User talk:Kirk shanahan/Archives/2009/September

Comments on Kitamura, et al, Phys. Rev. A 2009 paper
Following is an explanation of the comment I made on the Cold Fusion talk page regarding the paper Kitamura, et al, Phys. Rev. A, 373 (2009) 3109-3112. I banged this out rather quickly, so I reserve the right to edit it if someone notes a big problem (or even a little one).

DO NOT PUT COMMENTS IN THIS. I WILL DELETE THEM. GO TO THE NEXT SECTION (Comments on...) AND POST THERE IF YOU WANT> I MAY RESPOND IF I THINK IT'S WORTH IT.

The paper presents 4 data figures (Figs 2 and Figs 3a, b, and c) and 1 data table. One figure shows a baseline signal from a calorimeter when no powder was present. However, all experiments are conducted with powder present, so as usual, the CFers are making the assumption that results obtained under condition A are directly translatable to Condition B. This is always a dangerous assumption, and in this case seems clearly incorrect. The other three figures show results for a 0.1 micron Pd powder, Pd black, and a mixed PdO/ZrO2 powder. All three figures show peaks divided into two regions. The first is where ‘hydriding’ is occurring and the pressure does not rise. The second ‘phase’ (to use Kitamura, et al’s term) is where pressure has begun to rise. The first phase represents about 15% of the total X axis span of ~1800 minutes. During the second phase in all 3 figures, there are broad and weak ‘peaks’ observable in the results for D2. These are somewhat obscured in 3a and 3b because the H2 run overlaps the D2 run data trace. However, Kitamura, et al, say that the results of Fig 3a and 3b are in the noise. The Y scale is quite compressed so it is difficult to estimate the magnitude of the peaks from the paper, but the same data found in 3b and 3c is presented in another location which facilitates the analysis (the peaks in 3b are larger than those in 3a). The maximum intensity of the ‘peak’ in 3b is about 0.1 Watts. Note that the noise span shown in Fig 2 gives a visual estimate of about +/- 0.075W (which also is a typical number seen in CF reports). Now on the Figure 3c, which is the only one claimed to show ‘excess energy’. In this Figure we have a different situation in that the two curves (H2/D2) now do not overlap. This immediately makes the ‘bump’ in the D2 run more obvious. However it is also clear that something is wrong with the H2 data, as the noise characteristics are significantly different for most of the trace, and the zero is offset to negative watts (which is why the curves no longer overlap). The D2 data does not have a good baseline region, and seems to show an abrupt baseline shift at about 1400 minutes, where it shifts down to overlap with the H2 data (still running negative). There is however a region from about 200-500 minutes (full scale is ~1800 min.) that appears flat. However it is positively displaced from the nominal zero by about the same amount that the H2 data is negatively displaced (approx .060W). This visually gives the impression automatically of an additional 0.12 W in a peak just to start. The D2 peak lies about 0.1W above the presumed offset baseline, at ~0.15W absolute. By the way, Kitamura, et al admit in the text that there is a thermocouple malfunction in the H2 data of this Figure which causes the offset. So, we have 0.1W peak in 3b that is noise and an apparent 0.15W peak in 3c that is not, except that if the D2 data has an offset like the acknowledged offset in the H2 data, the peak is only 0.1W. Folks, this is ‘seeing what you want to see in the data’. The Figure 2 presentation of the baseline noise is not applicable to the experimental conditions. We have admittedly two runs where no excess heat is observed that show significantly larger baseline variation, and we have a claimed excess heat example that is not readily distinguishable from those other two null runs. Yet there is the claim of excess heat. Truly amazing that this made it through peer review.

