How does one distinguish between 'melting' and 'shockwave induced deformation'?
...And you say it's me who's "dense"!
This is almost as bad as the "How did Mizuno know something was hot" debacle...
Safety of Undergrads (and others)
-
-
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
QuoteOriani 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
