Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: COLD FUSION



I am reposting this (see below) after correcting two
typos. They might confuse a person trying to refer to
details I mentioned. Let me repeat that the issue of
being able to distinguish tracks from dirt, mentioned
by Brian, does become important when the track
density is less than that of spots looking like tracks.

Here is an illustration. I was counting tracks on CR-39
exposed to a Ti foil sent to me by S. Jones last summer.
The result was 225 tracks (on two square inches of
CR-39) for the surfaces exposed to the foil (for 55 days)
and 132 for control surfaces that were not exposed.
Working with a Geiger counter I would say the the
difference is very significant. But I was aware of a
possible biasing (in deciding what to count and what
not to count). It is hard to remain objective, sometimes.

So I asked a student to redo counting. She had no idea
what I was counting or expecting to find. I simply gave
her CR-39 that had a lot of tracks from Am-241 and asked
her to learn how to distinguish them from dirt. (In working
with a microscope one can explore the third dimension
by focusing back and forth). After that I gave her two
pieces of CR-39 from Jones and asked her to count
tracks. Her result was 165 for the exposed surfaces
and 124 for the control surfaces.

Since that time I learned about an excellent method,
used by Oriani, in which personal bias (what to count
and what not to count) it practically eliminated. He
etches CR-39 twice, first before the experiment, and
then after the experiment. He takes the digital photos
of fields each time. At the end he has two photos for
each field. By comparing them he counts only those
tracks that do not appear on both pictures. Fortunately,
I did not need to do this while examining tracks created
by Pd-613 (500,000 of them on 50 mm^2 of CR-39).
The number of dirty spots (on Pd-615 serving as control)
was negligible in comparison. In fact it was comparable
with those found on blank pieces of CR-39.

Yes, I know that most of you have other things to do, as
had last year. But it is hard to resist temptations to teach
and share. I am going to talk about my CF findings at the
conference that starts in two weeks. If you want me to
continue posting (occasionally) items on cold fusion
please reply in private. I will not bother the list with
messages that nobody reads.
Ludwik Kowalski

On Sunday, Oct 17, 2004 Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

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-613 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 source" 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!