At 10:03 AM 10/28/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
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.
Uh, if what I'm planning on doing with a smoke
detector is illegal, please point me to the law.
Note that I could supply calibrated detectors, so
if I can do it, if it's "fine for me," it can be
done "for my customers." If I buy SSNTDs, in
whatever form, cut them up and serialize them if
necessary, use an Am-241 source from a smoke
detector to expose a corner under conditions
where every detector receives the same exposure,
I *am* the manufacturer. Do I need some kind of
license? Fine! I'll get it, unless it takes so
much work that it's not worth it. In that event,
I'd simply provide, or point to the provision, of
instructions for using a standard smoke detector.
I have been unable to verify this completely, but
it looks like simple ionization smoke detectors
made by Kidde can be purchased retail for under
$6. So maybe I'll sell smoke detectors? Is that illegal?
If you are going to claim that something is illegal, please, be specific.
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.
That's correct. "That's part of the Galileo
protocol" referred to calibration by using
Am-241. Not the whole paper! There is no single
SPAWAR protocol, there are many, but the only one
that was documented in serious detail was the
Galileo protocol. However, the publication Horace
pointed to was pretty detailed, more so than I
saw before, but Galileo actually specified sources and batch numbers.
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.
We'll get married, then, no "bastards." There is
a stuffiness I'm seeing here. I'm fully aware of
the problems that Galileo encountered, and I'm
incorporating all that, and will extend it.
Krivit gave up, he was frustrated. I'm not, I'm
making lemonade, and selling it. Do you think I'm
going to sell some useless junk that produces no
information of value? That would be pretty
stupid, don't you think? I'm not going to claim
that particle energies and exact nature can be
known from exact track configurations. However,
the power of control experiments in the
scientific method is great. If one reduces a
protocol to a narrowly defined set of
experimental conditions, and repeats the
experiment enough times with a minor variation,
the nature and effect of that variation can be
known to high accuracy. Individual experimenters
may do this to a limited degree, because it can
take enormous patience. But many experimenters
cooperating could do it all quite rapidly. To do
this, there has to be easy availability of an
exact kit, everything identical, plus exact
variations. And then central reporting of
results. I believe that customers will mostly
want to cooperate with other customers, and there
is security for them in connecting with each other.
As an individual entrepreneur, I don't have to be
distracted by useless argument, I'll engage in it
to the extent that it serves my purposes, and
I'll leave it when I exercise my right to decide
when I've learned enough to proceed. The argument
that Horace is raising here is valid for a single
experimenter trying to do everything himself or
herself. But I'm proceeding with a very different
approach, I'm designing a kit to be used by many
people, to be provided to enable following a
protocol or set of protocols that (1) I choose,
or that (2) is chosen by some group of users. If
a group of users wants to follow a protocol, and
so I believe I could sell the materials or
supplies or services necessary for that protocol,
I'd probably serve them, but nothing stops anyone
else from doing the same, and nothing stops them
from cooperating and doing it themselves. I'll be
a convenience, not a necessity. And since I'm
openly discussing and will be disclosing
everything I do, I'd be very easy to replace if I
no longer serve the market well.
Don't like the way I do something? Do it better
yourself, or stop complaining. It's the wiki
concept, actually. Don't like someone's text? Fix it.
"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.
Yes. The Galileo protocol is a fixed protocol,
based on SPAWAR suggestions and probably approved
by them in detail. At the time, they knew about
the neutrons but did not disclose them, probably
because of national security concerns. Hence the
protocol itself suggested a silver cathode,
whereas gold is clearly superior for the most
interesting effects. The 2009 protocol in the
publication is improved, definitely, but it also
isn't much different, the biggest difference is
the mylar window and the gold wire. The mylar
window is somewhat equivalent to the use of CR-39
with the protective film in place, which had been
previously done. Back side results from immersed
CR-39 are still about as interesting.
The most worrisome thing from the Earthtech
results is the apparent lack of NAE formation,
combined with the very heavy hamburger effect.
Both indicate a major variation. Why? Earthtech
naively assumed that the hamburger indicated
replication, so then they focused on the cause of
the hamburger, was it chemical damage? I'd say
they showed evidence that it was, wouldn't you?
