JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE. Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion - PDF

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 158
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Book

Published:

Views: 2 | Pages: 158

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Related documents
Description
JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion VOLUME 12, December 2013 JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion Editor-in-Chief
Transcript
JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion VOLUME 12, December 2013 JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion Editor-in-Chief Jean-Paul Biberian Marseille, France Editorial Board Peter Hagelstein MIT, USA George Miley Fusion Studies Laboratory, University of Illinois, USA Xing Zhong Li Tsinghua University, China Michael McKubre SRI International, USA Edmund Storms KivaLabs, LLC, USA Akito Takahashi Osaka University, Japan JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE Volume 12, December ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN This ournal and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by ISCMNS and the following terms and conditions apply. Electronic usage or storage of data JCMNS is an open-access scientific ournal and no special permissions or fees are required to download for personal non-commercial use or for teaching purposes in an educational institution. All other uses including printing, copying, distribution require the written consent of ISCMNS. Permission of the ISCMNS and payment of a fee are required for photocopying, including multiple or systematic copying, copying for advertising or promotional purposes, resale, and all forms of document delivery. Permissions may be sought directly from ISCMNS, For further details you may also visit our web site: Members of ISCMNS may reproduce the table of contents or prepare lists of articles for internal circulation within their institutions. Orders, claims, author inquiries and ournal inquiries Please contact the Editor in Chief, or J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 12 (2013) ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE Volume EDITORIAL CONTENTS RESEARCH ARTICLES How the Flawed Journal Review Process Impedes Paradigm Shifting Discoveries 1 P.A. Mosier-Boss, L.P. Forsley and F.E. Gordon Using Bakeout to Eliminate Heat from H/D Exchange During Hydrogen Isotope Loading of Pd-impregnated Alumina Powder Olga Dmitriyeva, Garret Moddel, Richard Cantwell and Matt McConnell 13 Electron Mass Enhancement and the Widom Larsen Model 18 Peter L. Hagelstein Neutrino Equation of Motion and Neutrino electron Bound Pairs in LENR 41 Burke Ritchie Simulation of Crater Formation on LENR Cathodes Surfaces 54 Jacques Ruer Born Oppenheimer and Fixed-point Models for Second-order Phonon Exchange in a Metal P.L. Hagelstein and I.U. Chaudhary 69 Phonon nuclear Coupling for Anomalies in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 105 P.L. Hagelstein and I.U. Chaudhary The Fleischmann Pons Effect: Reactions and Processes 143 S. Szpak and F. Gordon Editorial It is always a great pleasure to publish a new volume of the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. This is the combined effort of many authors, the reviewers, and the team doing the typesetting. While it does not compare the excitement of the birth of a new baby in a family, still it gives one the same feeling of boundless new possibilities. This new volume has both experimental and theoretical papers, which I hope will be of interest to readers. It is my hope that this ournal contributes to the development of this new science, in spite of the many obstacles that we face. Jean-Paul Biberian December 2013 J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 12 (2013) 1 12 Research Article How the Flawed Journal Review Process Impedes Paradigm Shifting Discoveries P.A. Mosier-Boss Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA L.P. Forsley JWK International Corporation, Annandale, VA 22003, USA F.E. Gordon Research and Applied Sciences Department, US Navy SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, Retired, San Diego, CA 92152, USA Abstract The purpose of scientific ournals is to review papers for scientific validity and to disseminate new theoretical and experimental results. This requires that the editors and reviewers be impartial. Our attempt to publish novel experimental results in a renowned physics ournal shows that in some cases editors and reviewers are not impartial; they are biased and closed-minded. Although our subect matter was technical, its reection was not: it was emotionally charged. It was an agenda-laden reection of legitimate experiments that were conducted in US DoD and DoE laboratories. This paper describes the flawed ournal review process, detailing our own case and citing others. Such behavior on the part of editors and reviewers has a stifling effect on innovation and the diffusion of knowledge ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN Keywords: Discovery, Flawed ournal review, Nuclear diagnostics, Review process, Scientific