The history of the cold fusion controversy has had more than its share of lines drawn in the sand. Some researchers have claimed absolute proof; some have claimed absolute disproof. I'm not certain that either case can be supported definitively. I am certain that both positions are unhelpful to the progress of this scientific debate. Either you have evidence that supports, or you have evidence that does not support. If you go beyond that, you are at risk of being unscientific and political. Sometimes, LENR researchers state that they have found indisputable evidence of nuclear reactions in their papers. Does such posturing end the dispute? Of course not. Does it cause harm? I suspect that it makes skeptics dig in their heels deeper. Does it help? I doubt that authors saying their experiment provides indisputable evidence has any effect on the acceptance of the claim.
Ludwik Kowalksi and I share some common interests: the investigation of the subject of low energy nuclear reactions, Web publishing and skiing. We both are concerned about the response—or worse, the lack of attention—from mainstream science toward the field formerly known as cold fusion. We started our investigations around the same time, I in 2000, Ludwik in 2002. We both attended the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion in Cambridge, Mass., in August 2003. But we do have different viewpoints. Ludwik, as far as I know, is not convinced of the evidence for nuclear activity in this research, whereas, by August 2003, I was.
Ludwik's situation is unique. He has gone on record with a definitive, absolute statement that the results of his SPAWAR replication experiment "cannot be attributed to alpha particles or protons, or neutrons." Ludwik is also active in the media, publishing a blog: Links to "cold fusion" items. For this reason, he is to be held to a high level of accountability, as is anyone active in journalism—professional or amateur. Ludwik knows this subject well, and people around the world watch and listen to what he has to say.
False negatives in early cold fusion research, such as that reported by Nathan Lewis (who suffered from both a shortage of knowledge of the required parameters and an excess of confidence), convinced the world that there was absolutely nothing to this field. In Ludwik's case, we have a result that appears positive, yet he purports it to be negative. Neither case is beneficial to science, and neither case should be permitted to go unchecked. Ludwik's conclusion at the APS conference does not appear to be supported by fact.
Photo: L. Kowalski
Tracks from Pd/D co-deposition cell from Montclair State University. Smallest marks in scale are 10 microns apart. Click for larger image.
Photo: L. Kowalski
CR-39 detector chip from Kowalski experiment.
|
|
Kowalski's interpretation and presentation at APS was somewhat ambiguous; however, his results looked identical to those of SPAWAR. Shown below is a 40x magnification photograph of the CR-39 detector from the vicinity of the silver cathode wire in his experiment. The overall pattern of pits is spatially related to the cathode wire, and within this view, distribution patterns parallel to the cathode wire are visible. Also visible are precisely defined pits with clean, distinct circumferences and uniformity in size and contrast.
The detector showed tracks only where the cathode wires were closest to the chip, right near the edge where they were attached to the detector.
Kowalski's abstract says, "Our attempt to replicate a SPAWAR [LENR co-deposition] experiment was highly successful. Like SPAWAR researchers, we observed copious pits at the detector near the silver cathode in an electrolytic cell with magnets and no such pits in an identical cell without magnets."
Kowalski's interpretation of the pits left some ambiguity because he wrote (and said) that "the dominant pits are about 2.5 times larger than those due to alpha particles from a radioactive source," and consequently, "analysis of our single experiment does not support the idea that dominant pits, on our CR-39 chips, are tracks of alpha particles, or less massive nuclear projectiles."
Kowalski displayed other images of pits, some from an Americium-241 source and some from his experimental cell (all without scales) that suggested that the experiment's pits were 2.5 times larger than the Americium-241 calibration pits. Uncertainties remain as to whether all parameters in Kowalski's references compare apples to apples. As well, his assertion of the "dominant pits," on the order of 25 microns across, appears to contradict his first image, showing pits of 10 microns across.
|
After Kowalski's presentation, Larry Forsley, a physicist with an extensive background in magnetic confinement and inertial confinement fusion as well as low energy nuclear reactions, mentioned to Kowalski the possibility that knock-on neutrons could have dislodged carbon or oxygen nuclei within the CR-39 and, because such elements would have significantly larger mass than protons or alphas, explain the existence of larger sized pits.
