Safety of Undergrads (and others)

  • Just received notification of this:


    Energetic Particle Emission in Pd/D Co-deposition: An Undergraduate Research Project to Replicate a New Scientific Phenomenon

    Lawrence Forsley and Pamela Mosier-Boss


    View Paper



    In my opinion, this is reprehensible behavior. There are no indications in the paper of any danger arising from potential explosions of the apparati, yet it is *apparently* pretty much an 'original F&P open-cell setup, you know, the one that went up and blew a hole in the floor of their lab... (I say 'apparently' because I can find no explicit figure of the set-up, but tracking back through their referencees I finally found mention that they were using an open cell in their original work, and I assume they did the same for this reported work.)


    As I have mentioned several times before, when you electrolyze water and mix the gases, you make an explosive mix. Further, if you believe F&P, (and Szpak, et al) you have a potential nuclear explosive.


    And these people exposed 3 groups of undergraduates to the possible exploding apparatus. Wonder what Andrew Riley would say.

  • I expect they were in more danger travelling to the laboratory than they were when working in it, under the watchful gaze of experienced professional chemists. Much better they stay at home in case the H&S police catch them out without a survival suit on.

  • I expect they were in more danger travelling to the laboratory than they were when working in it,


    And you know this how? You know their routes to work and the accident probabilities of their paths how? You know the probabilities of their apparati exploding how? Did you find the supposed supplemental information associated with the paper that supposedly gave more info on their setup (and presumably how to operate it safely)? If you did pleasr let me know where it is because I would like to read it.


    under the watchful gaze of experienced professional chemists.


    Were they? The paper says:


    "We provided the students with chemicals, a protocol, and copies of pertinent publications. The students conducted the experiments independently of us"


    Sounds like pretty 'independent' work to me. Do you know the extent of the supposed oversight?


    Much better they stay at home in case the H&S police catch them out without a survival suit on.


    Your attitude is highly unprofessional.

  • And you know this how? You know their routes to work and the accident probabilities of their paths how? You know the probabilities of their apparati exploding how? Did you find the supposed supplemental information associated with the paper that supposedly gave more info on their setup (and presumably how to operate it safely)?


    kirkshanahan : Pointing at potential danger in LENR experiments could be well worth a separate thread. All nuclear processes are capable of gamma/neutron radiation. Even the sunburn(s) (XUV) reported from different labs were impressive. Pamelas lab produces neutrons and alphas and she believes they will be contained.


    For amateurs the story looks quote different:


    The good thing is: Most amateurs only see very low level of activity, what is still enough for research. But people that want to go for the money are at risk without proper shielding and measurement. I believe that far more than one LENR researcher has already, unintentionally, shortened his live.


    Students are protected by law and the responsibility is on the university side. Thus I assume Pamela did her homework.


    Regarding explosions is a very serious issue and one point not to tell everybody anything you know.

  • There are no indications in the paper of any danger arising from potential explosions of the apparati


    From the paper: "Experiments should be conducted in a well ventilated fume hood as D2, O2 and Cl2 gases are generated."


    an 'original F&P open-cell setup, you know, the one that went up and blew a hole in the floor of their lab


    Umm.. What? Reference please.


    Do you know the extent of the supposed oversight?


    Do you Kirk? ...Or are you just working to your usual assumption that every person except yourself is an incompetent fool?

  • Thank you Kirk for the link, and your concern. The 3 groups of undergrads survived thank goodness. Anyone notice though, that they replicated Pamela Mosier-Boss SPAWAR CR-39 track results:


    "As was aptly demonstrated by the Fleischmann-Pons

    events in 1989, two necessary requirements to achieve

    acceptance in the scientific community of a new

    phenomenon are replications and reproducibility. To this end,

    we approached chemistry professors at a local university

    asking them if they would be willing to replicate our results

    of track formation in solid state nuclear track detectors

    (SSNTDs) as a result of Pd/D co-deposition. The professors

    thought it would be a good exercise for a group of their

    undergraduate students to do as part of their independent

    research project. So, over a period of three years, different

    groups of senior undergraduate students replicated our Pd/D

    co-deposition process and obtained tracks in solid state

    nuclear track detectors. Controls and simulations were done

    by the students to rule out a chemical explanation for the

    tracks. We provided the students with chemicals, a protocol,

    and copies of pertinent publications. The students conducted

    the experiments independently of us and came up with their

    own conclusions."


    "The experiments described here were conducted by three

    separate groups of upper division, college undergraduate

    students in chemical engineering as part of independent

    research projects that explored metal electroplating. While

    the students learned about Faradaic efficiency and the use of

    optical microscopy to analyze tracks in SSNTDs, they

    learned about the vigor required to test a hypothesis. In

    particular, these experiments introduced the students to the

    importance of using control experiments and simulations to

    verify a hypothesis, namely that the tracks observed in

    CR-39 detectors were due to energetic particles and not

    chemical/mechanical damage."

