On Oct 27, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 08:06 PM 10/27/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
Here is described what I think is a protocol which is improved over
the Galileo protocol:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf
Some key points:
"CR-39 detectors (Fukuvi), rectangular in shape with dimensions of 1
cm °— 2 cm °— 1 mm, were obtained from om Landauer and used as
received. Prior to using the CR-39 detector in an experiment, one
corner of the detector was exposed to an 241Am source. This is used
as an internal standard to account for variability in the CR-39
detectors. By having an internal standard on the same detector used
in an experiment assures that both sets of tracks experience
identical experimental and etching conditions."
I would add here that doing the calibration exposure to the Cr-39
with a 241AM source would be a significant value added for the
student or amateur with no legal access to such a source, and who
might not be able to achieve an standardized exposure in any case.
The plan is to use Am-241 from a smoke detector. Cheap.
That may be fine for you but not for your customers, for whom it is
dangerous and illegal. Also, your customers will not then have a
specific portion of each chip exposed by a standardized method, a
value added feature only a manufacturer can provide.
That's part of the Galileo protocol, actually.
The Galileo protocol is merely a snapshot of the SPAWAR protocol at
one (now distant) point in time written down for the purposes of an
exact massive one time replication effort. It was developed by
SPAWAR over a period of many years, and resulted in many
publications. SPAWAR continues to develop and expand their protocol.
The Galileo Protocol is a SPAWAR protocol, not vice versa.
What this shows is the effect of alpha particles from a known
source. Using spacers, it's possible to estimate the energies of
the particles; what's known from the source is the initial energy
of the particles as they result from decay, but the actual energies
hitting the plastic will vary.
You are ignoring the fact that one time events which are not
repeatable on demand are involved. Excursion events. For these the
nature of the particles has to be determined principally from the
nature of the traces. A great deal of standardization,
experimentation and modeling has been done to establish how to use
CR-39 to identify particle species and energies. If you bastardize
the plastic through improper pretreatment, chemical exposure, or
etching, you destroy the ability to use this information, and you end
up with highly controversial and non-reproducible results. This was
in part a lesson of the Galileo project itself.
"The rectangular cells (Ridout Plastics) were made of butyrate. A
laser was used to cut a square hole in one side of the rectangular
cell. A silicone based cement was used to epoxy a 6 μm thick Mylar
film over the hole. Figure 1b is a schematic of the cathode. A
square hole is cut inside a polyethylene support. The square hole of
the polyethylene support lines up with the hole in the cell. A Pt
wire and Au wire were mounted on the polyethylene support in such a
manner that, when the cathode is placed in the cell, the Au and Pt
wires are in direct contact with the Mylar film. Polyethylene heat
shrink is used to provide a pressure contact between the Au and Pt
wires. The anode consisted of platinum wire mounted on a polyethylene
support..."
This is a close variation on the Galileo protocol.
It is SPAWAR improving *their own* protocol.
It uses a dual cathode, one wire Au and one wire Pt. I considered
doing this version, but had decided to avoid the complications of
that window. 6 micron mylar. Thin stuff. I have 6 mil in the
basement, I used to do printed circuit design on it, that dates me
a bit, eh?
I think the edge-on-grid method is superior here. The hole insides
can be individually plated or plated in groups to get the desired
substrate.
One complaint: while there are silicone-epoxy cements, I wouldn't
say, using one, what they wrote, it looks like they used "epoxy" as
a synonym for "glue." I'd have much preferred that they have stated
the exact material used. Because this could come in contact with
the electrolyte, it's important.
Note that use of the Mylar film did not eliminate the tracks: "By
placing a 6 μm thick Mylar film between the cathode and the
detector,
it was observed that ∼90% of the energetic particles are blocked.
Using LET curves, a 6 μm thick Mylar film cuts off <0.45 MeV
protons,
<0.55 MeV tritons, <1.40 MeV 3He, and <1.45 MeV alphas. However, this
is the energy of the particle when it reaches
the CR-39 detector. It does not take into account the water layer the
particle needs to traverse before it reaches the Mylar film. The Pd
deposit exhibits a cauliflower like structure. Because of this
structure, the particles need to traverse a water layer of varying
thickness. Assuming water thicknesses varying between 0 and 10
μm, it
is estimated that the majority of the particles formed as a result of
Pd/D co-deposition are <0.45 0.97 MeV protons, <0.55 1.25 25 MeV
tritons, <1.40 3.15 MeV 3He, and <1.45 3.30 MeV alphas.
Yes, I was aware of this experiment, but thanks for bringing it to
mind again. I'm reconsidering the window. There is some value to
doing the internal CR-39 just to see this hamburger stuff. What
would be valuable would be on the back. But a mylar window is
probably going to stay clear, and that's an advantage for me if I
want to look at that cathode up close during electrolysis. CR-39
may become cloudy. Or *will* become cloudy.
CR-39 isn't cloudy until developed, unless chemically exposed.
