Re: [Phys-l] Spectacular Results or Artifacts?

[ludwik kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Jun 4, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Brian Whatcott wrote:

> Ludwik,
>
> I see that Richard's results depend critically on the behavior of a
> plastic film.
> It is possible to argue that pitting effects are potentiated by the
> presence of
> a particular chemical solution carrying ionic currents.
> One can demonstrate the attraction of charged radon nuclear byproducts
> on dust to CRT screens using a cold war era survey meter - an  
> experiment
> described in several threads here in prior years - and so it is  
> natural
> to suppose that such a Geiger-Muller arrangement with a counter, would
> provide increased credibility to the linkage implied between pitting  
> and
> nuclear effects here, if it were shown to detect such putative nuclear
> events also.
>
> Brian W
> p.s. One of the numerous materials used to plasticize plastic films  
> is a
> lead compound: dibutyl mallate.
>
>
> ludwik kowalski wrote:
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > I am ready to replicate the experiment of Richard Oriani. His paper,
> > presented at ICF14 (International Cold Fusion Conference, 14 in
> > Washington D.C. 2008)  can be downloaded from:
> >
> > http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf
> >
> > Richard claims that his spectacular results (a nuclear activity of
> > some kind, triggered by electrolysis) are now reproducible-on-demand.

Yes, indeed; paying attention to possible artifacts is essential in  
this case. That is why control experiments are necessary. A control  
chip is processed in nearly the same way as the experimental chip,  
except for electrolysis. If i had two cells I would do what Oriani  
suggested--placing a control chip into the identical second cell, in  
which the electric current is zero. My control chips will be placed  
into the container with electrolyte; that is close enough to the  
ideal. We will have much more to do, if our experiments also produced  
excessive track. Each possible artifacts should be investigated.

In the past I applied CR-39 to the Pt and Ni wires I am using (for  
weeks) and etched the chips, and to the glass of my empty cell.  
Nothing above the background was detected. I now suspect that electric  
charges are somehow created on CR-39 left in air for long time. That  
is why keeping chips in salty water (which Oriani does not do) is very  
important. A common Geiger counter might not be sensitive enough to  
detect the level of radiation needed to produce tracks observed by  
Richard. The mean background on my chips is 13 tr/cm^2 (st. dev is 4).  
My threshold, for saying that excess tracks are real is high; the mean  
of 25 (and st.dev. 5) would not be enough, no matter what a  
statistician might say. Why not? Because some of the assumptions  
statisticians make might not be satisfied. But the mean of 100 (and  
the st. dev. 10) would already be significant, with my CR-39  
background. Do you remember what Ernest Rutherford said about reliance  
on statistics? Ask Google, s/he will find the quote for you.

I would very much appreciate hearing about other possible artifacts.  
Thanks in advance. And do not miss an opportunity to expose your  
students to a real controversy.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ludwik Kowalski, a retired physics teacher and an amateur journalist.  
Updated links  to publications and reviews are at:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/   http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/my_opeds.html 
   http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/revcom.html

Also an ESSAY ON ECONOMICS at: http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/economy/essay9.html