At 01:34 AM 4/11/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomax <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
Iwamura's results are certainly interesting and
worthy of replication, and there have been
replication attempts, some of which appear to
have failed (or, in a recent case, just
published in the CMNS journal, there was an
apparent transmutation product that was
identified as being, instead, a molecular ion
with similar weight). It's a complicated story
that I'm not going to research and write about here.
Ah, yes. Â This reminds me of these slides by
Apicella and others:
<http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf>http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf.
 A cautionary tale, indeed.  Thanks for
bringing this up. Â Do you have any additional
references on this topic, even if you're not following it closely?
Well, this is the recent paper:
http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf
TOF-SIMS Investigation on Nuclear Transmutation
from Sr to Mo with Deuterium Permeation
through Multi-layered Pd/CaO
A. Murase, N. Takahashi, S. Hibi, T. Hioki, T. Motohiro and J. Kasagi
Page 34. (PDF page 43.)
Disappointing result, eh?
While the book is not absolutely closed, and if
Murase et al have correctly analyzed their data,
this is a true replication. It confirmed
Iwamura's actual results (the peak at X-96), but
demonstrated artifact with more careful measurement and analysis.
Iwamura might come back with a response, but will
need to address the specific possible artifact.
We are seeing here one of the dangers of
single-result experimentation. The most solid
cold fusion work has been work that measured both
excess heat and helium, and that showed
correlation over many cells. So each experiment
produces two results: anomalous heat and
anomalous helium. There is little reason why an
artifact with one would produce a matching artifact with the other!
(yes, you can imagine that a hot cell might leak
more, which ignores the fact that, first of all,
one of the research groups (McKubre) was using
isothermal calorimetry, so the cell was
maintained at a constant temperature, whether
there was anomalous power or not. And then
another (Italian, ah, this memory is a bit
spotty, Krivit tried to impeach this work and
didn't have a clue about what they had actually
done) did not exclude ambient helium, so they
were only measuring elevation above ambient). And
isn't it amazing that somehow the leakage would
allow *just the right amount of helium*, out of a
wide range of possibilities? No, heat/helium,
once demonstrated and replicated, should have
damn near ended the controversy. Miles was 1993.
Just to show how long the silly charade went on.
Miles did not demonstrate the mechanism, though
Preparata got a few points for predicting the
helium. But, from Miles, confirmed by more
accurate measurements later, it's fusion. Get over it.)
(If W-L theory were more plausible, I'd consider
allowing that neutron induced transmutation, even
if it takes deuterium and makes neutrons from it,
and leaves behind helium, is not *exactly* a
fusion mechanism. But it's not plausible, given
the utter lack of experimental confirmation and
the multiple miracles it requires.)
