"Mr. K Shanahan.
I am interested in how the IMS or other element testing devices can be contaminated be high temps
around the seals. I think you mentioned it. I would like to know possible ways to explain the
transmutation results. Do you have any references that I can track down and read? I asked earlier.
I want to know of known proven ways the sample can show results. Other than being salted."
I haven't been following all the threads here, and I don't know what 'IMS' is. I checked some of
your other posts and found you asking this in another thread, and I noted that Abd posted an
answer. In general, what he said was correct, but I would not assume what he suggested was the
cause of the appearance of unusual elements or isotope distributions.
What I have pointed out in the past is that the supposed heavy metal transmutation products
reported by Iwamura, et al, are more likely to be concentrated contaminants. Some of his reported
products could be linked to common materials used in preparing the equipment used (I am speaking of
MoS2 thread lubricant used with UHV systems like SIMS and XPS instruments). The materials being
deposited on the samples by physical contact with a contaminated object. Others could be
found as trace contaminants in his starting materials (specifically I looked up a Certificate of
Analysis for high purity CaO (as I recall), which was the separating layer in the Pd-oxide-Pd
sandwiches he uses. The CoA showed the element he detected to be the primary contaminant at the
ppm level.) The chemical process he subjected the sandwich to then transported and concentrated
the pre-existing contaminant. And then Kidwell found 'wild' Pr in the lab, which negated any
claims to have produced it by transmutation. Physical transport onto the sandwich at some point
during handling is again much more likely.
If we are talking about the Rossi handled sample that showed a nearly pure isotopic distribution,
then that is a different case. I personally don't believe it. I personally consider the
sleight-of-hand switching more likely. Why? Several reasons. Purity is not thermodynamically
favored. Usually to drive a reaction to high purity takes a high degree of control, which was
not present in that experiment. And I agree with Abd, one sample is nothing but suggestive at
best. Reproduction is required, but we don't have that yet. In Rossi's favor is the idea that
nuclear reactions are more specific isotopically that simple chemical reactions. So maybe a
nuclear process gave the results found. Maybe. If so then reproduce it.
With regards to analytical instruments contaminating the sample: that can occur if the equipment
has been exposed to the contaminant previously. For ex, in the MoS2 case, we can assume the
UHV equipment was baked out at some point, because that's how you get the U in UHV. Baking will
gall bolt threads, so people put a MoS2 grease on the threads to prevent this. That means if
someone touches the threads and then touches the part of the equipment exposed to the sample,
the contaminant MoS2 can be transferred from thread to hand to equipment to sample. Sometimes
direct contact is not required, especially with fine powders (like the Pr?). Then simple breezes
can entrain the smaller particles and deposit them anywhere. You can still get direct contact
transfer of course. One other problem is when people use more concentrated calibration standards
to calibrate their instruments and then proceed to do trace level measurements with it (as Arata
did with his He measurements). Of course the standard used will contain what you are looking for.
The problem is that you introduce that stuff to the instrument and you may not get it all out
before you run your sample. Then the process of running the sample releases some of the 'stored'
standard material and you are tricked into thinking it is sample. The correct procedure is to run
several standard samples in the expected concentration range and observe consistent results.
Then you run your unknown. Then you run a standard again to demonstrate the consistency is
retained. In the CF field I have seen no indication people take this level of care. Yet they
expect us to accept anomalous results at trace level as real by trust and faith. Nope...
I'm not aware of a specific reference that goes over all this. Most of this I've learned the
hard way (or I've heard of them). This is part of the 'art' of a field and it's why a common
saying is that it takes a person two years of effort to learn how to do it right. In fact one
reviewer comment on my CCS stuff was just that. (Facetiously...how dare I claim to have found a
problem without having worked in the area!!! If I was building calorimeters they would be right,
but I'm not. What I did was study the data analysis methods, which I have dome one way or another
for 30 years or so.) You might do Google searches on trace analysis combined with
contamination... There are probably books out there, but I don't know.
