Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein & Bethe-Nov 25 2011

November 25, 2011

Copyright 2011 Lattice Energy LLC All rights reserved Page 1

Subject: were LENRs observed in the early 1950s? Einstein and Bethe got involved in this saga Dear Readers: You may really enjoy reading this amazing tale of a brilliant LENR-related experimental discovery back in 1951 --- followed by its descent into total obscurity. Simply lost and forgotten by mainstream physics. In the history of science, it seems that experimental results that don't somehow fit within some sort of contemporary conceptual paradigm often tend to get ignored. Sadly, in many cases such results are never reported anywhere in peer-reviewed journals for posterity. In that regard, this cover note is combined with scanned page images from Chapter 6 in Dr. Ernest Sternglass' little 1997 book, “Before the Big Bang - the Origin of the Universe.” The excerpted page scans from the above book chapter are those in which Dr. Sternglass describes some enigmatic experiments that he conducted in the Cornell University physics department back in the early 1950s.It recounts his work with an old hydrogen-filled X-ray tube, as well as a subsequent dialogue with Albert Einstein in attempting to understand the (then) utterly inexplicable experimental results. Seven years ago, Sternglass, then in his late 80s, told me over the telephone that (before he had communicated with Einstein about his strange results) the legendary Hans Bethe had looked over his experimental data and was totally baffled too. Nobody at Cornell understood what was happening in the experimental setup that could possibly produce the observed fluxes of neutrons (obviously, ultra low momentum neutrons were not produced in his experiments --- they were more akin to what happens in high-current exploding wires as opposed to what happens in typical P&F aqueous electrolytic cells). So, a baffled Bethe called Einstein on the telephone and asked him to help PhD candidate Sternglass evaluate his unexpected experimental results. The attached chapter taken from Sternglass' book relates that story. What is truly mind boggling about this tale is that Einstein simply looked at Sternglass' data and then immediately realized that the observed neutron production must involve some sort of many-body collective effects with electrons (which we utilize with great explanatory power in our theory of LENRs). Can you believe it --- what a mind Einstein had ---- even at that late stage in his life! At that point (1951), very few physicists really had any idea of what collective effects were about. Well, Einstein surely did. Unfortunately, Ernest's bizarre experimental discovery was simply not pursued any further. In the end, Sternglass didn't heed Einstein's (and Bethe's) strong advice to "be stubborn" and publish the deeply anomalous results. Sternglass' experiments were subsequently lost and largely forgotten by other physicists in the ensuing years, just like the work of chemists Wendt and Irion at the University of Chicago back in 1922 and other related transmutation work published in refereed journals circa 1900 - 1927. Einstein, the only contemporary scientist who had any real inkling of what might be happening in Sternglass' puzzling experiments, died just four years after his interaction with Sternglass on the unexplained neutron fluxes. The only surviving document wherein these intriguing experimental results were ever mentioned was Sternglass' little book published many years later in 1997. In 2006, I stumbled across a copy of it in the $2.99 discount section at Border's bookstore and, curious, just for kicks picked it up to read over the weekend. After reading an amazing chapter (see scanned pages), I immediately called my theoretical collaborators and said, "You guys won't believe what I just found." They were equally amazed. We plan to specifically discuss and explain the 1951 Sternglass/Bethe/Einstein saga in an upcoming paper; it appears that this experimental anomaly is just another aspect of LENRs. Perhaps now, after remaining in obscurity for 60 years, there can finally be some conceptual closure on Sternglass’ long-lost, unpublished experimental results.

