Yes indeed, codeposition + looking for tracks in CR-39 are the keys to low cost (very low material cost, very low equipment cost), the question is, as I asked recently in another thread where I got no answer, are the numerous pits observed in those CR-39 experiments the result of (electro?)chemical attack or genuine energetic particle tracks? Or only some of them maybe? Your opinions welcome. Ed? Jed?
Michel P.S. Abd, it's a good thing you're discussing your projects here, where you may catch more ideas/suggestions/objections than on your lower diffusion mailing list. 2009/9/8 Harry Veeder <hvee...@ncf.ca>: > > > I think one kit should focus on anmoulous particle production > rather than excess heat. > > See Richard Oriani research on Ludwik Kowalski's page: > > http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368project.html > > Harry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > Date: Monday, September 7, 2009 5:01 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier > >> At 02:40 PM 9/7/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: >> > >> >>My goal is that each test cell be cheap, very cheap, well under, >> >>say, the cost of a Galileo Project replication . . . >> > >> >I do not understand this goal. The cost of materials has never >> been >> >a barrier to replicating cold fusion, except perhaps when I could >> >not afford to buy 1 kg of Johnson-Matthey Pd. >> >> You are not usual, Jed. What you are showing is part of the >> thinking >> that kept Cold fusion down. I don't blame you, and I certainly >> respect your experience. But you have also come up with some real >> nonsense. >> >The material cost is trivial -- immaterial if you will -- compared >> >to the cost of the instruments and effort. I have never seen a >> >credible cold fusion experiment that costs less than ~$100,000 and >> >probably a lot more if you take into account the cost of people's >> time. >> I don't think this is true. Galileo project. You know the situation >> with Mizuno, how hard it was for him because of the costs. >> >> Perhaps the key word is "credible." There is a "lost performative" >> here. "Credible" isn't an absolute characteristic of some >> phenomenon >> or, in this case, experimental result. It refers to a reaction by >> people. The reaction by people will depend on many factors that >> aren't part of the experimental report! >> >> Many cold fusion researchers were convinced by some happening that >> they could not use to convince others. They saw it. Now, suppose we >> could create a few hundred young people and a few hundred >> scientists >> who have all see the same phenomenon? >> >> In a certain sense, I don't need to focus on the ultimate effect of >> a >> cheap cold fusion demonstration kit. I only need to look at the >> practicality: can it be done? If it can be done, enough money, I >> believe, can be made with it to justify the activity and the >> investment. The only worrisome possibility is that it can't be >> done. >> I just spend a long time on the phone with Dr. Storms. He's >> encouraging, but, at the same time, quite as negative as you about >> the possibility of doing such a kit. However, we did examine in >> some >> detail his objections, and the objections were coming largely from >> assumptions about what a kit would be like. >> >> In short, it won't be what most researchers in the field expect. It >> won't necessarily produce bulletproof evidence, unimpeachable. It >> will produce a body of *experience* that is shared. >> >> It's not necessary to convince a lot of people to support this. A >> few >> who are willing to work on it or help it can do it. If people are >> interested, they can join the project. If not, that's fine, >> everyone >> decides where to put their effort. >> >> > Whether the materials cost $20 or $200, or even $2,000 does not >> > make the slightest difference and has not stopped anyone from >> > trying the experiment, as far as I know. I have never heard from >> > someone who said "I would love to try this but I can't afford the >> > palladium." I have heard from people who said they can't find the >> > palladium; or they don't feel competent to test it per Storms' >> > instructions; or -- most often -- they don't have the time or the >> > instruments they need. >> >> Codeposition, Jed. Not "palladium," but "palladium chloride." Now, >> Storms say that he's been unable to reproduce the codeposition >> results of the SPAWAR group. That's worrisome, Jed. On the other >> hand, there were some positive results from the Galileo Project. >> I'm >> going to need to ask Mr. Krivit more about that.... >> >> >The only thing you should look for in materials is something that >> >works. Whether it costs $20 or $2000 should not be a consideration. >> >> Wrong. If the kit is expensive, it causes two problems. It can't be >> purchased by kids or their parents on a limited budget. An >> experimenter can't decide to test *many* cells instead of one or a >> very few. You are thinking of ordinary scientific replication. I'm >> not. I'm thinking of bypassing the entire existing system and >> creating something that could be studied by others, later, the >> scientists who will publish, if they care to. Standard baseline >> experiment, cheap. Some variations may be expensive. >> >> Equipment, you call it "instruments," for simple demonstrations, >> fairly cheap and it will be rented to customers. Programmable power >> supply. Temp sensors, possibly some other sensors, say, pressure >> and >> acoustic or light or even radiation, though radiation may mostly be >> with CR-39, which is pretty expensive, but small pieces. Computer >> interface, standard USB. >> >> Storms assumed that individual experimenters would be etching their >> own CR-39, and, indeed, some may do this, but I expect the company >> will offer that service along with other analysis. Process lots of >> chips at once. Done by people who know what they are doing. Storms >> assumed a lot of things that would make kit usage much more subject >> to individual variations. Perhaps "kit" is a misnomer. The "full >> kit" >> would be a demonstration operated in the base mode, designed for >> maximum reliability, whatever that turns out to be. But then >> customers could try variations. >> >> > In my opinion, the Arata material is more promising, so I think >> > you should find someone to fabricate it, or ask Santoku Corp. for >> > some. They have been providing it for free to researchers in >> Japan, >> > and they were kind enough to send some to U.S. researchers as >> well. >> > I believe the supply is limited and the price has not been set as >> I >> > said, so price is not an issue. Availability is the problem. The >> > biggest issue in my mind is that no one has done truly convincing >> > calorimetry to prove the stuff works in the first place. Doing >> > credible calorimetry will cost you $5,000 to $10,000 if you buy a >> > calorimeter off the shelf, or you can spend several months >> learning >> > how to make Seebeck calorimeters of the kind Storms made. If your >> > time is worth anything that will cost more than $10,000. >> >> You are stating exactly why we might avoid excess heat as a >> necessary >> measurement. Some temperature measurements, perhaps, some rough >> calorimetry, but not precise calorimetry. It's not actually >> necessary, if one can show correlation with other phenomena. Is, >> for >> example, increased temperature, under otherwise similar operating >> conditions, correlated with helium? But Storms indicated that the >> SPAWAR type cells don't produce enough helium. Is that true? >> >> The goal of the kits is to reproduce, reliably, at least one LENR >> phenomenon, but preferably two that can be correlated. Helium, Jed. >> It's possible to drastically lower, I believe, the cost of helium >> testing. Or there are ways to split the cost between amalgamated >> experiments, I won't go into it. Gotta put the kids to bed.... >> >> Came back later, I called Storms and modified the above a little as >> a >> result. Maybe helium won't be possible with small co-dep cells, >> unless they can be cycled and run for a long time. I'm going to >> need >> to get a little more electrochemistry going.... what happens if you >> reverse the polarity of a co-dep cell, will the plated palladium >> dissolve and be deposited on the other electrode? If so.... >> >> I need to start discussing this on the coldfusionproject list...., >> not so much here. >> >> > >
