Let us be perfectly clear here. Have you read the original conference report? The link you provided was not the original research. It was an informal summary!tomclarke wrote:It is better conducted than the originalTo summarize the discussion:
You link me an experiment you consider "well done" that tried to replicate an effect observed on tungsten cathodes that did't even use a tungsten cathode and looks like it was conducted in about a week by amateurs.
The debunking paper you linked did not use a tungsten cathode. Do you understand what this means? It means that there could never be tungsten mediated cold fusion because there was no tungsten! The paper you linked was by definition not a replication and definitely not well done.
They did not say they were verifying, they said their system could be verified by mossbauer. Why do you twist words to skew things to your point of view? It is as if you are peddling a point of view rather than examining the evidence.I think the cost of equipment has no relationship to the quality of argument a research paper. I hope you do too. Using the most advanced instrumentation is great, because it allows detection of ever smaller quantities of contaminants. In this case that detection is not clear (even the authors admit not clear for one of the possible results). I'd want somone who knew this stuff well to comment before believing that the other result was clear.I link you a paper that represents years of work and a few hundred thousand dollars of research that utilized the most advanced spectroscopic instrumentation available and you don't even read and understand it before dismissing it.
BTW, they said they were verifying the Sm result with Mossbauer. have they?
Do me a favor, explicitly describe what you would consider a control. I would suggest that a sample with an MgO rather than CaO barrier/lattice matching layer that shows no transmutation under the exact same procedure qualifies. It eliminates contamination from everything but the CaO layer, which is ruled out by the SIMS depth profile data.Summary:
No before/after comparison
No theory for why +8 (and nothing else) should happen
v expensive eqpt
There are not one but 3 before and after comparisons in the paper: XPS, SIMS and XRF. One can clearly see one peak growing and the other declining! Explain how that can be the result of contamination.
The fact that there is no theory presented does not mean that the experiment is wrong. Does it make high temperature superconductivity disappear? Are you even a scientist!?