November 25, 2011

Copyright 2011 Lattice Energy LLC All rights reserved Page 2

Besides the 1950s-era Sternglass affair, we heard the following story from one of the former graduate students who was directly involved in some amazing experiments: specifically, in the mid-1960s, unexpected neutron production was observed in comparatively low temperature, RF-excited (dusty) deuterium plasma experiments jointly conducted at the University of Florida by the EE and nuclear engineering departments. The well-documented experimental results were so bizarre (significant unexplained neutron fluxes, "heat-after-death" after the electrical power was completely turned-off, etc.) that in the end, the graduate students and faculty involved in the work decided not to even try to publish their work in a refereed journal. It was deemed too controversial and potentially risky for all of their careers. Yes, this could potentially be yet another aspect of LENRs. Incredibly, from ~1905 - 1927 some of the most famous people in British science (Thomson, Ramsay, etc.) episodically reported experimental results that are, in hindsight, obviously the result of LENR nuclear transmutations. The anomalous effects (e.g., appearance of new elements) were observed spectroscopically in various electrical discharge experiments and published in premier refereed journals of that era (e.g., Nature, Proceedings of the Royal Society, etc.). Interestingly, Thomson published a paper in Nature in which he complained about having major problems with experimental reproducibility of such effects. Does this problem sound familiar --- a la the Pons & Fleischmann brouhaha in 1989? Back in the 1920s, nobody had a sensible explanation for anomalous transmutation effects that were being discovered experimentally; so by 1932 (when Chadwick experimentally confirmed the existence of the neutron predicted by Rutherford) the whole area of inquiry had been quietly dropped with little fanfare, many people apparently preferring to pursue 'hotter' contemporary topics such as quantum mechanics. Over the past 100+ years, who knows how many scientists have actually observed different aspects of LENR-related phenomena, could not explain or understand what they saw experimentally, and were then either unable or unwilling to publish such controversial results in well-recognized, peer-reviewed journals. One can only wonder at what may have been lost to science. Lewis Larsen President and CEO Lattice Energy LLC Chicago, IL USA 1-312-861-0115 Scanned pages from Sternglass’ 1997 book follow

BEFORE THE BIG BANGTHE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE

By Ernest]. Sternglass

To see the world in a grain of sand,

And heaven in a wild flower;

Hold infinity in the palm ofyour hand,

And eternity in an hour.

-Auguries ofInnocence,

William Blake (1789)

FOUR WALLS EIGHT WI DOWS EW YORK/LONDON

To Marilyn, who made everything possible

© 1997 Ernest J. Sternglass

Published in the United States by:Four Walls Eight Windows39 WeSI14th Street, room 503

New York, N.Y.,1001l

U.K. offices:FourWalls Eight Windows/Turnaround

UnilJ. OlympiaTrading EstateCoburg Road, Wood GreenLondon N22 6TZ, England

First priming OclObcr 1997.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced. stored in a data base or other retrievalsystem, or transmilted in any form, by any means,including lllcchanical, electronic, photocopying,recording, or otherwise, without 'he prior writtenpermission of the publisher.

Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:Sccrnglass. Ernest J.Before the big bang: the urigins urthe universel by

Ernest J. Sternglass.p. em.Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISDN 1-56858-087-8

t. Matter-History. 2. Matter-Mathematical models.

:.\. Cosmology. 4. Panicles {Nuclear physicsl-History.5. Physicists-Correspondencc. I. Tille.

QC171.2.sB4 1997

523.1·2-DC21 97'26395CIf>

1098765432

Printed in the United StatesIllustrations by Brian J. LoprcstiText design and composition by Ink, Inc., New York

7fi BEfORf THE BIG BoIIlG

This historical vlcwofthc cydical changes ofscientific ideas gave me

hope thai overthe courseoflhe years, a newcra ofunification ofour theo_

ries on the nature of mailer and the evolution of the universe would COme

about, and that it was mostlikcly to involve electromagnetic concepts, as

Lorentz had belicved to the end of his life. But this dcvclopmenl would

take a long time, during which I would have to be able to earn a living in a

·cobbler's job~ while working on the theoretical and conceptual problems

of physical theory on the sid~, as Einstein had urged me to do. I realized

that I would need an advanced degree. I had 10\'00 living in scenic Imaca

with its deep gorges and waterfalls whilc pursuing my undergraduate

studies at Cornell, and so Idecided to return there while keeping my posi­

tion at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. coming back to Washinh'ton dur­

ing the summers and using my work on secondary electron emission for

my thesis subject.