Additionally there are another couple of problems which may not be evident to any by a hydride chemist like myself. The data table lists 14 runs with 3 types of materials, and it uses a code to explain what gas/sample/cycle combination is being reported. The last digit of the code is the cycle, i.e. the number of times the given sample has been exposed to hydrogen and then evacuated and baked. 11 of these runs are first cycles. Only one is a third cycle, leaving two second cycle reports. The problem is that it is a well known fact in hydride chemistry that _any_ hydride material needs to be cycled at least a few times (few=>3 or more) to ‘activate’ the sample. The term ‘activate’ is somewhat amorphous when applied across the board to all hydride materials, but for Pd, it basically means the surface needs to be cleaned off before reproducible results can be obtained. So, 13 of the 14 runs are _clearly_ in the region where reproducibility is a known issue. This means the data presented are likely meaningless anyway, since the expectation is a high degree of variability anyway. Second, Kitimura, et al list the supposed loading extent for the Pd in their samples, and these disagree positively and negatively with what would be obtainable for an activated Pd material at the pressure and temperature (T is actually not specified!) obtained. This data is available in the open literature, and Kitamura, et al even list the primary place where you would find it as reference #6. Yet they list the obtained loadings (given in H/M units, which is the ratio of how much H (or D) is in how much M) as ~.44 for the 0.1 micron Pd, .79 and .88 for the Pd black (except for 2 and 3 cycles), and around 1.0 for the PdO/ZrO2 sample. The anticipated loading level for Pd at the pressures obtained folding in some span to cover temperature variation is about .65-.75. So they claim to overload the PdO/ZrO2 and Pd black, and underload the 0.1 micron stuff. Underloading is expected if the surface of the material is junked up with contaminants, i.e. it hasn’t been activated properly. The overloading on the Pd black is only for the first cycle. The second and third cycle are listed as loading to 0.23 and 0.24 respectively. Again, it looks like the surface is still dirty. That suggest most of the supposed loading in the first cycle was due to H2 reactions with something else (like absorbed O). In the PdO/ZrO2 case, this is clearly the problem and Kitamura, et al acknowledge this, but they _assume_ a loading level of 1.0, which again is nothing more than wishful thinking. They will not get much more than 0.75 under their conditions of reaction on an _activated_ sample. Most of their observed first phase heat is reaction with O. (Which is why I put ‘hydriding’ in quotes above when talking about the first phase results.)

I should also note that Kitamura et al are using two experimental configurations. The second consisted of a ‘matched’ set of two calorimeters that were run simultaneously, one with D2 and one with H2. They apparently think this is somehow useful and significant. In fact, it just means they ran two experiments at the same time instead of separately. But, what it appears to show is that all H2 runs were done in one calorimeter while all D2 were done in the second. Thus, since cross experiments were not done, I can suggest that there is a difference in the calorimeters which makes the H2 runs less noisy that the D2 runs. More experiments must be done and reported on to remove this concern. (Also remember that the thermal conductivity of D2 and h2 are quite different.)

