Return to the list of clickable items

210) Investigations of Oriani solid effect:
Work in progress


Ludwik Kowalski (4/4/05)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043


1) Introduction:
My attempts to get involved in cold fusion research were described in unit #189. The first attempt was to work with Harold Fox. We demonstrated that the anticipated transmutation of a radioactive thorium material into a non radioactive material did not take place. The second attempt was a short cooperation with Steven Jones. Only one experiment was conducted by me and it could be interpreted as a confirmation of findings reported by Jones and his team. The third attempt was a short cooperation with Dennis Letts and his team. A very strong anomalous effect was discovered but, unfortunately, the experiment was not repeated. Both attempts were described at the last cold fusion conference (ICCF11, 2004). Our paper presented at that conference can be downloaded from the library at <www.lenr-canr.com>.

The first three attempts had two things in common: (a) I was only marginally involved, and, (b) I had no opportunities to repeat experiments. The fourth attempt was, and still is, very different. It is a study of Oriani effects described in unit #188. I have a replica of Oriani’s cell at home and often use it, since november 2004, to perform experiments. Preliminary results, described in units #192 and #197, reflected my learning. Descriptions are too long and boring; it was naive to think that people would be interested in so many irrelevant details. But I am not sorry for being actively involved in a study which may turn out to be very significant.

Oriani vapor and liquid effects have been described in 2003, at ICCF10 (International Conference of Cold Fusion). Papers of Oriani and Fisher, presented at that conference can be downloaded from the library at <www.lenr-canr.org>. The Oriani-solid effect, which we are now studying, has been published in 2004, at ICCF11. That effect consists of particles detected in air below the 0.12-mm-thick nickel cathode (at the bottom of the cell). The cathode is thick enough to stop natural alpha particles coming from the electrolyte. Oriani thinks that alpha-like particles must somehow be produced in nickel, or in air below it. Studying particles in air, outside the electrolytic cell, can be conducted not only with track detectors (used by Oriani), but with surface barrier detectors as well, as in Jones’ experiments.

The goal of our research was to turn Oriani’s vertical cell (described in unit #188) into a simple setup for student-oriented experiments. Track detectors are ideal for that purpose because they are extremely sensitive, relatively inexpensive, and simple to understand. That is why our work, so far, was done exclusively with track detectors (CR-39 chips). Surface barrier detectors will probably be used after finding conditions under which observations are nearly 100% reproducible. Information about energies of particles, and about times of their emission, would help us to understand what is going on.

2) From Oriani’s recent e-mail messages
a) According to what I wrote in unit #188, the CR-39 chip (area 0.6 cm2) placed 1.5 cm below the cathode, recorded 1818 tracks of alpha-like particles in 72 hours during the electrolysis. This however, as Oriani discovered after my departure, was due to a contamination. Not surprisingly, I failed to replicate these results in two experiments at home. But Richard’s recent results are remarkable; he continues observing anomalous alpha-like particles below the cathode. In a recent message (3/21/05) he sent me a table showing that such particles were observed in 9 out of 9 experiments. The recording rates, expressed in tracks/cm2/hr, fluctuated from one experiment to another with the mean being 1.70 and standard deviation being 0.71. Nine control experiments, with detectors placed far away from the electrolytic cell, showed fluctuating backgrounds. The mean background, also in tracks/cm2/hr, and standard deviation, turned out to be 0,27 and 0.083, respectively. That is a very impressive result; the difference between the two means -- 1.7 and 0.27 -- seems to be real, as far as statistical fluctuations are concerned. But that, as always, has nothing to do with possible systematic errors.

In another message (3/26/05) Oriani described two additional control experiments. In these experiments detectors were placed below the cathode with no current flowing through the cell. A small amount of ThO2 powder was added to the electrolyte (in a specially constructed cell and in another room) to test a theoretical prediction of John Fisher. I am mentioning this fact because recording rates, first with zero current (no electrolysis) and then with the current of 180 mA, are interesting. The zero current results, in two different cells, were not significantly higher than the mean background in the air, far away from the cell. Presence of an alpha radioactive substance in the electrolyte has no significant effect on the background below the cell. This is not surprising; the cathode thickness of 0.12 mm is larger than the range of alpha particles. The 180 mA results also turned out to be not significantly different from what was measured, with the same current, without thorium.