  • I love the smell of lawsuits in the morning, especially when there are precedents:



    https://www.newscientist.com/a…s-cold-fusion-laboratory/


    https://e-catworld.com/2014/12…nn-explosion-russ-george/


    http://www.energeticforum.com/…ccident-causes-death.html


    Quote

    The 3 groups of undergrads survived thank goodness. Anyone notice though, that they replicated Pamela Mosier-Boss SPAWAR CR-39 track results


    Good to hear that but those CR-39 tracks have been reported to be subject to errors caused by artifacts.

  • This paper may have just been released to print, but in reading the Acknowledgements, it appears the students did the work some time after 2009. How soon after?...I do not know:


    "We would like to thank the students who did the metal

    electroplating experiments as well as Prof. Jan Talbot and the

    chemical engineering department of University of California

    San Diego for allowing the students to conduct these

    experiments. Thanks are given to Steve Krivit of New

    Energy Times for providing support to the students to

    present their results at the spring American Chemical Society

    meeting in 2009"



  • Thanks to SOT for the links.


    There are also reports that Mizuno had been injured by flying shrapnel (as I recall). Also as I recall the reports came via JR.


    The non-CF link is important as it emphasizes the fact that it is the H2/O2 mix that is the problem. This mix is flammable over a wide range of concentrations, and in some cases can be fully explosive, meaning either a deflagration or detonation can occur.


    At a minimum, the paper I originally pointed out needed to have that information clearly indicated in it. The lack of that speaks to the quality of the peer review as much as to the safety awareness of the authors.

  • From the paper: "Experiments should be conducted in a well ventilated fume hood as D2, O2 and Cl2 gases are generated."


    Which tells you nothing about explosive or fire potential. Putting the experiment in a hood does nothing to alleviate those problems.


    Umm.. What? Reference please.


    SOT found a good ref to a quote by Russ George. You should read it. That story was what i was referring to, but not to Russ' note, there are other descriptions of this event out in the CF literature. Look them up if you are interested.

  • And, lo and behold, the only reference to an F&P 'explosion' is that one by Russ.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…osion/explosion-net.shtml


    http://news.newenergytimes.net…reactor-in-your-basement/



    An account in Frank CLose's book "Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion"(pp. 79-80):

    https://books.google.com/books…hmann%20explosion&f=false


    https://www.lesswrong.com/post…old-fusion-real-after-all

    (Seach for the word 'explosion' in this and make sure you check the last one, then see who wrote it.)


    https://books.google.com/books…hmann%20explosion&f=false

    Nuclear Energy ebook Collection: Ultimate CD pps. 4-5 (esp. Table 1.1)


    https://books.google.com/books…hmann%20explosion&f=false

    The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon: In Search of the Physics and ... By Hideo Kozima

    (note that this is the same as the prior ref.)


    https://books.google.com/books…hmann%20explosion&f=false

    Creations Of Fire: Chemistry's Lively History From Alchemy To The Atomic Age by Cathy Cobb, Harold Goldwhite p. 420

    (note they refer here to a 'meltdown' vs. an explosion)


    https://books.google.com/books…hmann%20explosion&f=false

    The Undergrowth of Science: Delusion, Self-Deception, and Human Frailty

    By Walter Gratzer p 116


    You are truly dense Zeus46.



    No further responses to Zeus on this topic.


    Forgot one, sorry folks: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPunexplaine.pdf

    (P.S. The conclusion about the nature of the explosion expressed in the Abstract is wrong IMO.)

  • Technical question: How does one distinguish between 'melting' and 'shockwave induced deformation'? Qualification question: Were F&P capable of answering the technical question?


    example ref.


