At 01:53 PM 3/26/2010, Peter Gluck wrote:
First of all- thank you! I also think that somewhere we have to get rid of palladium and replace it with something cheaper and more abundent, And is a provocative and/or nasty assertion that now we still do not understnd the science?
We don't understand the science. We don't understand the science. We don't understand the science.
Finding reactions that don't involve palladium is obviously of great interest. It's just not where I can start. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants, and I can only go where they go, so far.
Someone has a simple, cheap experiment that can be done and that produces striking and reliable results, I'll be all ears.
Right now, "striking" is neutrons, and reliability seems likely, for a codep approach with a gold cathode.
The neutrons are of no practical significance, to my understanding. They are present at incredibly low levels, such that they must be from secondary reactions, possibly hot fusion. I think we might be looking at one energetic neutron per minute or the like. That is easily distinguisable from background if the capture surface of a solid-state nuclear track detector is small, close to the active region, and the cross-section for observable interactions is high enough, which apparently it is from the published work.
I can also detect slow neutrons, using a B-10 conversion screen, not sure I'll look for them initially.
