Re: COLD FUSION

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

OOPS:
I forgot to add that the Pd-615 cathode was my control piece. It was
processed as the Pd-613, in all respect, according to D1 and D2, but
failed to generate excess heat (see Unit 182). Thus Pd-115  was an
ideal control detector. Do you agree?

My CR-39 pieces came from the same chip and this rules out many
different "what if" speculations. The chip came from England; not from
the US source that we shared about a year ago. Yes, I know that many of
you are not interested in details. I am only responding to concerns
raised by Brian.
Ludwik

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!