This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links

379) A rejected manuscript.

Ludwik Kowalski

Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA
October 2, 2009

1) My manuscript with comments on new SPAWAR results, submitted last spring, has been rejected today. The pdf version of the manuscript can be downloaded from

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/379spawar2.pdf

I hope it will be useful to those who are studying tracks observed in codeposition experiments.

2) Here is my general observation:

Conclusion
SPAWAR experimental CR-39 results are reproducible, as demonstrated in The Galileo Project [10]. Participants disagreed about interpretation of results [11,4] but everyone who used the SPAWAR protocol observed the same kind of pits as reported in [1]. That is very significant. It means that an acceptable explanation of reported facts will be found, sooner or later. Experimental data, presented by competent scientists, must be taken seriously, even when they seem to conflict with generally accepted ideas. The accepted idea, in this situation, is that a nuclear process cannot be triggered by a chemical process, such as electrolysis. The author of this note believes that rejections of claims, made by Ph.D. scientists, who publish regularly in refereed journals, should not be made only on the basis of conflicts with currently accepted ideas. They should be made on the basis of hard evidence. Experiments supporting rejections should be examined as critically as those validating unexpected claims. What is needed is an organized attempt, similar to The Galileo Project, to replicate the protocol in which the detector is located outside the electrolytic cell.


3) The letter of rejection (see below) contains extracts from comments made by three referees.

Dear Dr Kowalski,

Your manuscript: “Chemically-induced Nuclear Activity or an Illusion ?” has been carefully considered by the referees of The European Physical Journal-AP. As you can see on the enclosed reports, the referees have raised serious concerns regarding its suitability for publication.

I therefore regret to inform you that your manuscript has not been accepted for publication. Thank you very much for having submitted your article to our journal and I hope that you will nevertheless consider EPJ-AP for the publication of your future articles.

************************
Referee 1:

This paper criticizes a work done by P.A. Mosier-Boss, S. Szpak, F.E. Gordon, and L.P.G. Forsley showing the presence of pits in CR39 foils during electrolysis. The point raised by the author is the interpretation of the pits diameter. According to the original work, they estimate that they are due to alpha particles, whereas the author of this paper shows that they are due to heavier particles.

This paper does not object the nuclear origin of the pits, but only the origin of.

Referee 2:
The paper represents a criticism on the works of SPAWAR group on in-situ charged particle detection with the CR-39track detectors during electrodeposition of Pd, published in EPJAP earlier {see ref. [1-3]). Desipte the fact that, in my opinion, these works are really deserve to be critisized,  the manuscript AP09225 is not suitable for publication in EPJAP in its present form. Indeed, the presented paper brings nothing new either from theoretical, or in terms of experimental point of view.  No new experimental data are presented. So, the graph in Fig.1 is representing a rebuilding of the experimental data obtained with Van DeGraaf accelerator for protons and already published by A.G.Lipson, A.S. Roussetski, and E.I. Saunin. ? Analysis of #2 Winthrop Williams' CR-39 detector after SPAWAR/Galileo type electrolysis experiment?. Proc. of 8th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals. 2007. Sicily, Italy. (in the same book as ref. [9], cited by author).

Thus, this paper cannot be considered as original one. Moreover, the paper is written in the style of popular article (not acceptable for serious publication in scientific journal). In a much shorter version this paper could be considered for submission as a Comment on the works [1,2,3] by P. Moseir-Boss et al, recently published in EPJAP. However, Kowalski has already published his similar comment on some of those papers in EPJAP {see ref. [5] of this reviewed paper). Therefore, it is  clear that  presented paper does not correspond to the EPJ standards. This is why, the presented manuscript cannot be published in EPJAP.  

Referee 3:

In fact I spend some time trying to find out what are the arguments and real conclusions. They speak about nuclear effects, but the observation looks like a simple electrolyses. I showed the image to a chemist: he said all our bathes look like that. I just suggest to submit the article to a chemist journal.

This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links