So what we have here is a typical CF paper. Kitamura, et al, are confirmed CFers, and thus they _know_ that to get CF in Pd you have to get ~1.0 H/M, so they make sure they get that in their data analysis, never mind what the rest of the scientific world would say. And they _know_ that the ‘great’ Arata and Zhang got CF (which is what they are trying to replicate), so they _know_ they must see excess heat with at least some of their samples, so they present data that is ambiguous (and messed up at that) to ‘prove’ A&Z were correct. Real n-ray stuff here. Again, how this got published I can’t see. (Well actually I have a theory. You may recall I like to say there is no RS available from the CF world, right?  I suspect what happened is they submitted their paper to PRA and the PRA editor couldn’t find anybody who would review the paper (remember the pariah status) except those suggested by Kitamura, et al.  Of course those suggestions were fellow CFers, who stopped doing critical review years ago.  So, they sent in 2 or 3 “Sure! This is great! Publish as is!” reviews and the PRA editor went with it.) Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the preceeding section - re: Kitamura Phys Rev A 2009
Put your comments here if you want... Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Warning to others: Shanahan is an expert, but a highly biased one. He's been arguing strongly on the internet against cold fusion since the early 1990s. His only published work, however, is on his theory that calibration constant shift explains the excess heat finding, which is probably his wishful thinking, there are so many independent confirmations of excess heat, using various forms of calorimetry, that his theory is unlikely to be correct. It still involves, by the way, an unexplained anomaly, just a different one from the nuclear hypothesis, one which allegedly causes unexpected local heating that throws off the calorimetry.--Abd (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Warning, Abd (who failed to sign his post) is a potentially banned commentator at the cold fusion talk page. He is banned because he writes pages and pages of wrong stuff, and then refuses to listen to those who take the time to try to correct him.  I defy Abd to show where my 'bias' has resulted in a significant error in what I have written.  It's very easy to cry wolf, but when you do it when there isn't one, you should be ignored (or banned as disruptive), just like in the fable.  I have been on the Internet regarding cold fusion since the mid-90's and I did not start out arguing 'strongly' against it, I was simply asking pointed questions.  The answers I got were never satifactory, and as I studied the field more and more, I came to see all the flaws and fallacies in the claims.  Then I started to get a little more insistent, because I believe in doing 'good' science.  Then I wrote my paper on the calorimetric error that probably leads to rejecting all reported excess heat claims (at least in P&F cells, other things may be going on in other configurations as is the case with Kitamura, et al).  Since no CF researcher has published any data that directly allows one to evaluate my claim, yes, the idea that it 'probably' explains the excess heat signals is still speculative until the CFers prove otherwise on way or the other.  They (deliberately?) don't publish the data that could do so.  I don't do CF experiments myself, I work/worked in related fields.   Yes, there are 'many independent confirmations' of excess heat SIGNALS, but whether they are caused by real heat or not is still unproven.  I readily admit something is going on, and I have proposed what I think is a good candidate for that something, no nuclear involved.  Abd and other CFers can't separate the effect and data from the interpretations, they insist on 'nuclear' being in the description.  I don't and they can't comprehend that.  I don't have other publications on the other problems I see in the field because I don't believe they would be accepted for publication becasue they are not novel enough.  Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I'd rather spend my time on good research and good publications.  The kind of problems that permeate CF research are common problems carried to extremes by psuedoscientists and are easily noted by trained scientists who actually take the time to read and study the papers.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is typical for Shanahan that he claims the peer reviewers were biased or ignorant. I think that Shanahan is important, he knows much that is of value, and his skeptical view should always be considered, but should not be swallowed whole, without careful examination and comparison with the full literature.--Abd (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Only in recent years, when the abandonment of even considering CF claims by the mainline scientist has resulted in a total lack of understanding by those people about what CF is and the current claims. In the Kitamura case, I outline the problems I detected with little effort and point out why the paper should never have made it through the peer review process.  To be clear, the other reason it might is just poor peer review, i.e. the editors only did a cursory job on the paper.  I also agree, and insist, that you take the time to study my views and comments, unlike Abd who fires off a response to my comment without apparently understanding it (see below) and who loads his comment with ad hominem attacks on me and my supposed 'bias'.  'Shooting the messenger' isn't a valid scientific process.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What he has done above is to neglect the context. This is a confirmation of Arata; one of the problems with Arata is that absolute calorimetry isn't done, Arata does not report net energy generation, he only reports temperature of the cell, and pressure. I've reviewed the original Arata reports fairly carefully, and what they show is heat of hydride formation, roughly similar between hydrogen and deuterium loading (with some extra "bump" with deuterium? -- I'd have to look again), but the crucial finding is what happens after this. A cell with hydrogen settles to ambient within a few hours, a cell with deuterium settles to 4 degrees C. above ambient and stays there, steady for as long as has been reported, 3000 hours.