CHAPTER 6

"BE STUBBORN"

IN EARLY 1949, J returned to Cornell for graduate studies in the newly

fonned program of Engineering Physics. The university had attracted

some of the world's most outstanding scientists to its faculty, many of

whom bad been involved in the Manhattan Project that developed the

atomic bomb. Among these was Richard Feynman, the brilliant, brash

young theoretical physicist who had been instrumental in developing

new methods of computing in Hans Hethe's theoretical division at Los

Alamos. Bethe had been instrumental in bringing Feynman to Cornell

shortly after the end of the war in 1945. Feynman shared an office with

Philip Morrison, who had also worked on the atomic bomb at Los Alamos,

and who agreed to serve as my principal adviser in theoretical physics

on my thesis committee. Feynman sometimes joined my discussions

with Morrison about the nature of the neutron and the mesons newly

discovered in cosmic rays. This brief acquaitancc led me, a decade later,

to work out the mathematical details of an electromagnetic model for

the mesons that turned out to be the basis for the Lemaitre atom.

I had originally hoped to do my thesis work on the theory of secondary

electron emission under Hethe. Hethe was most widely known for his work

on the nuclear reactions in stars that produced the heavier elements from

hydrogen, accounting for the source of their energy along lines similar to

those studied by Garnow. Bethe had also vvritten some definitive papers on

energy loss offast particles passing through atoms, elaborating on the work

ofe. G. Darwin and the pioneering studies of Niels Bohr. Secondary emis­

sion works like a cue ball striking the racked balls on a pool table; fast "pri­

mary electrons" strike the surface ofa solid and eject other secondary elec­

trons from the atoms they hi!. Gradually, the primary or incident electrons

n

. h

WhE~n I taJlla~Cl

sec~onQaly .......'""....I.I~U~ emissiio.n

n~'L",II."'"

n emllSS10n

~BeStllbborn~ 79

nomenon that I was able to work out in the foUowing two years formed

the subject of my doctoral thesis. My work on secondary emission in the

case of insulators such as potassium chloride, which I had begun to

study at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, later led to a job at theWesting'

house Research Laboratories. A new family of detectors in high energy

accelerators, used to study panicles similar to the mesons, eventually

resulted from the phenomena involving this simple salt. Years later, thin

foils carrying a layer of potassium chloride in powdered fonn were used

to store electrical charges, making possible a new type of television tube

to transmit ultraviolet images and spectra of Stars from the first orbiting

observatories in space. The same type of camera tubes-whlch I also

worked on, decades later--allowed us to witness the first steps ofa human

on the moon as this historic event was actually taking place.

At Cornell. I worked under the guidance of Philip Morrison, a far­

sighted and open-minded Individual. Ten years or so younger than

Gamow, Morrison shared with him an enormous enthusiasm and ability

to make complex ideas vividly clear, both to his students and to the gen­

eral public. Morrison had a wide interest in science, te<:hnology and the

history of ideas reaching far beyond the field of theoretical physics, in

which he had received his doctorate under Roben Oppenheimer, who

directed the development of the atomic bomb. Morrison was willing to

listen patiently to the unconventional ideas of some of his students,

never discouraging them but always coming up with probing questions

that touched the heart of the problem.

Morrison had been involved firsthand with the difficult and danger­

ous task of designing and assembling the plutonium cores of the first

two implosion·type nuclear bombs at LDs Alamos, and had also been

among the first Amcrican scientists to visit Hiroshima just aftcr the

Japanese surrender. He was deeply committed to warning the public

and politicians of the need to prevent another world war. As a result, he

became one of the foundcrs afthe federation ofAmerican SCientists, an

organi7..8tion dedicated to peace. MOrTison wrote numerous articles to

describe the horrors he had seen in Japan, not just those produced by

G

an B-29

o

·i on'

bsb._

-- p

. mic

a' ndr' d

-aids. ;

"

_ a e,o,v-r,,,"'ding

-donedthi

h rh b

, bYJo'

a . 'h ,..H't'·n,...,.1

omical co............... ·.,.,.,

eov d 0

tIl ppli d

on roy

in

e

am

ard

-5) n

d· trObuLion 0'

uggesi[e

v ar r truet re of mny up

rotated. I realized ha this model wa uppored by de Vaucouleurs l

views. The univers appears to be a -'ghly 0 dered hierarchical sys e ­

composed of fO ati ,g systems of increa ing size,. as first envisioned by

Immanue Kant 0 hundred years ago, rat er than a random collection

ofgalaxie .

