Science Forums 2

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Rade

You can read the Navy paper for free here:

http://www.newenergytimes.com/Librar...ipleTracks.pdf

Thanks for the reference, which gave me a chance to read this paper, “Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd–D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons” by Pamela A. Mosier-Boss & Stanislaw Szpak & Frank E. Gordon & Lawrence P. G. Forsley.

This 2008/2009 paper references a 2007 EPJ Appl Phys paper by the same authors, "Use of CR-39 in Pd–D co-deposition experiments", which can be read here. The 2008/2008 paper doesn’t completely summarize the experiment, while the 2007 paper does, including the triple tracks most discussed in the 2007 paper. The major difference between the two papers appears to me to be

• The 2007 paper finds several double pits, and only a single triple pit, which is described as “the two side pits are splitting away from the central pit”, while the 2008/2009 paper finds more triple tracks with a more symmetrical shape, though still “The number of triple tracks observed in these CR-39 detectors is very low. It is estimated that less than ten such tracks are present on each detector”, some, inexplicably, on the surface of the GR-39 detector facing away from the cathode (?!).
• The 2008/2009 paper suggests the triple tracks are due to carbon shattering, while the 2007 paper suggests only that they appear to have been made by alpha particles

The experiments in both papers involve long exposures (2 to 5 weeks) of the CR-39 detector, which is placed as closely as possible to a palladium-plated gold cathode without interfering with its absorption of deuterium (hydrogen-2). It was repeated under many different conditions, including control experiments with a know alpha particle source, radioactive americium-241, in place of the H-2 saturated Pd, and experiments to rule out the possibility of contamination with unknown radioisotopes.

The strongest evidence the triple tracks observed with the Pd cathode are due to alpha particles is their similarity to the single tracks observed with the Am-241.

Originally Posted by Rade

Thank you for the reply. I have many questions about the published Navy experiment.

The hypothesis of the Navy, that the 3-pit patterns they see (obviously they do see them) is from breakup of Carbon-12----does that hypothesis make sense to you

Yes. I think it’s a reasonable, but still speculative, hypothesis.

An important detail is that the “shattered” carbon nuclei is not from of the H-2 saturated Pd plated cathode, but from the CR-39 detector material itself, which is a plastic polymer of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. My understanding of nuclear chemistry isn’t adequate for me to more than guess, but I guess that shattered oxygen (8 protons and 8 to 10 neutrons) wouldn’t consistently produce 3 identical tracks, while hydrogen, of course, can’t produce more than 1 track.

Originally Posted by Rade

Would it not mean that Carbon-12 must have three alpha pre-existing, and not N and P in independent nuclear shells? ...

No. I don’t believe the “carbon shattering” suggested in the paper conflicts with the nuclear shell model.

It’s important to understand that the nuclear shell model is essentially a classical approximation of the quantum physical interactions that occur in a nucleus, so should not be though of as describing protons, neutrons, and their binding gluons having definite positions, but rather as a “smeared out” collection of probabilities of a given particle being detected in a given position at a given instant. In essence, each sub-atomic particle may be though of as being wherever it had to be for an observed event to have occurred.

Originally Posted by Rade

Can you think of other ways a 3-pit pattern could be formed in such an experiment ?

Mosier-Boss and her co-authors suggest several such possible explanations.

My favorite is that the triple tracks are due to the same particles that form the single and double tracks in the CR-39. It would be helpful and interesting, I think, to run some computer simulations of track-making, and compare the results to Mosier-Boss et. al’s actuals, something that, from what I’ve read, has not yet been done.

In short, I think Mosier-Boss et. al. have done good work, but are far from being able to suggest more than very speculative explanations for their results.

Originally Posted by Rade

To correct a misunderstanding of the journal "Naturwissenschaften" where the Navy experiment was published. This is not a journal of biology--in the past Einstein and Heisenberg published in this journal, it is well respected.

I didn’t intend to cast aspersions upon "Naturwissenschaften", which is, as Rade states, an old and respected journal, nor on Mosier-Boss et. al, who I think have done good work. However, I stand by my characterization of it as

Originally Posted by CraigD

Naturwissenschaften, is an “interdisciplinary” journal usually focusing on biology and biology-related subjects, so is not a very good place for a paper like Mosier-Boss et all’s, as it isn’t read by the most expert people, and may not have been reviewed by a specialist prior to publication

I base this characterization on the Journal’s above linked description page, which begins

Naturwissenschaften - The Science of Nature - is Springer’s flagship multidisciplinary science journal covering all aspect of the natural sciences. The journal is dedicated to the fast publication of high-quality research covering the whole range of the biological, chemical, geological, and physical sciences. Particularly welcomed are contributions that bridge between traditionally isolated areas and attempt to increase the conceptual understanding of systems and processes that demand an interdisciplinary approach. However, this does not exclude the publication of high-quality topical articles, which will continue to be the core of the journal.

its listed “subject collection”, “Biomedical and Life Sciences ”, the scientific specialties of its editors-in-chief, Sven Thatje and Tatiana Czeschlik, Biology and Psychology, and a glance at the table of contents of the issues containing the Mosier-Boss et. al. paper (Jan 2009) and 2 others (Oct 2008 and Apr 2009). Only 1 of these issue’s 53 articles, the Mosier-Boss et. al paper, is not about biology. I think it’s reasonable, therefore, to conclude that most of the journal’s regular readers expect papers about biology, not nuclear chemistry, and that few nuclear chemistry experts regularly read it.