• 1.) From:


    Energetic Particle Detection Using CR-39

    In their review, K&M1 discuss the results of an SRI replication of a Pd/D codeposition
    experiment done using CR-39, a solid state nuclear track detector. In his
    critique, Shanahan implies that little or no control experiments had been done to test
    conventional origins for the tracks observed in the CR-39 detectors used in the
    experiments. He further suggests that the tracks that have been observed in the CR-39
    detectors are due to either O2 attack or ‘shockwaves’ resulting from explosions due to
    D2/O2 recombination on the Pd surface. He also states that the triple track shown in the
    review article is actually overlapping tracks.

    In actuality, SPAWAR had done an exhaustive series of control experiments that
    showed that the tracks were not due to radioactive contamination of the cell components
    nor were they due to mechanical or chemical damage.13,14 The time duration of these
    control experiments were the same as that used in the Pd/D co-deposition experiments.
    Also, the experimental results summarized in Figure 1 rule out both O2 attack and
    shockwaves as the source of the tracks. It was reported that when Pd/D co-deposition was
    done on Ni screen, in the absence of an external electric/magnetic field, no tracks were
    observed on the CR-39 detector.13 Instead the impression of the Ni screen was observed,
    Figure 1a. The observed damage is consistent with X-ray/gamma ray damage.


    2.) From:


    A Physicist's Analysis

    Forsley, who is working with the SPAWAR group, presented a rapid-fire download of an array of data that suggested their experiments had shown evidence of gamma ray emission and knock-on tracks from neutral particles. His fourth slide showed results of apparent tracks from "dry" CR-39 experiments, where the CR-39 is physically and chemically isolated from the electrolyte by a thin barrier. The track density is far lower than in "wet" experiments, where the detectors are immersed in the electrolyte.


  • The problem is it is seldom reported.

    Gamma radiation is seldom reported because it is seldom observed. Many researchers have set up gamma detectors, but only a handful reported gamma rays exceeding background, and only by a tiny margin. I would say most researchers I know always set up a detector for safety, even though they never see anything.

    I do not know why you and Russ George think that gamma rays are good evidence for cold fusion. As far as I know, they only accompany hot fusion.

    I am not saying you are not observing them, but it is not normal or expected.

    I could not agree more. No nuclear fire without nuclear smoke.

    Cold fusion has been observed thousands of times with sensitive gamma detectors present, yet there is no sign of gamma rays. Perhaps cold fusion always produces some form of "nuclear smoke." I wouldn't know about that. But I am sure it does not always produce gamma rays. Maybe it does sometimes, in some cases. It does not always produce neutrons, either. When it does, Ed Storms thinks those neutrons are probably fracto-fusion (hot fusion). It does not always produce tritium, but sometimes it does. So products can vary, probably depending on what is being fused (hydrogen, deuterium, or a mixture).

    The only thing we know for sure is that it produces anomalous heat, and that Pd-D cold fusion produces helium in the ratio of 24 MeV per helium atom.

  • I am not saying you are not observing them, but it is not normal or expected.

    Agreed....well, not normally. But this is an extraordinary experiment. 40+ days now and still producing surprises. As for the gammas, absolutely zero doubt, we have made determined efforts to shoo them away without success. There may be some heat, but right now I think the calorimetry needs tightening up before we even discuss it. Better calorimetry is a work in progress.

  • Agreed....well, not normally. But this is an extraordinary experiment

    It must be quite different from other cold fusion experiments. That being the case, I suppose it will have to be independently replicated a few times before we can be sure it is real.

    Some experiments are close to others that have been widely replicated. Others are little unusual. Still others are so different, they may not even be cold fusion, and the other experiments give little support for them. They need to be independently replicated. Where you draw the line between a "similar" experiment and a "different" one is a judgement call.

  • nickec

    Your first quote above is actually from the paper that I refer to as the '10-author' paper. Therein they try to rebutt my 2010 JEM comment article on the prior 2009 Marwan and Krivit article by using a strawman argument that erroneously assigns the moniker "random Shanahan CCSH" to my CCS/ATER proposal. In addition to that they respond in section 2.4 with what you quoted. I just briefly commented on that here: Safety of Undergrads (and others)

    A link to the 10-author paper is this:

    As you can see from the quote you posted, the 10-authors use the term 'shockwaves' (in actual quotes), where the quote marks imply an unusual use of the word shockwave. However as I noted in the 'Safety of...' thread, whether the process involves chemical or nuclear 'mini-explosions' (the term originates from a figure cation in a publication by Szpak, et al), explosions generate shockwaves. Elsewhere (explicitly in the Galileo Project I believe) Scott Little indicated that carrying a CR39 slab in his pocket for a few hours (maybe a 'day') caused pits to develop upon etching, and George Miley has published that spurious pits are common enough that specially trained people should be the ones reading the plates (brings the n-ray case to mind). IOW, CR39 plates are susceptible to mechanical damage, which causes etch pits to appear. Shockwaves carry energy, which can cause mechanical damage. When the mini-explosions are right on the CR39 plate, I simply ask if it isn't a reasonable concern that one might see pits as a result. No one has tested this idea. No controls have been run to test this idea. The 10-authors' objections are incorrect. Just another in a long line of ad hoc explanations that make no sense.