Ruhin eventually b came a wide y respected astronomer~wo king a

th Carnegie In ti utian in Washington, .C. Using electronic image

intensifiers. rOed au by - er colleague Ken Ford as a way 0 improve

upon e limi· ed s ~ nsitivity of photographic film, Rubin pioneered the

study of he rotation ofgalaxies. A decade after leaving Cornell,. I' ad an

opportunity to try out a ew type of electronic image intensifier wi h

Ford at the Lowell Observatory in lagstaff Arizona, based on the work

on seeD clary electron emission fro insulating cry als that I had

begun a the avaJ Ordnance Laboratory; By e early 19705" the work of

R bin and Ford on the rotation of galaxies had provided the most con­

vincing observational evidencetha these gi,gan ic systems of stars were

. urrounded by an enormous halo of invisible 'dark matter" of an

unknown nature for which the electromagnetic theory of mass had

mscu sed with Einstein in Pr· ceton and later with Morrison and Feyn­

man at Cor. e offered a po sible' ,explanation.

As controversial as, the idea ofrotating s perdus'e s or even a rotat­

. g universe were when Rubin and I at in Morrison's class on moder_

physics at Cornell, I learned ofan even more controversial theory about

the nature of he universe through a lecture by the vi iting British

astronome ! homa Gold. Gold, who a. few years ater joined the ver­

s"ty's Astronomy Department, to,gether with· ermann Bondi and Fred

oyle at Cambridge University in Englan' did not like the idea of a Big

Bang a a singular occurre ce, as advanced by Lemar re and Gamow;

nstead, in a series of pap s published a few years after World War II,

Go d, Bondi and Hoyle proposed the radical idea that the universe was

in a eady s ate of constant xpansion that had been go~ngon orever

and would continu expanding indefinitely. They based this concept on

what th y called the uPerfect Co· ological Principle'" aceD ding I 0

,8 BEFOR 'I' EIU; . NIG

hi h the Wl"V rse i no onl the smne

our I poc bu, also th

ine

la-

nation ~or ,a pro e

LO''''....'.... oren

p

u

ig

d

.1 no

nom r

eoryofth,e

t thi

0' d

tha,

p .-t-.ouetb.atdidno viomat, th_la so conserva ~ollof

and energy-o th idaofn rna, ter continuousl appearing au, 0'

j n ..h,.d out t b imporra. tome,. h s eady-tat· eorytsid a th· '~ go on fOIi ver " as ba do,. L itt jan'

arnow's d , in ,omb"' a ., n" ubinJs " d ule r· I c n-

elusion that the system of galaxies to which the Milky Way belongs

seemed to be rotating.

Th controversyat Cornell about Rubin's results was allowed byone I

caused in the physics department the next year. eriment at began

in 1951 in pursuitofan electromagn tic model for e neutro . s· owed that

neu ons could apparently b form d from proton an el ctro s at v

lowe ergie ,far belowthe energyprediete - by . e cxi ·ng thee .

T ·e idea for thi xperiment 0 curred to me· (leading about _

search or the n utron by Ru -erford and Cha .ck d . g th decad

after: utherford had first premed its existence in·, .early 920S. I

found that Chadwick had a one time looked fOJ!'these e sive neutral

massive co stituents of the nuclei ofall atoms in a drogen- 'ed - _c­

trical discharge tube. . ube was imilar 0 old ga -discharg typ

o --ray tub syst m I had s n in a baseme laboratory of Lyman Par-

,0 e of th senior memb of th p ysics de artm -nt a Cornell,

who ad also work d on the a ornie bomb project. Such a gas-discharge

,b op rate lik a modern fluore ce tamp, b ing nothing mu h

mor than a tube fill ~ d -wi .a gas t a low I ressur to whkh vol age'

applied at the ends where et w· es fus into the glass, conduc: ing

electric charges that aJ a a curent 0 pass through the gas. Bll . - s ead

ofapplying one or two hundred 'Volt or 0 as do pI sen -day fiuore c nt

lamp in the ' ady years of X-ray· dies such tubes were operated at

many ousand of vo 1S. Electron em ~ .-ed from the negatie e d,

called the ca hode, would be accelerated and strike th electrode at the

positive end or anode, thereby generating X-rays. It was exactly so tha

X-rays were accidentally discovered by Wilhel Conrad Rontgent who

used this type of gas-discharge tube in his labora ory at the U 'versity of

Wilrzburg ._·Bavaria in1895.