Forsley said that a second reason for larger pits can be explained by the fact that, because carbon and oxygen are much heavier than a proton, such nuclei would travel much shorter distances within the CR-39 than protons or alphas and can show up as much shallower, broader tracks.
"I agree," Kowalski replied to Forsley. "During your talk, it occurred to me, and I forgot to mention it."
In a follow-up conversation with Kowalski, Steven Krivit discussed the ambiguities with Kowalski further:
|
Steven Krivit: Can you confirm if I am reading slide #14 from your APS presentation correctly? It appears that the circles are about 10 microns in diameter each, yes?
Ludwik Kowalski: No, the average diameter of dark pits, surrounding a sea of overlapping whitish pits, is 18 microns. This is two times larger than pits due to alpha particles. That is why I claimed that dark pits should not be attributed to alphas or protons (including protons knocked by neutrons).
SK: I took one of the pits and put it right next to the scale. It looks like 10 microns to me.
I then took a random snapshot to see if the pit I chose was representative of the dominant pits, and it looks that way to me.
Maybe you need to magnify it to see it more clearly? If it helps, I magnified the first photo to 200 percent.
LK: Measurements at higher magnification are more reliable than at the lowest magnification. I will send you a picture of the scale at 200 and 400 magnifications when I return home. The appearance of a track changes with illumination and with the depth of focusing.
SK: You showed only one photo in your slide presentation with a scale in it. It shows, within about +/- 5 percent, an average pit size of 10 microns. You are suggesting that your own image, with your own scale, is susceptible to nearly 100 percent inaccuracy?
LK: You do not need a scale. Its purpose was to show the size of the area with pits, not to show that black post-electrolysis pits are about twice as large as Am-241 pits. The factor of about two becomes obvious when one looks at the next four slides (two for the 200X magnification and two for the 400X).
The actual number of microns is not an interesting parameter. I can make it larger or smaller by changing the length of etching, temperature of etching, initial molarity of the etchant, age of the etchant, and probably other factors.
Photo: L. Kowalski
Kowalski Am241 Calibration 200x
|
Photo: L. Kowalski
Kowalski Pd/D experiment 200x
|
Photo: L. Kowalski
Kowalski Am241 Calibration 400x
|
Photo: L. Kowalski
Kowalski Pd/D experiment 400x
|
SK: Unless you include a scale in your field of view, or show a scale like you did in your first slide, we cannot know the size of the images you are looking at with certainty because of the possible variations in optics in the microscope, the digital photography, and the editing of the digital photo in the slide show. Your claim of larger tracks may be correct, but you do not offer clear evidence of this, and your conclusion, "cannot be attributed to alpha particles or protons, or neutrons," is poorly supported.
LK: Magnification 40x is not appropriate for measuring sizes of very small pits. But I am also puzzled, and will return to the topic next week. The superposition of two images (scale and pits) was done by [name redacted], and I will ignore it.
SK: Also, how can you support the assumption that particles do not exist in this experiment below 2 MeV, and also, if they did, that their pit diameter would reverse trend and become smaller, as you speculate in slide 21?
Kowalski Presentation: Slide 21—Track Diameter Chart
LK: I did not say this. What I said was that large dark pits are not due to alpha particles, protons or neutrons. Pamela now has pits (seven times above background) produced on CR-39 that was [isolated from] the electrolyte. [The pits] were probably present on the CR-39 that was [immersed] in the electrolyte as well. I was referring to copious dark pits.
SK: According to MIT researchers, proton tracks can be as large as 20 microns. Do you have any comment about this?
Source: Michael J. Canavan et al., Plasma Science and Fusion Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
"A modified accelerator for ICF diagnostic development"
LK: Size of the track grows with time of etching. And they can be larger than 20 microns.
SK: Are you sure that you etched your calibration chip in exactly the same way as your experiment's chip? Did you etch them concurrently with the same solution of etch bath? If so, did you insure uniform temperature in both areas where you had each chip? Did you etch each chip for the same time?
LK: Yes, all chips were etched at the same time.
SK: Since you performed some earlier preliminary etches of your calibrations at various etch durations, are you sure that that you are not comparing a photo of a calibration with a very short etch duration to your experiment's chip, etched for a normal amount of time?
LK: No, we did not make this mistake.