    Journal of Materials Science

    July 2009, Volume 44, Issue 13, pp 3319–3343| Cite as

    On the shock compression of polycrystalline metals


    N. K. Bourne, J. C. F. Millett, G. T. GrayIII


    Abstract


    At the present time, materials are being considered for use in increasingly extreme environments; extreme in terms of both the magnitude of the imposed pressures and stresses they encounter and the speed of the loading applied. Recent advances in understanding the continuum behaviour of condensed matter have been made using novel loading and ultrafast diagnostics. This insight has indicated that in the condensed phase, the response is driven by the defect population existing within the microstructure which drives plastic flow in compression as well as damage evolution and failure processes. This article discusses shock compression results, focusing upon research conducted on cubic-structured metals but also giving an overview of results on hexagonal-close-packed (HCP) metals and alloys. In the past, shock physics has treated materials as homogeneous continua and has represented the compressive behaviour of solids using an adaptation of solid mechanics. It is clear that the next generation of constitutive models must treat physical mechanisms operating at the micro- and mesoscale to adequately describe metals for applications under extreme environments. Derivation of such models requires idealized modes of loading which limits the range of hydrostatic or impact driven experimental techniques available to four principle groups. These are laser-induced plasma loading, Z pinch devices, compressed gas and powder-driven launchers and energetic drives and diamond anvil cells (DACs). Whilst each technique or device discussed brings unique advantages and core competencies, it will be shown that launchers are most capable of covering the spectrum of important and relevant mechanisms since only they can simultaneously access the material microstructural ‘bulk’ dimensions and timescales that control behaviour observed at the continuum. Shock experiments on a selection of metals whose response is regarded as typical are reviewed in this article, and sensors and techniques are described that allow the interpretation of the compression that results from idealized step loading on a target. Real-time imaging or X-ray techniques cannot at present access bulk states at the correct microstructural resolution, over a macroscopic volume or at rates that would reveal mechanisms occurring. It is controlled recovery experiments that provide the link between the microstructure and the continuum state that facilitates understanding of the effect of mesoscale properties upon state variables. Five metals are tracked through various shock-loading techniques which show the following characteristic deformation features; a low Peierls stress and easy slip allow FCC materials to develop dislocation cells and work-harden during the shock process, whereas the higher resistance to dislocation motion in BCC-structured materials and the lower symmetry in HCP metals slows the development of the microstructure and favours deformation twinning as an additional deformation mechanism to accommodate shock compression. Thus not only energy thresholds, but also operating kinetics, must be understood to classify the response of metals and alloys to extreme loading environments. Typical engineering materials possess a baseline microstructure but also a population of defects within their volumes. It is the understanding of these statistical physical relationships and their effects upon deformation mechanisms and defect storage processes that will drive the development of materials for use under extreme conditions in the future.

  • Quote

    What artifacts? Were these artifacts described in a paper, or did you just make that up?


    Look who wants to be spoonfed, ROTFWL. I just have time to cite this note:


    http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/369oriani.html


    Quote

    Oriani was one od several CMNS researchers who confirmed reality of such tracks. But he quickly convinced himself that what was observed was due to chemical corrosion. He modified his own setup, to resemble SPAWAR setup (cathode being in contact with the CR-39 chip). But to minimize the chance of corrosion, he started placing a thin Mylar film between the cathode and the CR-39 chip. The thickness of his film was six microns; alpha particles with energies higher than about 3 MeV are expected to produce tracks in CR-39 detectors. Result were said to be highly reproducible. But his paper, describing the results, was rejected by Phys. Rev. C, and by editors of several other journals. Oriani’s paper is in my unit 335.


    I'm sure rejection of Oriani's paper by several journals was just the usual nefarious bias against LENR.

  • CR-39 tracks have been reported to be subject to errors caused by artifacts.


    Besides those you already noted above, my 2010 comment on the 2009 Marwan and Krivit article in the J. of Environmental Monitoring pointed out that my proposed ATER (at the electrode recombination) mechanism explained the massive difference in numbers of pits in CR39 plates placed in the electrolyte (usually as the direct base for a codep Pd electrode) and plates placed outside the cell. I pointed out that mechanical and chemical damage is known to cause pits to appear in etched CR39 with no radiation exposure. The ATER mechanism uses the Szpak, et al, results shown in their famous ir video of an active codep electrode where 'mini-nuclear explosions' (per Szpak et al) are supposedly occurring. I of course say they are chemical explosions instead. But explosions of either variety will generate shock waves, and especially when produced right on the CR39 plates themselves, they should/could damage the material and produce an etch pit nucleation site. I propose that's why the CR39 plates used as electrode bases have many thousands of pits on them when 'excess heat' has been observed, while plates outside the cell typically only have hundreds at best.


    The 10-author paper JR likes to quote that 'refuted' my JEM paper has a section about the CR39 comments I made. Of course they don't like them. But my stance is until the theory/hypothesis/mechanism is tested it remains a possibility. Actually testing it so as to show no LENR might have occurred is going to be a bear though... And as you know I wasn't allowed to respond to the 10-author paper. but I included a couple of comments in the whitepaper I wrote in response.


    EDIT: This post and the one immediately following are related to this specific topic (CR39): Atom-Ecology

  • @SOT


    Don't forget:


    "Two other CMNS researchers, John Fisher and Marissa Little, also observed clusters of tracks in CR-39 chips, using “seeded” o-rings received from Oriani. "

    http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/358summary.html


    and


    "In a private message Scott Little wrote: “In my search for the sensitivity of CR-39 to radon, I saw several mentions of the problem of radon progeny (decay products) sticking to the CR-39 surface and influencing the track count."

    http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…lski/cf/329mylogbook.html

    (This page gives the plan to test for contamination from O-rings causing tracks as well.)


    There are other pages where Kowalski talks about these experiments for those interested.