Based on the theoretical work of C. G. Darwin, the mathema-·c·an

who worked with Rutherford when he discoveredthemassjvepro on in

the nucleu 0 atoms, I p culat d a· 0' rar oe a '.0' s an lemoncom.ing sufficie' tly close to a p oton might be captured to for a ne -

·0·. vidently; thi idea had occuri'd to ' uterfo d an Chadwi -k in

84 BE r H

r t1et:ect

u ron-in.....' "w,",,,",,u

no

discclvelv

utth

'n

eC ,ie, __ I, daugh ,er

ar' iall- radioac,:uri

ould be m to c

eutron .

neu1:rOI1S

h

a d

extlect:ation

h d

fa

tomi

'ete~rre<1 to a

vear-sla er ........ ,1" .... ""

, lin,

orand indi :

, ac

In

rod""";",,",

fth

ga

00. ,U

nd'

o

f th n-utr

e on Q~ieci

["r">'... n ....,.. I a I .

ee.to

o

proton. an electron and a neutrino as worked out by Fermi, there, ~ no

ance that such all. ,experim, nt could po s' 1y suec ed. The neutron

was believed to ave a ass so lar~e that it would t·e an ,electrol ace ­

era d to abou 780, 0000 ts to produc i. But the power' u pi of Par­

rate X-ray tub wouidonIyprovid about3S, 000 vo " I som ,twenty-two

ti e less., .everthe1ess. the neutrino had ot yet be,en direc yobserved

to ens , and i ,was possible. eutrons did no au. a e exactly the same

,m,ass under all conditions. C. G. Darwins calculations indicated ilia n "

trons might beform,ed bycapturing an electron even at low energies.

The likelihood that I would be able to produce neutrons was very

small, and in retrospect it was amazing that I was allowed to carry oU'

the experim,ent at all. It was only the open-mindedness ofMorrison and

Parratt that made it pass'b e. And so,wben after the very first few .xper' ~

men s with p blocks piled a ou d silver and indi' m oils close- to

the- old bras X-ray tub howe .i, S of radioa.ctivity thirty to fif y per­

c llt abov' th normal background of the detecto many of my co ­

leag .-es could not believe this was du to neutrons being fonned from

low energy ele ro· .and p ·oton .

As I excitedly explained in a Ie- .ter that I 'wrote to Eins ein .at the end

ofAugust 1951; the results could no be explained by the acfon ofcas'mic

rays forming: ne tro ; because none were detected when no voltage

was applied to the tube.. It co d al 0 not be e plaind by contami . anonof the metal electrodes in the tube. . had replaced m,atedals a could

give rise 0 n uno "wid .wly machin d parts. The po s" ility tha •. a.

mall normal admixt re of deuted m, a. orm 0 heavy hydroge_ ~ was

e sourc'e of neutrons was eliminated both theoretically and subse­

quently 'Y deliberately adding known, amounts 0 till gas andm asur­

ing th . eutron produc ion rate. To ev,eryo . I con cr a i .n,. no one' i ~

he phy· d partme was ab _ to sugg t a. known nuclear reaction

that might xplain tb ob rved ac ivity~

] Inentioned in my lie er to Einstein that in ord . r to improve the ability

to detect neutrons,. two of the facul, Giuseppe Cocconi and Kenneth

reisen, had offered '0 take' the indi.um foils with their' onger lived activity

86 BEfORf THf BIG BANG

of 54 minutes to a nearby salt mine, where they were carrying out cosmic

ray experiments and the background count rate was much less than Iwas

able to produce with six. inches of lead to shield my counters in Rockefeller

Hall. This was in fact done a few weeks later, although the first effort to

speed the process of gelling the foils to the counters two thousand feet

below the surface by dropping them between two pieces ofplywood ended

in minor disaster when the foil crumpled upon hitting the ground. Chas­

tened, we used the elevator to get the foils down to the counters in the mine

over the next few weeks, and the evidence for neutrons being formed in the

discharge lube continued to show up.

Afew days after' sent my letter to Einstein, a reply arrived that did in

fact conlain a possible explanation of my anomalous result with rather

disheartening implications for my attempt to do without the neutrino.

