Re: [Phys-l] Navy Cold Fusion

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Nov 18, 2006, at 11:58 PM, Jack Uretsky wrote:

> Back when cold fusion was hot we had a speaker from Texas A&M who had 
> been
> investigating some local experiments.  As I recall the talk, one of the
> main points was thet there is practically no Palladium available that 
> has
> not been used in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor.  Investigation of 
> the
> local Palladium supplies confirmed that all  of itw was hot, we were 
> told.
>  					Regards,
>  						Jack

Jack, assuming you would not object, I quoted the above on the 
restricted list for CMNS researchers, and asked for comments. The 
acronym stands for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science; it is a new name 
for "cold fusion." What follows is a reply that came, from France, this 
morning. The author of the message is usually very critical about CMNS 
claims. By the way, traces of beta radioactivity, accompanied by gamma 
rays, if Pd was recycled from fission products, would be from 107Pd. 
That isotope is not alpha radioactive. The CR-39 chips are totally 
insensitive to beta and gamma rays.

Ludwik Kowalski
Let the perfect not be the enemy of the good.

> Hmmmm.
>
> Well, now I have survived in this field long enough to see the old 
> lies (or caltrops) recycled.  Maybe this is a good sign.
>
> The mischievous misinformation reposted by "Jack" below was offered 
> originally to defuse any excitement caused by various autoradiographic 
> and low level charged particle evidence of cf.  Having scrutinized A 
> LOT of Pd (before, after and during electrolysis) in a very high 
> sensitivity gamma detector I can assure this group that Pd as received 
> from a variety of sources is not normally (in our case ever) 
> radioactive.  This is as expected.  The mischievous part of the post 
> is that Pd IS NOT normally found or used near reactors*.  The bold, 
> bald and false assertions by the unnamed TAMU speaker were simply 
> intended to disconcert.
> Mike