SK: If the MIT researchers reported 20 micron tracks from protons, and you are saying that the 18 micron pits in your experiment cannot possibly be from protons, does this mean that the MIT researchers etched longer than normal procedure and published a graph showing atypical proton sizes?
LK: Look at the slide #20 in my APS presentation. Suppose you etch an Am-241 irradiated chip at 70 C, as I did in a sequence of preliminary experiments. It shows how diameters of typical pits change with etching time. To get 20 microns, etch for four hours, to get 30 microns, etch for seven hours, etc.
Kowalski Presentation: Slide 20—Pit diameters as a function of etch time
SK: When I look at your slide, I see that a standard etch, six hours, 70 degrees C would yield a track diameter of 27 microns. Now I am even more confused. Wouldn't this support the idea of a larger track size?
LK: I failed to indicate that results shown on slide #20 were collected about a year ago with a different batch of CR-39. Their value, once again, is not in specific numbers of microns but in the fact that the numbers depend on temperatures, on time of etching, and probably on other factors, for example, how CR-39 was manufactured. Only relative diameters are significant to us.
SK: Are you also sure that your photos of Am-241 calibration pits are at the same zoom level as the photos of your experiment's pits?
LK: The four slides at magnifications 200X and 400X were produced without playing with zooming.
SK: In an earlier message, you said, "The average diameter of dark pits, surrounding a sea of overlapping whitish pits, is 18 microns. This is two times larger than pits due to alpha particles. That is why I claimed that dark pits should not be attributed to alphas or protons (including protons knocked by neutrons)." Are you sure you intended to say "protons" in this sentence? Are you sure your larger pits cannot be caused by protons?
LK: That is an experiment fact, as far as [our team's] results are concerned. As I asked you yesterday, you should collect data on relative sizes from other alpha and beta teams. Only relative sizes are important when different people use CR-39 from different sources and when etching conditions are not exactly the same.
SK: Are you saying that your team is stating that it is an experimental fact that protons cannot be as large as 18 microns?
LK: [No response].
SK: You have stated that "the dominant pits are about 2.5 times larger than those due to alpha particles from a radioactive source." You have also stated, "The average diameter of dark pits, surrounding a sea of overlapping whitish pits, is 18 microns. This is two times larger than pits due to alpha particles. That is why I claimed that dark pits should not be attributed to alphas or protons (including protons knocked by neutrons)." Are you sure that your calibration pits are about 10 microns in size?
LK: [No response].
SK: The title of your APS paper was "Nuclear or Not? That Is the Question?" This is an incomplete question. What is the full question?
LK: I want to know the mechanism by which large dark pits (see our slides) were produced. Were they produced by a nuclear process or by a non-nuclear process?
SK: You may have asked the wrong question. It is likely to be both a chemical and a nuclear reaction. It clearly starts with chemistry and, by some unknown mechanism, appears to cause nuclear reactions.
SK: Are you having trouble answering the two outstanding questions? If so, perhaps you would like to answer this question instead: Would you now agree that it is reasonable to say that your results are "inconclusive" rather than "cannot be attributed to alpha particles or protons, or neutrons"?
LK: I do not want to say "inconclusive" because my statement is a conclusion based on what I know.
SK: So you know that protons cannot be as large as 18 microns? And you know for sure that your calibration pits are about 10 microns in size?
While we are in the midst of this discussion, I just want to say how much I applaud you for your courage to take a serious, conscientious, honest look at this subject as you have done. Most people who have been skeptical of the poorly named subject of cold fusion would not have the extraordinary courage to even attempt an experiment as you have done, let alone report it at a science conference.
LK: I am absolutely sure that pits due to protons can be both larger or smaller than 18 microns, depending on the etching conditions (and depending on how the diameter is defined under specific magnification, illumination, focusing, etc). My conclusion was not based on actual sizes of pits in microns. It was based on comparing diameters of post-electrolysis pits with diameters of pits due to our alpha particles. Please ask all TGP researchers about relative sizes of large post-electrolysis.
SK: Per your request, I asked SPAWAR to send me a scaled image of their Pd/D experiment pits. They show pits of about 8.5 microns in size. Since they have your CR-39 detector, they also enclosed a photo of your detector, which shows pits about 10 microns in size. They also sent scaled images of both calibrations—they show pits of about 5 microns in size.
[End of Krivit-Kowalski discussion—back to APS Report]
|
|