3) Description of my recent findings:
In trying to replicate Oriani’s recent results I used the same concentration of the electrolyte (23 grams of Li2SO4 per liter of distilled water) and the same current (180 mA) as he. I conducted five new experiments, two controls and three tests. The first control (chip area 1.2 cm2) was a zero-current experiment lasting three days. The second control was a 0.60 cm2 chip situated in air, one meter away from the cell. The tests were two-days-long treatments. The results are shown in the table below. The 3th column shows the chip areas, the 4th column shows the numbers of preexisting (old) tracks, the 5th column shows the numbers of new tracks and the last column shows the average track recording rates.

Table 1 (Ludwik’s data)
  exposure hrs chip area cm^2 # of old tracks # of new tracks tracks/cm^2/hr
Control 1

72

1.2

23

59

0.70

Control 2

72

0.6

6

19

0.44

Test 1

48

1.2

20

65

1.13

Test 2

46

1.2

23

39

0.41

Test 3

47

1.2

24

50

0.87



The mean from my three tests, 0.80 tr/cm2/hr, is not significantly different from the zero-current Control 1. It is clear that my attempt to observe alpha-like particles below the cathode, and due to the electric current, was not successful. The table below can be used to compare my raw data with his. It consists of five typical results; they were extracted from tables describing nine tests and nine controls.

Table 2 (Typical samples from Richard’s data)

  exposure hrs chip area cm^2 # of old tracks # of new tracks tracks/cm^2/hr
Control 1

47.5

1.0

3

19

0.33

Control 2

92.6

0.87

10

41

0.37

Test 1

23.5

0.6

2

20

1.4

Test 2

46.5

0.8

5

82

2.2

Test 3

47.8

0.72

4

62

1.8




One thing is immediately obvious. My old track densities, about 20 tr/cm2, are much higher than old track densities reported by Richard. But my counting geometry (chips were ~1 mm from the cathode) was different from his (chips were ~6 mm from the cathode). Furthermore, my etching conditions (6.25 N, 75 degrees C and 6 hrs) were different from his (6.5 N, 80 C and 2 hrs). And on top of this I counted all tracks while Richard counted very dark tracks only. Taking all this under consideration, I think that my results neither contradict nor confirm Oriani’s new results. They are not as good as his. I should conduct experiments with chips that also have smaller numbers of preexisting tracks.

4) Discussion:
If I were to take the results of Table 1 seriously (I am not) I would say that the effect has nothing to do with electric current. In that context the first 72-hours-long experiment would be a test, not a control. The only control would be a chip in the air, away from the cell. By taking this attitude I would say that the four chips below the cathode (mean 0.78 tr/cm2/hr and standard deviation 0.30) record something that can not be attributed to background (0.44 tr/cm2/hr). But how can one draw such conclusion from a single set of data? Like Oriani, I should have many controls and many tests. The effect that is only one standard deviation stronger than the background cannot be taken seriously.

The issue of irreproducibility has been discussed by Edmund Storms; his papers can be downloaded from the library at <www.lenr-canr.org>. Storms keeps emphasizing that cold fusion phenomena depend on NAE (Nuclear Active Environment), a mysterious ingredient that has not yet been identified. And he is convinced that the situation will improve rapidly after the NAE is discovered. If he is correct then cold fusion has no precedence in nuclear science. Other phenomena, such as artificial radioactivity, heat generated by radium, neutrons and fission, did become reproducible shortly after they were discovered. On the other hand, one might speculate that the cathode we used in November had more NAE than cathodes we used in March. As an experimentalist I will accept the NAE after it becomes something specific; for the time being it seems to be nothing else but a philosophical idea. For the time being I will expect our cathodes, (made from 99.99% pure nickel) to be interchangeable.

As I indicated above, the discrepancy between our new results might be due to differences in etching and differences in deciding what to count and what not to count. I counted all tracks, large and small, while Oriani counted very dark tracks only. Suppose that tracks that are small, after the first etching, become large after the second etching. In that case old tracks can easily be counted as new tracks. We are currently discussing ways to make our future experiments more compatible and less subjective. Hopefully both of us will arrive to more or less identical conclusion. After studying three different effects (nuclear particles in the liquid, in the vapor and in the air below the cathode), Richard now thinks that we should focus on the third effect because it seems to be the most reproducible.

Return to the list of clickable items