But I might put the mylar inside the cell against the hole instead
of outside.
There are problems with Mylar ripping, and also leakage. There is
also the problem of precision placement of the electrodes against the
Mylar for running.
This was somewhat my first design, actually. Pressure of the heavy
water is low, but this way the pressure will hold the mylar against
the window, any glue will just hold it in place, won't have to
resist the pressure. Then the cathode wires will be against the
mylar. I like the idea of having a gold wire and a platinum wire,
for comparison. Might as well. Or gold and silver, cheaper. They
used shrink tubing to connect the gold and platinum wire. So I'll
only need a small piece of gold wire (expensive!) and can use
silver wire as the lead. Thanks.
If I put the mylar on the inside, and the piece of mylar is large,
maybe the size of the whole side of the cell, there will be less
exposure of the electrolyte to the adhesive.
I think pre-etching CR-39 is a very bad idea, because it changes the
CR-39. It is important to have a standard plastic that has undergone
a standard curing cycle, and which is operated in a controlled and
measure temperature range at all times prior to etching. See "Cure
Cycle" here for example:
Otherwise there is no ready determination of what the tracks
represent. Consider, for example, the Kowalsk-SPAWAR debate in the
literature:
Pre-etching is a suggested practice in the CR-39 literature,
What literature? You are probably looking at stuff related to
radiation badge or radon counting - a whole different application.
it exposes fresh CR-39; it won't "erase" tracks due to neutron or
really high-energy charged particle radiation, but as to any radon
background, it would erase it. It's all about controls, Horace.
Right! And it is also about using procedures that permit use of well
established principles and performance data, not careless amateur
decisions made on the spur of the moment which prevent consistent
replication
If the experimental CR-39 and the controls are pre-etched in the
same way, the objection isn't valid.
Not true. All your information then is merely relative. You lose the
ability to determine particle species and energies in an absolute
way, or to compare your results to those of others.
However, I don't expect background to be a problem,
It is not background that is the problem. It is making the most of
what you have and being able to compare results across labs that is
destroyed by careless technique.
I mentioned pre-etching for old CR-39 and, in fact, I think that
may have been the situation it was recommended for.
Far better to re-cure to the manufacturer's specifications. That way
there are no variations by depth in etching speed imposed, or
variations between labs in etching speeds or track exposure
mechanics. Probably better still to use new material if it is
affordable.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossreplytocom.pdf
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLnuclearorn.pdf
and some background:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossuseofcrinp.pdf
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLcommentson.pdf
I think there is a lot more of this stuff on Kowalski's site:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/index.html
I've read a lot of Kowalski's stuff, but still not enough!
It is also true the etching cycle itself has to be well controlled.
Just using a hot plate, in whatever ambient temperature happens to
exist, to achieve the etching, is going to produce highly variable
results. Disposable etching containers of some kind might be a good
idea too, and fresh made NOH too, because radioactive contamination
of the etching fluid (e.g. with Rn) is a real possibility, as well as
concentration changes with repeated use. (These are real problems,
not just my imagination.)
NaOH is cheap. LR-115 is also etched with NaOH, but for less time.
My point here is careless amateurs tend to use etching solution for
multiple runs instead of remaking it. This varies the etching
solution concentration. They also use open containers for etching,
and permit evaporation to change the concentration. I expect
amateurs do stupid things like leave the solution sitting around for
days, possibly accumulating radon, or they carelessly handle the
solution or container and get it contaminated by other things in the
lab, and don't etch controls in every batch. Fixing this provides
opportunities for continuous disposable sales by a kit manufacturer.
The 6 micron cellulose acetate etches quickly, leaving a 10 micron
diameter hole in the acetate layer, clean through it, and the
polyester underneath is unaffected. The opening is then easily seen
-- by the naked eye, actually, as a point of light -- and can be
counted with relative ease.
This means if your traces will not carry the more convincing
characteristics, such as those that can be obtained by CR-39. It
also means great care and standardization is required in treatment
and developing of the LR-144 because it provides limited information,
i.e. hole size. No 3D information.
If I'm going to put mylar against the cathode, I can use LR-115
entirely, forget about the CR-39! As to radioactive contamination
of the etching bath, sure, there will be some because of the
ubiquity of radon, but ... controls, etched at the same time in the
same bath. Neutrons won't affect the thin cellulose acetate layer
except rarely, but they will then generate knock-on protons from
the polyester, I believe, so another piece of LR-115 behind it will
pick up knock-on protons and then I'll put in a piece of boron-10
just for fun. I.e., to see if there are any slow neutrons, detected
by yet another LR-115 detector beyond it. And then another piece of
LR-115, facing out, looking for background or some external
radiation source, and another piece of mylar to keep the dust off.
A whole stack of detectors.
I have to be careful of static charges on the detectors attracting
radioactive dust, that's a known effect.
The good thing is you will be turning over rocks. You never know what
you might find.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