--Abd (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Arata data is not very convincing to me. There are a lot of problems that are not dealt with adequately in the limited experimetns reported.  The only similarity between what Kitamura did and Arata was they both used a type of calorimetry on similar materials.  The Kitamura data is a joke, it proves nothing, as I described above, and they make novice errors in dealing with palladium chemistry.  FYI, the data presented only covered about 1800 MINUTES, that's 30 hours, not 3000 like you claim.  So, there is no confirmation of anything arising from the Kitamura data.  You operate on rumor an innuendo Abd, I don't. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a copy of the Kitamura paper, unfortunately, so I can't see exactly what Kitamura confirmed and what Kitamura extended by providing calorimetry. What I do know is that the striking finding from Arata is the continued, continuous heat generation with no apparent input, beyond the hydride formation phase. Shanahan might have the information on which he could judge the power level that 4 degrees C continuous represents, by studying a known release (heat of hydride formation) and thus determining the time behavior of temperature with known heat generation, my guess is that it is possible to roughly estimate the thermal resistance of the experimental cell from this. And from that, what continuous energy release will produce a 4 degree C temperature differential, and from that, the total energy generation in 3000 hours at this differential. (The design of the cells and where the temperature is measured makes the local heat generation problem a moot issue. The only thing in those cells is some nanoparticle palladium or palladium alloy and the gas.--Abd (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ohh! So you haven't even read it yet!  You don't even have a copy of it!  But you can tell me why I can't possibly know what I am saying??  Folks, this is clear proof that Abd is a POV-pusher.  He shoots from the hip (with a machine gun) at anyone who dares to contest cold fusion claims.  Unfortunately Abd, you missed completely.  Also, as usual, he tries to shift the focus away from what is being discussed, Kitamura et al, onto the singular report by Arata that I am not commenting on here.  For the record, there are good reasons to expect some problems in the Arata set-up that would cause a thermocouple/thermistor/whatever shift and/or malfunction.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My sense is that 3000 hours of heat at the level reported could not be attributed to a low-level chemical reaction being maintained from 7 grams of palladium/alloy and deuterium gas. Shanahan, you should be qualified to attempt this calculation. Care to try it? One further problem: the heat appears flat even at 3000 hours, so we can infer that it would last much longer. Most chemical reactions would show a rate decrease with time. I find it odd, even considering fusion as a possible explanation, that the rate doesn't decline, because I'd expect the NAE (Nuclear active environment) spots to become more rare. Apparently from the Arata results, that doesn't happen rapidly, if at all. If the NAE is sustained, that's new and very significant.--Abd (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Talking about Arata again, not Kitamura. A flat line at 3000 hours when everything else has been over for some time usually suggest a malfunction.  Replication is in order, with attempts to make sure such malfunctions cannot occur. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * However, most of this is moot for Wikipedia. We depend on those ignorant reviewers, and we don't second-guess them. If there is reason to doubt a report in reliable source, we attribute it, that is always a ready compromise, and we don't do OR, original research, except -- in my opinion -- for background. We don't draw conclusions, we let our readers do that.--Abd (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As Abd has recently pontificated on on the Vortex mailing list, Wiki is not supposed to be based on 'primary' sources like Kitamura at all. Further, I also contend that recentism is active here as there hasn't been _any_ time for response in the literature.  Including it in the CF article is inappropriate, which is the comment on the CF talk page I was explaining at length here.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now signed my comments above, which Kirk chopped up, as he commonly does. He's right about primary sources, but he has missed that the Kitamura report is partly a secondary source, commenting on the primary Arata sources, plus there is quite a bit of other secondary source on Arata, his work is quite well known. I DGAF if the work is "used" at cold fusion, that's up for neutral editors to decide. I'm now, like Shanahan, covered by conflict of interest guidelines. He's welcome to talk to himself all he wants.... He's right, I haven't read the Kitamura paper, except for some other coverage of it, especially Kirk's comments above, which aren't RS on what is in Kitamura, unfortunately. --Abd (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Kitamura et al report in their Abstract that they are trying to replicate the ZA&Z reports. They discuss these reports in the Introduction of their paper.  This is by no means anything other than a report on why they did the work, to try to replicate A&Z.  As I noted, they failed to do so based on good scientific standards, yet claim to have actually done so.  This in no way gives creedence to the A&Z claims.  The way it works is that a report (replication or not) must pass scientific scrutiny by experts in the field (not peer reviewers, every psudoscience fiasco of the last century was published at one point or another) before it can be considered 'evidence' for or against anything.  Kitamura fails to pass muster and thus is not RS.