Frankly, the photos I've seen of hamburger look
like chemical damage, particularly from crisp
edges to it, I would not expect that from
radiation unless there was some screen, which there wasn't.
Earthtech clearly showed the naivete involved in
assuming copious radiation from hamburger. Krivit
dismisses this with his joke about caviar, though
he's making a point: there may be copious damage,
and there may be hamburger from pure chemical
action, and there may be a combination, i.e.,
copious radiation damage would be expected to
facilitate the formation of hamburger.
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.
Sure, but... more complicated. And, remember,
more cathode surface means more palladium
necessary in order to obtain the same level of
effect, which means more expense. Eventually, I'd
expect to see and possibly supply much more
complex cathodes. There has already been the
creation of a cathode from a piezo detector, to
get the strongest and clearest signals from
events in the active material, by plating a piezo
detector with silver, then using it for codep.
That might be done with a gieger counter mica
window, to get detection of relatively low energy
alphas. There are lots of possibilities, and if I
hold out for the best, I will end up with
nothing. The best is the enemy of the practical,
often. If there is a "best" which is simpler to
implement, sure. If someone wants to manufacture
edge-on-grid cathodes, fabulous! I'd buy them, I
believe. But what would they cost?
My guess is, too much for these kits. Maybe for an advanced kit, fine.
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.
Which is the condition I was talking about.
However, the cloudiness would be a thin diffusing
layer, very close to the surface I want to image.
It should still allow observation of flashes of
light, the images, indeed, would become a little
larger, possibly making them easier to see, in fact.
It will become cloudy, to some degree, with
massive radiation damage, I believe, but that's
another story. That's not what has been happening, I believe.
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.
That's right. Which is why I'd put it on the
inside. If it is on the inside, leakage is less
likely, even if the glue fails in some way. The
cell wall is quite flat and so is the mylar. This
is quite thin mylar, so there may be some problem
with the very low pressure of the heavy water
against it. The cathode will be in direct contact
with it, and plating is likely to be suppressed
at the points of zero distance, so I'd expect the
cathode deposit to build up with a fairly flat
side against the mylaer, thus providing palladium
deuteride viewed from the "bottom," a thin layer,
with thickness decreasing as we move away from
the wire, the wire itself might even remain
visible. If I see the flashes of light, where do
they occur in the deposit? That could give some
indication of depth, in fact, if there is some
significant distribution of flashes in terms of
distance from the wire position.... Wouldn't that be interesting?
And very simple to do and observe.
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.
No, it's more general than that. The literature?
What's available on-line, I don't yet have access to a research library.
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
That's right. That's why the kit uses standard
materials, and is only made generally available
*as a kit* when there is an exact protocol which
is known to work. Experimenters can vary it if
thwy wish, but they will be risking shifting the
results. At the same time as they might be
expanding the parameter space. It's all good,
Horace, as long as it's all documented.
Experimenters will be encouraged to record and
report any "ad-hoc" decisions they make. Some
will, some won't, so any usage of data from these
experimenters must consider that possibility.
There will be unexplained results, i.e., attempts
to use the kit that produce no evidence of
nuclear activity, for example. (Or, rarely, much
stronger than usual results in that direction. I
hope no meltdowns! But it is not completely
impossible, should some bug crawl into the gas
exhaust and add just the right amount of some
trace element.... or some cosmic-ray shower adds
a few muons in the right place, or, or.... But
I've never heard of a codep meltdown, just of
some thin cathode melting in places, nothing
damaging anything except the cathode. Which will
be tiny, and that's one reason for it to be so!
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.
All information is relative, Horace. First of
all, this is purely theoretical at this point,
for future reference. I have no plan to pre-etch
CR-39. But suppose I decide to use commercial
Makrofol. Pre-etching it might make sense, and
might be done with relatively large sheets (still
small enough to fit in a modest NaOH bath). Each
sheet would then be cut into a set of CR-39
detectors that would have been treated
identically, plus other sheets would be etched
under similar conditions. In bulk commercial
Makrofol is very cheap, comparatively. I won't go
into all the details now, but if pre-etched
Makrofol is smooth and free of pits, for the most
part, before usage, it should be quite consistent
in its behavior later. If not, that would be discovered, right?
