At CMNS Akito Takahashi has published a detailed report- execellent- about the ACS Conference. Unfortunately Melvin Miles's paper is presented very shortly and only qualitative results are given - 6/6 successful heat excess experiments. Thus we are not able to know if it was a breakthrough in the old (Szpak, 1990) co-deposition method. Or not- are the results hot or lukewarm?
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 01:53 PM 3/26/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> First of all- thank you! I also think that somewhere we have to get rid of >> palladium and replace it with something cheaper and more abundent, >> And is a provocative and/or nasty assertion that now we still do not >> understnd the science? >> > > We don't understand the science. We don't understand the science. We don't > understand the science. > > Finding reactions that don't involve palladium is obviously of great > interest. It's just not where I can start. I'm standing on the shoulders of > giants, and I can only go where they go, so far. > > Someone has a simple, cheap experiment that can be done and that produces > striking and reliable results, I'll be all ears. > > Right now, "striking" is neutrons, and reliability seems likely, for a > codep approach with a gold cathode. > > The neutrons are of no practical significance, to my understanding. They > are present at incredibly low levels, such that they must be from secondary > reactions, possibly hot fusion. I think we might be looking at one energetic > neutron per minute or the like. That is easily distinguisable from > background if the capture surface of a solid-state nuclear track detector is > small, close to the active region, and the cross-section for observable > interactions is high enough, which apparently it is from the published work. > > I can also detect slow neutrons, using a B-10 conversion screen, not sure > I'll look for them initially. >