 * Again, Abd is switching to the A&Z reports, even though I have said I'm not talking about that. That's just bad debate tactics.  Further Abd uses the 'call to authority' argument ("his work is quite well known"), which means nothing except Abd has no acceptable argument to present.  He then tries to blow smoke by claimimg some critical problem based on 'conflict of interest', instead of responding to the challenge I issued to define any such problem he can cite.  And, it is of interest to note that, when challenged thusly, Abd cuts and runs.  Pure crying wolf.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, my listing of potential problems with the Arata 2007 demo can be found at the end of Item 2 in the Archive 26 of the cold fusion talk page. Dated Mar. 19, 2009.  More stuff Abd ignores.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Direct link to list: Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_26. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, Kirk, I'm not debating you, it's not worth it. If you want a debate, how about you post to the Vortex list, where you'll be sliced and diced before breakfast? Here, you can be the big frog in a small pond all you like, the editors who have more actual knowledge than you having all been banned. Except more will keep showing up. That's what happens in situations like this, it's endless. Visible, you are, Kirk. That's all that's needed from me. --Abd (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't know (which is probably true as you never check things out before pulling the trigger) I was on Vortex for awhile. I tried to conduct reasoned debates there, and was met with nothing but garbage.  When I finally responded in kind _I_ was chastised by the moderator, while those doing the same to me for many more posts were congratulated.  Sorry, no dice.  If you folks at Vortex seriously think you can shake the technical basis of my commentaries, then I suggest we meet on 'neutral ground', the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.fusion, which was specifically created to discuss cold fusion issues.  It has been taken over by crazies these days, but we can ignore them like usual on an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup.  You guys start it up by posting something, and I will respond as my workload and desire allows.  Make sure you notify me by email that you have done so, I don't routinely follow the group anymore.  There is a common 'Netiquette' for Usenet, but the group is unmoderated, so anything can go.  I however only respond to technical arguments there.  Here there are supposed to be rules which I complain about when violated; you won't see that there.  BTW, I will essentially do there what I have done here, answer posts point-by-point.  But the problem I always find with the CFers is that when I answer their objections they never accept that I have done so.  It's like with Ed Storms.  We had up to 100 emails exchanged on the CCS issue.  In the end, he repeated back exactly what I was saying, at which point I asked him why then he couldn't accept what I said as true.  He replied that he didn't know, but it just couldn't be true.  So after your buddies have tried to 'slice and dice' my arguments, and I have shown their slicing and dicing to be incorrect or irrelevant, they still will not change because they are committed fanatics who have abandoned good scientific practice in favor of a permanent emotional commitment to the CF idea.  In other words, I do not expect to convince _them_ of anything at this point.  I will show the interested reader however where their logic quits and their emotion begins.  I also will not deal with Jed Rothwell or yourself.  Both of you don't have the technical skills to keep up with me, even though I have tried to educate you, so, in advance, I declare I only want to deal with primary CF researchers like Storms, McKubre, Miles, Szpak, etc.  I don't want to mess with groupies.  You might try starting with Steve Krivit if the primaries won't play (which is the norm by the way), but I have minimal respect for him, as he seems to 'know' who I am and what I say based on about 15 minutes of phone time.  In other words, he seems as biased and bigoted as any other CFer, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt for awhile, until he establishes he modus operandi. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and BTW, please always remember that my position is that there are real anomalies detected by CFers, but the problem is that they jump to the 'nuclear' explanation based on insufficient and incomplete evidence, and in science that jump to a conclusion is illegitimate. So, my thrust has always been to point out conventional alternatives that have NOT been eliminated by published research (as I said, I don't deal in rumors and innuendos, just 'the published facts').  Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 98.210.193.221 added a Table to my Talkpage that can be found as Table 1 from Mosier-Boss et al (2008) "Reply to comment on 'The use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments': a response to Kowalski"  Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 44: 291–5, p. 292. This just clutters up my page, so I deleted it.  Check the reference if you want to see it  Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think the neutron tracks and charged particles are included in those real anomalies? 99.56.139.186 (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think the CFers get a pin and make all of them, one-at-a-time. C'mon 99, of course they are real, but you don't need to (and probably shouldn't) hang the 'nuclear' label on them.  I don't believe they are caused by neutrons or charged particles (except in those cases where a radioactive filler was detected in O-rings used in the cell construction).  They are caused by physical damage from the shockwaves of the exploding H2+O2 bubbles formed at the electrode surface (think 'depth charges').  Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you cite any examples of CR-39 pits having been created that way? When was radioactive filler discovered in cell O-rings?  Given that the detected charged particles were deflected by a magnetic field, any ideas for alternative hypotheses there? 98.210.193.221 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

“Can you cite any examples of CR-39 pits having been created that way? “ – See the Galileo report issued by Steve Krivit (GalileoProjectReport.pdf). Two examples are shown there, one from Kowalski and one from Mosier-Boss, on page 30. I first noted it in a report c. 2002 based on a different report (which I can't locate today), which is why I posted the comment to spf that year about the potential shockwave damage.

“When was radioactive filler discovered in cell O-rings?” – May 2007 apparently. See Scott Little’s report at http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/PACA/report.htm. I believe he found it, as he did with the contamination problem being the probable root cause of ‘heavy metal transmutations’. This finding casts doubt on any experiment where such a problem was not searched for, and by default that will probably include all prior CR-39 work, unless very good reasons are given to expect such a thing could not have occurred (just like my delineating the CCS causes similar problem with apparent excess heat reports). I have noticed recent CR-39 articles are checking for this. This problem can explain how Oriani, et al, get pits in CR39 suspended above the electrolyte. Pits in CR39 in the electrolyte of course can still come from shockwaves. And, in both cases, oxidative attack by O2 can potentially cause pits as well, although I suspect it is less likely above the electrolyte.

“ Given that the detected charged particles were deflected by a magnetic field, any ideas for alternative hypotheses there?” - reference? I have some ideas, but I want to review the publication before responding.

With regards to the Table you stuck on my page, what is your point? When you have electrolysis with Pd present, you can get the FPHE, and you will get the ‘microexplosions’ which will pit the CR39. All examples in your Table are perfectly consistent with the conventional explanation I offer. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't find GalileoProjectReport.pdf -- do you have a full URL? -- but it seems to be from 2008. What is FPHE?  Didn't the SPAWAR team reply specifically to the charges from those 2007 and 2008 attempts at reproduction by Krivit?  The ref for charged particle detection is: Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Gordon FE (2007) "Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd–D lattice: emission of charged particles" Naturwissenschaften, vol. 94 pp. 511–514. 98.210.193.221 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * “I can't find GalileoProjectReport.pdf -- do you have a full URL? -- but it seems to be from 2008.”
 * http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/projects/tgp/2007TGP/2007GalileoProjectReport.pdf Hint:  Go to Steve Krivit Web Site, New Energy Times, and type “Galileo Project Report” in the search bar.


 * “What is FPHE?” - Read the doc fount on the LENR-CANR website at (fixing the link of course): http://www.lenr- canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf


 * “Didn't the SPAWAR team reply specifically to the charges from those 2007 and 2008 attempts at reproduction by Krivit?“ - The SPAWAR team was an active particpant in the project.


 * “The ref for charged particle detection is: Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Gordon FE (2007) "Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd–D lattice: emission of charged particles" Naturwissenschaften, vol. 94 pp. 511–514. “ - Sorry, no mention of ‘deflection’ by magnetic fields. Wrong refernece, try again.  They do state that turning on an electric field produced pits, i.e. no field, no pits.  But I don’t think this completely jives with current positions on this.  This does modify my response regarding your Table.  Apparently you can have codeposited Pd present and no pits.  However, that just jives with other experience in the field that the effect is not 100% reproducible  However if you are interested in getting the whole picture, you should read:  http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html.  Also, the original ref I was referring to from 2002 is Oriani, R. A., Fisher, J. C.; Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., 41 (2002) 6180-6183, where the last line on 6180 says:  “It is necessary to distinguish between etch pits that identify charged particle tracks and those that result from surface damage or internal defect in the plastic.”  And later in the same paragraph on 6181; “We rejected etch pits that occured in clusters and those that formed linear arrays fearing that they may have arisen from surface scratches.”  In other words, surface damage => pits.  Shockwaves can cause surface (and probably subsurface) damage.


 * You didn't answer the question about what the point was to the Table you cluttered up my talk page with. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have read those materials.  The table illustrates the state of the SPAWAR position on the CR-39 experiments.  Why do you suggest that the dependent variable reflecting pits present or not, which is completely correlated with the independent existence of an external electrostatic or magnetostatic field, does not constitute deflection? 98.210.193.221 (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * From wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn :
 * deflect – “turn from a straight course, fixed direction, or line of interest” or  “turn aside and away from an initial or intended course”


 * You may note the embedded concept of something being there first before it is deflected. The paper that you reference does not say that, it says ‘nothing’ without the magnets, ‘something’ with.  ‘Deflection’ has nothing to do with this.


 * Your comments are not well thought out, they are biased heavily towards cold fusion, they are not about the Kitamura paper (and are thus red herrings), and I didn’t like the way you avoided the issue of signing posts on the main CF Talk page. I don’t believe I want you posting to my Talk page anymore.  Please stop.  If you don’t, I will delete any comments made by you, or anyone else, who doesn’t sign their posts with a named account.   Even if you sign one, it will still need to be applicable and make some level of sense before I answer it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I keep having this nagging sensation that this IP could be User:Nrcprm2026. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really matter to me. All names on the Internet can be fake, and my prior experience is in the unmoderated Usenet group sci.physics.fusion.  But the point is to have a discussion, presumably aimed at improving the article(s) you're working on.  Most of my time on Wiki has been spent fighting people who oppose the idea that CF isn't proven.  They don't want to discuss and present, they want to suppress and advocate, and I'm done with that.  Thus, I am getting more militant.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)