear track counts are significantly above background in SSNTDs used in an environment in which they are known to be reliable, then nuclear reactions are demonstrated, no? After all, workers in the nuclear industry trust those detectors with their lives! I suspect the people who told you they were not convinced by the SPAWAR CR-39 results were referring to the _wet_ CR-39 results, which indeed are much more disputable. Just saw Lawrence's post, I see you make no more sense to him than you make to me :) Michel > For some purposes, sensitive calorimetry is still > the best way to detect them. I realize that for many purposes particle > detection is far more sensitive. But everyone knows that particles are > difficult to detect with cold fusion. I presume this is because the ratio of > neutrons to heat is 9 to 11 orders of magnitude lower than with conventional > fusion, and neutrons appear to be missing altogether in many cases. As far > as I know this is also true with co-deposition. I have not heard that the > SPAWAR technique boosts the number of neutrons per joule of heat, but only > that they have managed to detect the neutrons despite the inherent > difficulties. Their cells probably produce macroscopic heat, but they cannot > detect it because the equipment is optimized to detect neutrons. > > The people at SPAWAR have already confirmed heat. They do not need to do > this. People starting out on this experiment do need to, in my opinion. Walk > before you run. Confirm that you have the effect first, then look for > particles. Otherwise you are probably fishing in a dry hole. > > I do not think many people have been convinced by the SPAWAR results, > although of course I acknowledge these results are important. I am not > opposed to looking for neutrons! But before you look for them you should > confirm that you have a cold fusion reaction, and the one and only certain > method of doing this is to confirm excess heat. > > Perhaps in the future particle detection will become the primary means of > detecting cold fusion but that is not how things are today. > > Lomax suggested that audio noise or possibly light flashes may also be a > means of detecting cold fusion. Perhaps that is true. The way to find out is > to first confirm there is heat, then listen for audio noise with a > microphone. We know there is heat. We do not know if there is audible noise. > So look for what you know has to be there if the reaction is occurring, and > then look for what you suspect may also be there. > > - Jed >
