The problem with a cloud chamber for LENR could be its extremely high sensitivity and the resultant tendency to misinterpret results based on a flurry of visual activity from very little real energy.
The name of the game nowadays in LENR is the push towards kilowatts. The cloud chamber will give evidence of picowatts. One can clearly see an incidental effect, which is what Piantelli is seeing - and mistakenly believe that it is a significant effect. In short, LENR could involve no significant fusion or transmutation for 99.99% of its energy release, but there will be incidental QM effects of transmutation which will show up in a cloud chamber as evidence of transmutation … such that the interpretation is that the 0.01 % of the net energy is responsible for all of it. IMHO – Piantelli’s results are not just wrong, they are steering the field in the wrong direction by suggesting that a side-effect of LENR is the main energy effect. From: Bob Higgins At least one place where Piantelli reports use of the cloud chamber on his rod was at "10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals"; Siena, Italy; April 10-14, 2012, in his slide set. Author are F. Piantelli, and W. Collis. This can be found at: http://www.iscmns.org/work10/PiantelliFsomeresult.ppt . There are a number of places on YouTube that describe the construction of a cloud chamber - they are really simple. Harder will be a way to record data from them in a way that can be quantified. I am thinking to use a stereo video camera to record the tracks with and without a magnet being present in the chamber. Bob Higgins On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: That would be pretty cool. On occasion I've looked for the Piantelli anecdote, which I read somewhere, but I haven't succeeded yet in tracking it down.
