On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But I would like to keep the discussion to the original FP experiment. > Ah, yes. Sounds good. It seems you are pretty familiar with the details, then. > There is a reason why heavy water is typically used so I would assume that > the effect seen is much stronger > (more frequent, higher energy) then when water is used. > This is true, to a certain extent, but there have been questions about light water since the time of Pons and Fleischmann. Fleischmann himself doubted that light water was a suitable control. If even some activity is seen in a light water electrolysis cell, this would make it harder to see a clear difference between the light water cell and a heavy water cell, although the difference may pronounced in some cases. The Pd/D and Pd/H experiments often showed an effect in heavy water and none discernible in light water. > The FP effect itself for a skeptic > does not necessary equate to a nuclear effect. It having an isotopic > effect would be quite a strong indication > that there is a nuclear effect or am I wrong? > I see where you're coming from. I'm a hobbyist, so I can only speculate on what would satisfy an open-minded skeptical scientist. But if observers are willing to suspend judgment on what is going on, a clear isotope effect in a Pd+LiOD system versus a Pd+LiOH system might be interesting to them. When people mention the P&F effect, they often have excess heat in mind as the observable, and this seems like a good one. But if we're looking for ironclad proof of a nuclear effect, per se, tritium, charged particles or characteristic x-rays might be interesting to look at. Else wouldn't it be so interesting that people would take notice > of this field? > Note that there are many experiments over the years that have shown a potential isotope effect in palladium. I wonder whether another experiment along these lines will persuade anyone not already willing to be persuaded. Eric
