There are many problems with this paper.
The most glaring error is that they heated their sample to 1000C for 10 minutes
before measuring. They do this to remove sulphur, which should not be present
under tightly controlled conditions (incidentally they claim to explain the
presence of sulphur in reference 11, which is not included in the references
section)! It is very probable that massive material changes would occur under
high temperature treatment, like the diffusion of CaO into the upper Pd film.
The observation of natural Mo isotopic ratios BEFORE D2 gas permeation and the
presence of sulphur also indicates that their fabrication process was poorly
controlled.
The cited Iwamura paper tracks the growth of the Mo peak by XPS AND SIMS
through repeated cycles of D2 permeation and reports a zero Mo peak before D2
Permeation by XPS. The paper in question shows a huge CaO peak before D2 gas
permeation which is not present in the Iwamura samples before gas permeation.
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:58:47 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.
> >> Â A cautionary tale, indeed. Â 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.
>
>
> It is not an exact replication since they used a different implantation
> method.
>
> Harry
>
> > 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.)
>