After pointing out that an electron would have to acquire an energy of

780,000 volts to form a neutron, Einstein suggested that perhaps more

than the energy produced by the applied potential might become avail·

able if more than one electron were to give up its energy to a prOton at

the same time, something that is conceivable according 10 quantum

theory. He ended his letter by saying that since the results of the experi­

ments were dearly important, further pursuit of the method would be

necessary. He also raised the question whether it might not be advanta­

geous to use an electron beam of known energy, and let it fallon a solid

target such as paraffin that contained hydrogen so that the energy of the

electrons could be brought under bener control.

I answered Einstein and explained why I thought that even at rela­

tively low energies neutrons might be formed if they had slightly differ­

ent masses, an idea that I fell had nO[ been completely ruled out. I did in

fact follow Einstein's suggeslions, further experimenting with the gas­

discharge tube at Cornell for a few more months. I presented my results

at a meeting of the Journal Club of the Physics Department later that fall.

The improved sensitivity by doing the measurements ofthe indium foils

in the salt mine continued to indicate the production of neutrons, but

no one could find any explanation othcr than t.hat suggeslcd by EinSlcin.

By the end of the fall semester, it became' clear that I had to give up my

efforts for the fme behg in order to finish mywork on s:econdary emis­

s'on so as to get my doctoral degree.

1\vo y ars later th - experiment w:~s independen y repea ed by

Edwar Thou so ~ at physicist and friend ofmine at the Naval Ordn _. ce

abomtory; \!'li,th . • ar Ie u1 . But when om niney ars later at - e

Westinghouse Research Labor-a orie ,Jall bad an opportunity to

carry 0 t th exp' -rimen with a separate electron beam intera ting with

botb solid and gaseou targ- -, in th form suggested by Einstein. no

neutrons we- e produced.

To this day;, just exactly how neu 0 can be formed at much. ower

energie -an expected in the complex environmen .of a gas-discharge

tube remains a -- ystery; Neutrinos were fin.ally detected in 1956 by -ed­

erick Reines and Clyde Cowan, Since then,. they have been observed in

high energy accelerators, coming from the Sun and more distan. stars.,

but there remains an unresolved puzzle a.bout their production de p in

the interior ofstars, n the coursle of thirty..six years ofexperim,ents since

1960, despite increasingly sophisticated exp,ernnents, only half as many

neutrinos have been observed as would be expected on the basis of the­

ories for he Sun's energy production. Since: the condition in th - interior

of the Sun are somewhat analogous to those in a high voltage hydrogen

discharge such asl used at Cornell; there may be some surprises await­

ing us relating to the so~calledfusion processes tha', produce the ,energy

inst3Isinvolvingthe for,mafon ofheliwn from hydrogen, on the course

ofwhich both neutrons and neutrinos are produced.

Although phys~calmeehanismby which neutron were fo d

in m' expe iment remained u e .a'" e· and my findings were .a

source of gr at controversy; I was not discouraged in my ffo _ to pur­

'u Ie tromagn tic mode ,for th n utron and th man· ne par'de

l e. b ing dicovr. seI'es of large nuclear par-'de accelerators

went into 0 e, ation at various universities during the three years ofmy

g,raduate work a 0 n.elL And my studies in the history and philosopby

of de ce convincedme that a periodofgreat confusion, when many new

om n

weaknu 1

till 1 0

nsacCOlrtl

1r"'~lIrAHn

aha d-

lectr1omalgne1ocino

·aet_

In fa

in Weh neutr'

at

syIlthesis. \l\rnen CC:>WleC-tjon

for. on

. tUn

- on--are

......u. .....er

ory

ora unJllle

th-ory a

om

er to

aj =- t,

ical ' eory priva

o

to

.oth

cad - m

tro

I

e

ear I gav- - a1k I n my _'ork a e e­

,a - m --ing . I e P'. leal

wa, ,P oa -0 '~:. are ,rebr work-

"'Be tubbor. 11 8··

lC,X-

e .oin- fluo ..

ana

, lee, mean ofth

t'the

m he . -wouldb-'if ,. tensi-

cen ,'ere .

ro· opic exaLIni

va uum1· .' esc:

pI' in

on'h

phot-

beF

res ratory wa·

o 'U _U

a fi· j h 'writing' . the i

tal 'e. - - b jng b .

on I" -rofl 52.

r'ust

ID[lere:stlI:li re~sea:rch 0 pra-

l"I.h"'lr1J....~1 th -

d

tical

g Of',