breakthrough, Scientific policy 1. Introduction In 1989, Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published a peer-reviewed claim that their palladium/deuterium (Pd/D) electrochemical cells were generating more excess heat than could be accounted for by conventional chemistry. [1] Over the ensuing years, researchers accumulated additional evidence that nuclear processes occur within metal Research Associate, Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory University of Texas, Austin, TX USA. Head, Research and Applied Sciences Department 2013 ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN 2 P.A. Mosier-Boss et al. / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 12 (2013) 1 12 lattices. Successful replications of these novel Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) results have been published in several peer-reviewed ournals. However, potential government sponsors have stated that these peer-reviewed publications are meaningless because the research was not published in either Nature or Science, as if these two were the only legitimate arbiters of scientific truth. Those ournals are considered to be prestigious because of their high impact factors a of for Nature [2] and for Science [3] in 2011 [4]. By comparison, the Journal of the American Chemical Society, the flagship of the world s largest scientific society which has published successful cold fusion replications, had an impact factor of in 2011 [5]. Replications have also been published in prestigious overseas ournals such as the Japanese J. Applied Physics. This is published by the Japanese Applied Physics Society, and it is thus roughly equivalent to Science, published by the AAAS. We, and others, have attempted to publish papers in Nature, but our submissions were returned with the admonishment, This subect area is of no interest to our readers. In fact, Nature has published a number of papers on experiments that failed to replicate the Fleischmann Pons results, such as the one written by Lewis et al. [6], as well as negative commentaries on the field [7,8]. In light of criticisms of not having published our results in higher-tiered ournals, we attempted to publish a LENR-based paper in a higher-tier physics ournal. In this communication, we document and discuss the outcome of our experience as a case study to illustrate the larger problem. Unfortunately, the problem of publishing controversial papers is hardly a new phenomenon. In their book entitled Responsible Conduct of Research, Shamoo and Resnick [9] stated: History provides us with many examples of important theories that were resisted and ridiculed by [reviewers of] established researchers, such as Gregory Mendel s laws of inheritance, Barbara McLintock s gene umping hypothesis, Peter Mitchell s chemiosmostic theory, and Alfred Wegener s continental drift hypothesis. Campanario [10] documented instances where 24 scientists encountered resistance by scientific ournal editors or referees when they tried to publish manuscripts on discoveries that later earned them the Nobel Prize. Recently, Nature published an editorial on the subect of peer reection [11]. Nature acknowledged that they had reected papers on Cerenkov radiation; Hideki Yukawa s meson; the work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel; and the initial reection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking s black-hole radiation. The editorial concluded: reected authors who are convinced of the groundbreaking value of their controversial conclusions should persist. A final reection on the grounds of questionable significance may mean that one ournal has closed its door on you, but that is no reason to be cowed into silence. Remember, as you seek a different home for your work, that you are in wonderful company. 2. Our Reection Experience The ournal wherein we submitted our observations publishes short, important papers from all branches of physics. Although its impact factor was 7.37 in 2011, it is considered to be among the most prestigious publications in any scientific discipline. In December 2009, we submitted a paper comparing fast neutron-induced triple tracks in a Solid State Nuclear Track Detector (CR-39) that we observed as a result of our LENR experiments with those generated by a DT fusion generator. Previously, we had published a paper in a lower-tier ournal, Naturwissenschaften [12] discussing our first observation of energetic neutrons in a deuterated palladium lattice (Pd/D), in addition to three other papers using CR-39 to detect energetic particles [13 15]. a The impact factor of a ournal is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a ournal has been cited in a particular year or period. P.A. Mosier-Boss et al. / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 12 (2013) Figure 1. Comparison of DT fusion induced tracks. Palladium deuterium co-deposition tracks are in the two left columns and DoE accelerator driven DT fusion neutron generator tracks are in the right two columns. The black and white pictures are CR-39 microphotographs. The false color photographs are a composite of two microphotographs, one