Display More
We seem to be going round in circles here.
There was a NASA study that appeared to show nuclear activity from low intensity x-ray photon beam radiation, referencedby Ahlfors.
The paper Alan cites has the same authors and appears roughly similar in import. It is the same study.
Ahlfors cites an independent replication by Rob Davies, which does not find these results or anything like (no nuclear activity seen to within error limits). This is in fact Rob's second reported replication, the first used a different photon beam source and therefore did not precisely replicate the original conditions. He is obviously trying hard to see if there is anything there.
Rob Davies speculates why the original study might have obtained such clear positive results, when his replication does not show them. It is a plausible, but unprovable, speculation. I quoted it (from Rob's paper linked here) above:
Given our null result, we propose an alternative theory for the non-zero activities
measured previously. Namely, that the materials in the previous work were
contaminated with daughters of radon decay, which contain both alpha and beta
emitters. The plausibility of this theory is enhanced by the fact that the previous
work was conducted partially in a basement laboratory in a part of the country
where radon gas is common. Radioactive daughters are electrostatically charged
following radon decay, and thus can accumulate on electrostatically charged
materials. Pursuant to this theory, we have shown that our PE and DPE materials
are easily charged and can retain such a charge for an extended period of time. They
are easily discharged with an ion blower, but are not easily discharged through
contact with a grounded conductor, which is understandable given that they are
electrical insulators. One contraindication of this theory is the absence of a signal in
the control samples in the previous study. Both the PE and DPE materials, if
electrostatically charged, would be expected to attract radon daughters. This
difference could be explained by a systematic difference in method or timing of the
processing of the PE and DPE samples used in the previous work. We have no means
of exploring whether there was such a difference, and therefore, cannot come to a
firm conclusion about the validity of our alternate theory.
So, from my POV, this is an interesting anomaly raised, checked, and found not to be replicable. We have a possible artifact, though no certainty. That will usually be the case when there is some extraordinary result like this that cannot be replicated. The existence of the possible artifact is enough to make chasing for another possible artifact uninteresting for most.
While there is no certainty, the normal way to process this data is to go with the original unreplicable result indeed being an artifact. It is certainly how I process it.
No doubt, occasionally, such judgements are wrong. Perhaps the replication is different in some subtle not understood way from the original. But then there remains some replicable clear result, which will be found at some point. In this case there is no reason, other than an a priori bias towards wanting to find nuclear reactions in situations where they are not conventionally expected, to go with the original.
Finally I'd point out that there are web sites (not this one of course) that will continue to recycle any apparently positive scientific evidence, without the context refuting it, as evidence. It is context, and followup, that allows us to judge unusual results.
JPL used an ion gun on the fuel to eliminate the possibility of static charge that could attract radon daughters. Could the ion gun have changed the fuel in a substantial way.
Did you notice the education and background of the JPL experimenter? Is he an appropriate choice for the experiment? Also note the exposure of the fuel to ions, and incorrect x ray beam focus and intensity, altering thickness of container, etc. I know nothing of the experimenter , nor enough about the physics to judge. The difficulties in making good fuel for LENR also should be considered,,,regardless who makes the fuel. NASA should repeat the work with verification that there are no radon daughters present. Will they repeat the work? There's thousands of positive experiments to prove LENR is a real nuclear effect. But I'm especially convinced by the Navy SPAWAR goups decades of work, and they were part of the NASA work. In general and in my humble opinion, there's no possibility that such a huge body of positive research , as compiled by LENR researchers, could be ignored by governments, unless the governments were being controlled by the oil industry and by secrecy concerns for military advantage.