Re: COLD FUSION

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

Yes, occasionally one has a difficulty in distinguishing dirt from
tracks left by nuclear particles. That becomes a problem when the
number of real tracks (such as those due to radon, cosmic rays, or cold
fusion) is very small. But I am 100% certain that nearly all tracks I
observed (see the illustration in unit 183) are real. I spent many many
days, last summer, in training my eyes. The real problem is the origin
of these tracks. Dennis Cravens suspects that most of the tracks from
the Pd-616 cathode might be due to uranium. Two tests, described in my
unit 183, are in progress; I will know the result in several weeks. Do
you see anything wrong with the "thin test," Brian?

I will describe my "experimental protocol" in a separate unit on my
website; perhaps tomorrow. The protocol of two Dennises was described
in their ICCF10  paper. It can be downloaded from the library at:
http://lenr-canr.org

I wish I participated in the experiment with the Pd-616 cathode. I
simply assume that what they are saying to me is true. It is possible
that Pd-613 and Pd-616 were deliberately exposed to a radioactive
source, as a joke, to confuse a researcher? Yes it is. That is why one
confirmation of anything is not sufficient. Healthy skepticism is very
useful; pathological skepticism of Dr. Robert Park is not.  See a small
"modification" about this at the end of my unit #183. By the way, Park
was personally invited (by the conference organizers) to attend the
ICCF10 (in Boston) but he did not come.
Ludwik Kowalski


On Sunday, Oct 17, 2004, at 11:49 America/New_York, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

> At 10:15 AM 10/17/2004, Ludwik, you wrote:
>
> > 3) I can now say that I am a cold fusion researcher. To see the data
> > from my "day of glory" (10/12/04) go to:
> >
> >  <http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/183data.html>
>
>
> It is doubly important for a person researching in cold fusion effects
>   to demonstrate the usual experimental protocols.
> In this case, to counter the classic objection to palladium electrode
> activity as due to prior contamination, it would be wise to see the
> data
>   from a control detector not exposed to the effect in contention.
>
> I see no data in this area, other than the acknowledgement that the
>   alpha-sensitive plates which Ludwik (and I) received are "dirty" - in
>   other words, have pre existing surface marks of the same general
>   character as those he marked as evidentiary.
>
>
>
> Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!