    The second of your quotes is from Forsley, who is the 10th of the 10 authors, and thus is not independent of the first quote. Further, I do not disagree with the idea that IF the codep'd Pd was producing charged particles or other radiation, the CR39 would indicate that. What I am saying is (once again) that there is a 'mundane', simple physical/chemical mechanism to get the pits they observe in CR39. And as I noted in the other thread, this will be very difficult to test, because it would require the FPHE (Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins-Effect) to be active, and we all know how problematic that can be to get.

  • Since someone is sure to challenge me...…86.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    "Other Damage to CR-39

    As part of our search for possible artifacts, we attempted to make CR-39 tracks
    using various mechanical means. We quickly discovered that mechanical damage
    often leads to round, track-like marks after etching. Any scratch on the surface
    would resolve itself into a chain of circular pits after etching. The following
    photographs in Figure 3 show examples of pits created by various mechanical
    means, including nothing more than the casual handling of the chips."

    Scott Little first posted this to the Internet in pre-published form. The section above was longer there:

    "As part of our search for possible artifacts, we attempted to make CR-39 tracks using various mechanical means. We quickly discovered that mechanical damage often leads to round, track-like marks after etching. Any scratch on the surface would resolve itself into a chain of circular pits after etching. We were able to create various marks with sandpaper, needle points and simply by carrying around a chip in a pocket for a day."

    which is where the 'day' timeframe came from.

  • Understanding the practice of measurement of radiation is a vital necessity in this challenging field of cold fusion. The CR-39 is a method that 'counts' incredible weak emanations and can thus provide very sparse evidence is better than nothing but not by far. Any cold fusion radiation that can only be seen using Cr-39 is so trivail as to be purely of academic interest. It is very clear that 'cold fusion' does NOT produce energetic gammas or neutrons that are commensurate with the heat production but the gammas are very well correllated with the heat. Helium on the other hand is roughly commensurate with the heat production. Cold fusion is NOT a single reaction it is now very clearly identified as a plethora of reactions courtesy of the definitive gammas that each reaction produces. It seems to me that many groups have this evidence in hand but are being ridiculously secretive and wll not share their findings.

    Cold fusion is a wildly complex ecosystem with many if not most atoms present behaving in ways that are mostly not typical within the dogma of conventional nuclear physics. Conventional nuclear physics however does offer an incredibly rich library of known nuclear reactions, some of the reactions in this vast well defined library of reactions are also present in cold fusion. What a joy that is to find some beacons in this wilderness. The benefit of running cold fusion in HOT environments, from a few hundred to a thousand degrees celcius offers a glimpse at the boundary conditions where the world of conventional nuclear reactions and cold fusion find some common ground. Anyone trained in ecology knows that the boundaries are always where the most interesting discoveries are made. To anyone skilled in the art, careful patient exploration and observation with the right tools in this boundary region offers a whole world of wonders. For those who want to impose dogmas on this frontier, that is par for the course in the anals of human history. The gadflies and groupies are always quick to pontificate from their arm chairs, ignore them. But don't forget that some kindred spirits are out there at benches and in arm chairs and from time to time make themselves known and make genuinely useful contributions.

  • It's a witches brew around 20 or so. Which are essential to the nuclear ecosystem they create we have yet to determine.

    So, mostly Ca and/or K in their various oxide forms?

    I would guess K is more likely to help if this was the case, although CaO has been reported in some cold fusion experiments (e.g. Iwamura et al).

    Non-LENR, from

    Sure ...

    By the way, I do at least summarily read the interesting papers you often link, and archive them for later usage.

  • If this experiment is producing gamma rays and it is not producing heat, then I suppose it is of scientific interest only, and it has no practical or commercial value. In that case I recommend you go public with every aspect of the experiment soon. You will get credit from the scientists for proving that cold fusion is a real nuclear effect. You will have priority. Since there is no commercial value there is no point to keeping the details secret.

    Perhaps you do not know whether it is producing heat.

  • Bit of a rush to value judgement there, I didn't say it isn't producing heat, I said we needed to upgrade the calorimetry (and I must add replicate our own work)before discussing it. But there is only a small fraction of a gram of fuel in the system, so I wouldn't expect to boil a bucket with it.