At 07:19 AM 10/27/2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
What they demonstrate, IMHO, is that the SPAWAR pits occur:
1/ when the deposit is dendritic, not when it is spongy, and
2/ when the CR-39 chip is in direct contact with the cathode wire, not
when a 6 micron mylar is interposed
Result 2/ does NOT prove conclusively IMHO that any alpha particles
produced are less energetic than the ~1MeV needed to go through 6µm of
mylar as they suggest, another possibility that occurs to me is that
the material in direct contact with the cathode wire matters, i.e.
that CR-39 induces a nuclear effect and mylar doesn't. Has this
possibility been considered?
While that seems possible, there is a simpler
explanation of the Earthtech results. Perhaps
because I overlooked these result in my reading,
I think I may have noticed the page early on but
didn't have enough background to understand the
issues, but I did read that today, don't quite
know why I missed Horace's mention of it before,
but sometimes I don't have time to follow up on
something.... and then it joins the rest of the
mountain of stuff that I'd like to do but
probably never will. Unless someone brings it up again.
Please, folks, if it seems like I should read
something so that I stop sticking my foot so
clearly into my mouth, let me know! If I've
answered with an answer that shows I read it with
some reasonable level of understanding, fine.
However, it never hurts to have some redundant
communication, I will never blame someone for
patiently trying to get something through my
thick skull. Even if they are wrong, in my opinion. A for effort!
Now, as to the simpler explanation. They did not
follow the protocol exactly, or if they did, it's
a different protocol, which is a bit irritating,
for sure, if that's true. The Galileo project was
semi-confidential, the protocol originally was
not revealed openly, one had to sign a release in
case the thing took out the family home or you
ended up with hot NaOH in your face, a distinctly
unpleasant possibility. No, I don't have a
chem-shower, as they recommend, at home, but,
strangely enough, there is one in the warehouse
for my wife's business that I've taken over, it
used to be a microbiology lab. But that's ten
minutes drive from my home, and I'll be spending
very little time over a hot stove etching chips,
I believe, so I can take lesser measures.
For whatever reason, they didn't get the nuclear
effect, at all. Instead, they got a strong
chemical damage effect on the chips. The pits
that they report as "SPAWAR pits" aren't. They
are chemical damage plus background radiation -- these were 4-year-old chips.
I don't blame them. Early available SPAWAR
results showed hamburger and rather breathlessly
considered it radiation damage. Maybe it was, by
the way, there are still some differences
visible. Obviously, though, chemical damage must
be considered, from their results. These may
actually be nice control experiments, it would be
great if the critical variable were identified.
Here is another clue: they reported no results
with mylar covering the chips, SPAWAR reported
reduced results. Reduced results is consistent
with alpha radiation, no results is not -- unless
the radiation is below a certain energy.
Note that most alpha radiation reaching the CR-39
from the cathode will come in at high incidence.
If it were lower incidence, it would have a
longer path to the surface, and would be less
likely to have sufficient energy left to be
detected. That would not be true if the CR-39 is
very close to the wire, but if that area is
subject to the hamburger effect, an elliptical track won't be visible.
The real key is the radiation on the back, but,
unfortunately, they were using a silver cathode,
which apparently has the worst back-side results,
perhaps even zero. Why, unknown. But for a gold
electrode, SPAWAR reports copious back-side
tracks, no hamburger, and only behind the gold
electrode, less behind the platinum, and
practically none behind the silver. Obviously not
background radiation, hard to conceive of that
selectivity being chemical damage. I'm also
worried that they had damage to the cell, I don't
like that at all, because it indicates
interaction between the electrolyte and the cell
material. Did they use the exact boxes specified
by Galileo, or did they think that something else
they had already purchased would be good enough.
Even if it was acrylic, not all acrylic may be the same.
And why did they use half the amount of PdCl2 that the protocol specified?