But the main effect I'm looking for is not
specific characterization of tracks as to energy,
I'm looking for tracks that are caused by
radiation, not chemical damage. What kind of
radiation, the exact energy, all that, isn't so
important, as to the basic results. Neutron
radiation will be rather easily distinguished,
because of where it appears, preferentially, as
consequential detectable charged particle tracks,
appearing where it is implausible that charged
particles could penetrate. Protons, mostly, apparently.
Determining absolute energies from a single
experiment, very diffcult if not impossible,
though we could look at each individiual track as
an "experiment." We then compare it with the
population, and we may be able to incorporate
variables in an experiment. For example, a
detector may be masked with various thicknesses
of film, across its surface. This may provide
information about energy from a single
experiment, though there are some obvious caveats.
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.
Absolutely. Horace, as it stands, there is almost
no "comparison" of results across many labs that
is based on exact replications and standard
single-parameter variations. If I'm successful,
this will start to happen. Do you have another
proposal to make this happen? Galileo was an
attempt that did not proceed to the next step, as
far as we can tell. There was no ongoing
coordination and report. If you have a better way
to proceed, that would *actually happen*, please let us know.
Some of the users of my kits will be complete and
total amateurs, and my job will be to provide
them with what they need to observe an effect.
Some will be professionals with access to highly
sophisticated equipment, and they will not be
interested in cutting corners to save a few buck.
I intend to serve both these markets, which may
mean certain kit options at higher cost. But
every variation might affect results, so all this must be documented.
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.
Depends on the material, and "new" material may
not be new, if it's not expensive. Many factors
involved. I intend to test commercial Makrofol or
equivalent. Easy to do, and maybe I can then
offer bulk detector chips at very low prices.
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.
Nobody doing these experiments is likely to be
truly careless. Everyone recommends using fresh
NaOH each time. Saving the etch solution would be
penny-wise and pound foolish; using fresh
solution is cheap and easy. I don't think this will be a problem.
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.
So ... this would indicate that I sell etchant in
batches, for use one batch at a time, immediately
before starting the etching. Remember, also, that
I thought at first that I'd provide an etching
service, or someone would. Etching the chips
oneself would be an option, not a requirement.
It's also possibly the most hazardous of the
activities. Maybe a kit would include goggles!
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 that the counting of tracks is far
simpler, there is or is not a track, much less
judgment involved. There are also commercial
services that count these chips, but the problem
is that we want x-y coordinates as well, i.e.,
spatial correlation with a cathode, so if there
is going to be a commercial counting service, it
would have to be created. The commercial services
are oriented toward radon detection or other
gross dosimetry where there is no spatial correlation expected.
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.
That's right. Feature or bug? Depends, eh? Stacks
of detectors will provide some kinds of
information, specifically about neutrons. Only
high-energy charged particles would get through
the first LR-115 detector... but suppose I put
two LR-115 detectors face-together. Coincident
tracks on both would show some information about
energy and possibly trajectory, but only for
neutron knock-ons of protons and C-12 breakup.
Some very interesting information could be collected for statistical analysis.
I expect some degree of ellipticity in tracks on
LR-115. Whether or not it will be significant, I
don't know. The angle of incidence has to be
fairly low to be measurable, I'd think. It should
increase with distance from the source deposit.
Haven't done the math. I also don't know how the
track size correlates to energy, and while there
is information on this on the internet, I don't
have time to research it in detail, not right now. Maybe someone will.
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.
Thanks. That's right. Unless you should know that
there might be a mine under the rock, or some
other serious danger, it's not ever a mistake to
pick up a rock and look underneath. The mistake,
if you find something odd, is to simply dismiss
what you see as meaningless, and fail to record
or report or at least notice it, just because it
isn't supposed to be there, or it's "useless
information," unless it is truly and completely
useless and you can tell. Mizuno's experiences
with palladium deuteride. At least he had lab
notes and his memory! He did notice, and if
people working with palladium deuteride had been
regularly chatting about the odd stuff they saw,
we might have been a decade sooner on this. The
internet makes this much more possible for much
larger populations spread thinly, but brings a
new problem of noise control.... that's my interest, actually.
