Possibly, replication could endanger careers and cut off funding sources? In case you are interested, here is a portion of my 11-23-2011 Vortex posting on the subject, some relevant references: >>>>>> .... > What I am curious about is whether the reduced radioactivity that > Reifenschweiler observed for tritium and heavier nuclei meant that the > radioactive decays were actually suppressed, or that the energetic decay > products were thermalized in the small monocrystalline particles via some > hypothetical collective quantum enhancement of absorption. > Reifenschweiler is also puzzled by the temperature dependence of this > effect. Crystal size and proximity of the crystals appear critical also. > No wonder these phenomena are so elusive. Maybe, also some "new physics" > appears in the mesoscale at the boundary separating classical from quantum > dynamics? > > One theory for similar phenomena has been proposed in: > "Quantum Zeno Effect, Nuclear Conversion and Photoionization in Solids" > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491696900639 > > BTW, some of Reifenschweiler's refences are: > > Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwreducedrad.pdf > > Cold Fusion and Decrease of Tritium Radioactivity > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwcoldfusion.pdf > > About the possibility of decreased radioactivity of heavy nuclei > http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=512913 ..... <<<<<
-- Lou Pagnucco Moab Moab wrote: > I was wondering if the Reifenschweiler effect was ever replicated ? Was an > attempt ever made ? If not, why not ? > > My understanding is that Reifenschweiler discovered the effect in the > Philips lab (NatLab) in Eindhoven, Netherlands around 1960/62. He > discussed > it with Hendrik Casimir who was head of research there. > > The investigations at NatLab were not continued to further understand the > effect further and "forgotten". > > When Fleischmann & Pons announced their anomalous heat effect in 1989 > Casimir urged Reifenschweiler to publish the (old) results, because he > thought it might be related. > > I read the discussion here with Mark Gibbs about "falsifiable theory". > > It appears that this experiment should be easily repeatable. > > I have never heard of any lab actually trying a replication. > > That's strange. Science method "dictates" that an theoretical > understanding > is only valid until experiment evidence shows a different behaviour. Yet > no > research lab wants to (re)produce this evidence. > > To me that stinks, science is not performing research to falsify their own > theory. > > Any lab could take the Reifenschweiler effect and replicate it. If > successful the notion (axiom?) that the radioactive decay rate is constant > would be void. And the notion (axiom?) that chemical environment cannot > influence nuclear reactions would also be void. > > What excuses does "science" have for not performing the research that > would > disprove the accepted axioms ? My assumption is that the funding agencies > only promote the deepening of the current understanding out of > convenience: > "Anomalies are too plentiful to investigate all" and it would likely > "endanger" the validity of running programs. > > I haven't seen any science journalist write a story about this topic, > asking these questions, let alone answering them. > > And therefore we trot on, boldy going where no man was ever supposed to > go. >