focused at the bottom of the track with one focused on the surface. This allows both the extent of the track and its origin to be more clearly observed. Triple tracks are caused by a nearly 10 MeV neutron striking a carbon atom in the CR-39, shattering it into three energetic alpha particles that create an ionization trail in the CR-39. The CR-39 is etched for several hours, enlarging the trail until it is visible with a microscope as a track. If you cannot tell the difference, there is no difference Our claim: solid-state nuclear track detector CR-39 and neutron detection Our submission described our experiments with CR-39 neutron detection. CR-39 is a solid-state nuclear track detector (SSNTD) that is commonly used to detect neutrons and charged particles in inertial confinement fusion (ICF) aka laser fusion [16]. When an energetic, charged particle traverses a solid-state nuclear track detector it creates an ionization track [17,18]. When the detector is etched, the tracks are enlarged until they are visible with the aid of a microscope. However, neutrons only leave tracks under certain conditions. The neutron must either elastically scatter off or undergo an inelastic nuclear reaction with, the hydrogen, carbon, or oxygen atoms within the CR-39 [19]. The most easily identified neutron interaction is a triple track that occurs when a neutron with over 9.6 MeV shatters a carbon atom in the detector resulting in a three pronged star [19 23]. Figure 1 shows representative triple tracks observed in CR-39 detectors that were used in Pd/D co-deposition experiments as well as their corresponding accelerator-driven DT fusion neutron generated triple track. The tracks are clearly indistinguishable. 4 P.A. Mosier-Boss et al. / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 12 (2013) The reviews When the paper was first internally reviewed by the Journal, we were told that the paper was too long and that we needed to shorten it. However, we could include additional material in an electronic supplement. We complied with this request and resubmitted the paper along with the names of three potential referees, one of whom was a CR-39 expert Reviewer A Our paper was reected in February 2010 after being reviewed by three referees. The editor commented: Referee A sent but a short report of no value to either of us. He or she did go over your manuscript and offered emendations in electronic form. We enclosed the marked manuscript in case it will be of use to you elsewhere. The emendations made by the referee clearly showed that he/she was knowledgeable on the use of CR-39 and interpreting the tracks. We had discussed the origins of asymmetric triple tracks, suggesting, They could also be due to reactions of the type 12 C(n,α) 9 Be or 16 O(n, α) 13 C. The track caused by these reactions typically has one prong with a larger cone angle than the other which are attributed to the alpha particle and the recoiling residual nucleus, respectively. To this Referee A commented, This is due to the fact that cone angle decreases with increasing ionization rate. The 9 Be recoil has a higher ionization rate and thus a smaller cone angle. We asked the Journal s editor if we could have Referee A s comments. The editor steadfastly refused to send them to us. It is unheard of for editors to deny referee s comments to authors. In contrast, this editor had no qualms sending us the reports of the other two referees Reviewer B: Authors should be glad they re not dead Referee B s report stated: The authors claim to produce a source that emits approximately a few Hz, perhaps 10 Hz, 14 MeV DT neutrons. This is a formidable source. The rate of 2.5 MeV DD neutron source should be considerably (many order of magnitudes) stronger. Such a strong source of 2.5 and 14 MeV neutrons should be easily detectable with live electronical [sic] neutron detector. The fact that the authors did not make an attempt to measure these neutrons with the more reliable neutron detectors speaks volume of the less than adequate research effort. The authors are the best living evidence that this high intensity neutron source did not exist. We note from the outset that a full body neutron dose of 500 REM (5 Sv) will cause severe radiation sickness. A slightly larger dose will cause death within a few weeks. Such a full body dose is produced by MeV DD neutrons or MeV DT neutrons. The authors reported a DT fusion flux of n/cm 2 /s which leads to a full body dose of secondary DT neutrons per hour. The flux of the primary DD fusion will thus be many orders of magnitude above and beyond the lethal dose. A person spending one hour (in fact considerably less than one hour) in the vicinity of the apparatus will suffer severe radiation sickness and will die shortly afterward. P.A. Mosier-Boss et al. / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 12 (2013) The author should be thankful for not discovering DT fusion and in any case there is no place for such a low quality research in the pages of [this Journal] or for that matter in any scientific publication that adheres to a minimum standard of quality Our response to Reviewer B: No lethal