I may have found something.<http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/TiBib.txt>
In 1994 O. Reifenschweiler published the tritium decay-rate transition temperatures 275C and 360C. These are about 548K and 633K respectively. Later in 1994 OR published more detailed analysis incorporating surface TiO2 as a key component to the phenomenon. substance: titanium oxide (TiO2)<http://extras.springer.com/2000/978-3-540-64966-3/41d_pdf/46s28d09.pdf> property: paraelectric Curie temperature in rutile Θp - 540 K from ν(A2u) vs. T (100 K < T < 300 K) - 510 K from ν(A2u) vs. T (90 K < T < 500 K) - 700 K from ν(Eu) vs. T The correspondence between 540K and 548K is inexact and that between 644K and 700K is worse. Nevertheless these numbers are close enough to be suggestive of paramagnetism as related to the OR effect. On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:18 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > Do the transition temperatures correspond to any known Curie points > associated with Titanium? > > The reason I ask is that one hypothesis set forth here in vortex-l > regarding nickel-hydrogen systems used by Rossi is that the transition > temperature from non-active to active is associated with nickel's curie > point. > > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Moab Moab <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I was wondering if the Reifenschweiler effect was ever replicated ? Was >> an attempt ever made ? If not, why not ? >> >> My understanding is that Reifenschweiler discovered the effect in the >> Philips lab (NatLab) in Eindhoven, Netherlands around 1960/62. He discussed >> it with Hendrik Casimir who was head of research there. >> >> The investigations at NatLab were not continued to further understand the >> effect further and "forgotten". >> >> When Fleischmann & Pons announced their anomalous heat effect in 1989 >> Casimir urged Reifenschweiler to publish the (old) results, because he >> thought it might be related. >> >> I read the discussion here with Mark Gibbs about "falsifiable theory". >> >> It appears that this experiment should be easily repeatable. >> >> I have never heard of any lab actually trying a replication. >> >> That's strange. Science method "dictates" that an theoretical >> understanding is only valid until experiment evidence shows a different >> behaviour. Yet no research lab wants to (re)produce this evidence. >> >> To me that stinks, science is not performing research to falsify their >> own theory. >> >> Any lab could take the Reifenschweiler effect and replicate it. If >> successful the notion (axiom?) that the radioactive decay rate is constant >> would be void. And the notion (axiom?) that chemical environment cannot >> influence nuclear reactions would also be void. >> >> What excuses does "science" have for not performing the research that >> would disprove the accepted axioms ? My assumption is that the funding >> agencies only promote the deepening of the current understanding out of >> convenience: "Anomalies are too plentiful to investigate all" and it would >> likely "endanger" the validity of running programs. >> >> I haven't seen any science journalist write a story about this topic, >> asking these questions, let alone answering them. >> >> And therefore we trot on, boldy going where no man was ever supposed to >> go. >> > >
