At 06:45 PM 10/14/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomax <<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
Actually, you do. Is there a minimum current at
which the effect appears? Does the effect scale
with current? If there is no scaling with
current, there would still need to be some
minimum current or it's not "electrolysis."
In an electrolysis experiment, you would need a
minimum current to have electrolysis. Â In
Oriani's review of his work, he says that there
were current densities of between 0.1 and 0.37
A/cm^2. Â I don't think there was a question at
any point about there being a minimum current.
My point has been missed. If electrolysis causes
the effect, then the effect will extinguish at
some current level. When medication is being
tested, this is "dose-response" effect. A lack of
a dose-response effect is a sign of artifact.
(Not necessarily a proof, because of threshhold effects.)
The highest current did have the highest track
counts, it was off the charts, not numerically
reported. However, I recall studying this before,
there wasn't any apparent correlation with current.
 à A finding pertaining to current would be
nice, of course. Ã But to my mind, current is
just a proxy for hydrogen flux (or loading), and
it is possible that you could get high flux with
lower current, so correlation with this
particular variable is a week finding, as far as I can see.
No, lower current would generally mean lower
flux. Further, lower current can mean lower
voltage, and if the voltage is below a certain
level, hydrogen/deuterium is not evolved.
In general, yes. Â But there might be gradual
sulfur poisoning of the kind described by Hioki
et al. [1], or poisoning by some other nuclide,
the onset of which is both current-related and
which serves to obscure the relationship between
current and effect. Â In this case, you have
current, increasing poisoning, a
hard-to-decipher relation between current and
effect, and a real effect, buried in thereÂ
somewhere. Â Correlation with current is nice,
but I don't see it as a must-have in order to draw basic conclusions.
Conclusions might be possible without current
correlation; however, again, the lack of correlation is a bad sign.
I find the whole paper so confusing that I'm
just putting it down. Eric, your comments don't
seem to match the sections and description in the Oriani paper.
I notice that the nominal page numbers at the
top right-hand corners of the pages do not
correspond with the actual page numbers of the
PDF. Â I've been referring to the nominal page
numbers. Â I'm pretty happy with my descriptions
of the sections, minus an inaccuracy here and
there -- perhaps others here can read the paper and see if they agree.
Normally, with a published article, "page N"
refers to the page number printed on the page,
not to the page sequence in a PDF, which includes
front matter. Page 110, though, was obviously a
reference to the printed page numbers, because
the PDF article begins at about PDF page 117.
Â
As I've written before, this is investigational
work, not the kind of work that can be used to
draw clear conclusions. A great deal more work
would be needed, with tighter controls, and a
single variable. If there is an effect from
electrolysis, at what level of electrolysis does the effect appear?
If all conditions are held constant, how consistent are the results?
Nobody has substantiated. Kowalski tried. From
Oriani's original paper (not the recent review),
I didn't see that Oriani's data supported the
claim of "reproducible." It wasn't clear what was being reproduced.
In the paper I read, Kowalski found two things
in relation to Oriani's earlier study. Â The
first thing he found was that there were tracks
he believed to be caused by electrolysis and not
ambient radioisotopes or cosmic things, which
was in agreement with a claim of Oriani. Â The
second thing he found was that he was not able
to reproduce another claim of Oriani, concerning
repeatability. Â So he supported one claim and
didn't support another; that's a more complex
conclusion than that he simply wasn't able to
reproduce. Â You may have another paper by Kowalski in mind, however.
Kowalski does not "believe" that the tracks he
found were caused by electrolysis. He considers
that one possible explanation. Kowalski is quite
careful. He is looking at clusters. Oriani
reported some clusters, but clusters aren't
Oriani's claim. Kowalski's paper cannot be
considered to be a confirmation of Oriani's
claims, beyond a finding that some unusual and
difficult-to-explain phenomena occur.
SSNTDs are highly sensitive and accumulate very
low levels of radiation, radiation we would not
ordinarily notice with electronic detectors.
(Kowalski: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLonemission.pdf )