neutron flux reported The Journal did not give us the opportunity to refute the comments made by reviewer B. We will take that opportunity now. Reviewer B erroneously states the DD fusion rate should be many orders of magnitude greater than the DT fusion rate. In fact, the fusion cross-section over a wide variety of ion energies is 100 times greater for DT fusion than DD fusion [16]. The referee advocated the dead graduate student argument first publicized by John Huizenga [24], the head of the 1989 ERAB panel charged with investigating cold fusion claims. In the submitted paper we measured the integrated DT neutron flux as n/cm 2 /s. The CR-39 detectors are 4 cm 2 in area. So the total number of neutrons per hour, at most, is and not , as the referee stated. It is not clear how the referee calculated over 500 times our reported value. An integrated neutron radiation dose of 6 Gy is considered lethal [25]. This is equivalent to 6000 REM. b For neutrons with energies between 10 and 30 MeV, the integrated number of neutrons per square centimeter equivalent to a dose of 1 REM is n/cm 2 [26]. For the entire Pd/D co-deposition experiment (typically two weeks), the total number of neutrons per square centimeter is n/cm 2. This is equivalent to a total dose of REM, which is far below the lethal limit for neutron exposure. Even if we use the referee s erroneous value of n/cm 2 /hr, a neutron dose over a two-week period of 480 REM is still far below the lethal limit of 6000 REM Reviewer C Referee C commented: The authors report the observation of triple tracks in a relatively new type of detector material, which is claimed to be proof for DT fusion events within the material. At some points in the paper it becomes clear that the observed tracks in the detectors are indicative or consistent with DT fusion reactions. Such phrases, along with controversy discussions about the method that can be found in literature, make clear that the used method is far from being a solid proof for such reactions. They try to argue with heaps of supplementary material does not replace the need to establish the new method in peer-refereed ournals. On the other hand, I am wondering why particles, be it alphas or neutrons, cannot be detected with conventional, well established, detection methods, at least in order to show the applicability of the new detection method relative to something else. In the end, I am not convinced that the observed tracks or bubbles are a unique signature of 3 alpha breakup of 12 C, such as claimed by the authors. All these are technical details, (which the general [this Journal] reader will have no chance to comprehend from the present manuscript,) whereas the biggest question to this paper is what the reader is supposed to conclude from it. Multiple times the authors assume the source for the claimed detected neutrons to be DT fusion. However, quite artificially, the source for this DT fusion is left open until the conclusion. Even there, b A gray (Gy) is a unit of absorbed dose, specific energy (imparted) and of kerma. One Gy is equivalent to 100 RAD (Radiation Absorbed Dose). REM is damage produced by 1 RAD in body tissue where REM = Q RAD. Q is the quality factor which accounts for the difference in the amount of biological damage caused by the different types of radiation. For gamma and beta radiation, 1 RAD = 1 REM. For neutrons, 1 RAD = 10 REM. 6 P.A. Mosier-Boss et al. / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 12 (2013) 1 12 one finds speaking of hot fusion DD reactions - without mention what hot means. Presumably, it means the energy necessary to actually fuse to deuterium nuclei. Unfortunately, the authors do not give any hint where this necessary energy would come from. It is quite simple: in order to get fusion you have to overcome a Coulomb barrier. The authors themselves admit in the conclusion that the mechanism for the DD reaction is not yet fully understood. Not surprising, since nothing I read explains where the necessary energy would come from. Instead, even more reactions are mentioned in the end (Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping) which now shall account for the observed tracks - without explanation. After that some mentioning of oscillations of atoms within the material, again with absolutely no firm connection to the observations. I am left with the impression that nobody has a clue where the energetic tritons (intermediate reaction products) would come from Our Response to Reviewer C: CR-39 was the appropriate method Again the Journal did not give us the opportunity to refute the comments made by reviewer C. We will take that opportunity now. CR-39 is not a new detector material. Cartwright et al [17] were the first to demonstrate that CR-39 could be used to detect nuclear particles in There are hundreds of papers in the literature describing the use and development of CR-39 for neutron dosimetry. Countries involved in this research include Italy [27], Egypt [28,29], India [30], Japan [31], Hungary [20], as well as the United States [16,17,19,32]. Landauer uses C
Recommended
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks