I would like to direct your attention to a paper describing how my theory relates to the Mizuno method. This paper and other related information can be found at LENRexplained.com (http://lenrexplained.com/2019/…rocess-and-storms-theory/). I'm sticking my neck out anticipating that the Mizuno method will be successfully replicated. If so, this paper anticipates how the method can be explored and used to support my model. I offer my theory as the only one that shows a consistent relationship between a plausible NAE and the nature of the nuclear reaction while being totally consist with all observations. The idea might be wrong, or at least incomplete, but it does provide a path to understanding about how and why LENR occurs. Hopefully, this paper will generate enough interest for this idea to be discussed in detail.

I would like to comment on the present subject of interest, i.e. codeposition. This is nothing more than a variation of the electroplating process about which a great deal is known because Pd was used as a coating on electrical contacts when it was cheaper than gold. Several efforts, including Coolesence and my studies, were made to replicate the claim by SPAWAR without success. This is not an easy method to replicate because too many of the variable are unknown and can not be controlled. As is common in this field, no effort is made to understand the basic chemistry of a process. For example, an assumption was made by SPAWAR that Cl2 was generated at the anode when actually CLO was produced, which would change the calculations on which excess energy was based. We see this same lack of insightful understanding when attempts were made to replicate the Rossi claim. At no time did Rossi actually use the claimed heating of Ni+LiAl4, yet people spent a lot of wasted time exploring this method without paying any attention to the behavior that would be expected and to the method Rossi actually used As result, Rossi is considered a fraud while the real evidence is ignored.

Quote from Shane D.

There appears to be a consensus forming around the Takahashi, SPAWAR experiments...does everyone agree? Note: I did not add Mizuno, because Trevithick asked us not to consider. He will get the info he needs on that at Assisi next month.

If you agree we are approaching a consensus, then maybe it will be more productive from now on to hold those two up as the gold standard for contending experiments to be measured against? If someone thinks there is a stronger candidate, then present your argument to the forum. Go category by category and explain the; type, quality, replication history, publications, availability of research data, accessibility to the author/s, and how each compare to, or exceeds the gold standards?

In the end, if Takahashi/SPAWAR survives against all challengers, TG will have our final choices (we get 3, so we can add another) for what we believe will give them the best chance to prove LENR. If not, we have 3 better choices. Win-win.

On Takahashi, is it this we talk about?

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…CF21AkitoTakahashippt.pdf

It reminds me of the Mitchell Schwartz Nanor device, both seems to be composites of ZrO2,Ni, Pd loaded with Deturerium.....

So why not also include Schwartz here...

Quote from Dr Richard

Using a Dewar-type electrochemical cell/calorimeter, it
2
was shown that the rates of excess enthalpy generation using electrodes prepared by the Pd/D codeposition technique were higher than that obtained when Pd bulk electrodes were used.6

I'd like to point out the above sentence which shows that in 2008 F&P open cell calorimetry was still considered very reliable and effective, even by the experts at SPAWAR.

I also suggest to look at reference:

6. S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, M.H. Miles, and M. Fleischmann, ‘Thermal Behavior of Polarized Pd/D Electrodes Prepared by Co-Deposition’, Thermochim. Acta, Vol. 410, pp. 101-107 (2004).

Figure 1 of the aforementioned article (1) shows the Dewar-type calorimeter used in this work carried out in 2002 (date of submission to Thermochim. Acta). This open cell is identical to the 4 cells used in the "1992 boil-off experiment". Therefore, replications of the co-deposition tests performed at SPAWAR could be easily coupled to the reproduction of the boil-off test performed with other more simple cathodes, made of bulk Pd or even Pt. Most of the lab equipment would be the same.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to understand why two phenomena such as "heat after death" - which was claimed to occur "at high temperatures (in the vicinity of 100°C)" (2) – and "positive feedback" - which was put in relation with "the rapid increases in temperature towards the boiling point" (3) – were also been claimed to be obtained at much lower temperatures, not greater than 320 K (47 °C), as shown in Figure 2 of (1).

So, why not, replication of both the "1992 boil-off experiment" and the "2002 co-deposition test" would be a good way to optimize time and resources devoted by the Team Google to this initiative.

(1) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v…31.6578&rep=rep1&type=pdf

(2) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsSheatafterd.pdf

(3) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…ds/2018/08/140__ICCF5.pdf

Quote from Storms

.....

We see this same lack of insightful understanding when attempts were made to replicate the Rossi claim. At no time did Rossi actually use the claimed heating of Ni+LiAl4, yet people spent a lot of wasted time exploring this method without paying any attention to the behavior that would be expected and to the method Rossi actually used As result, Rossi is considered a fraud while the real evidence is ignored.

I replicated the Lugano Effect using no “fuel” at all. Solid ceramic. “COP” of 7.2 using Lugano methodology.

So did the MFMP. “COP” of approximately 4, not publicly claimed, but easily calculated from their data. That one had no “fuel” either.

Although we do not wish to aggravate gentlemen such as yourself here, I don’t think that you should be immune to the truth. Rossi is a distraction from the facts. Poison to the facts, really.

Quote from Drgenek

For example, the following fusion on a catalyst transmutationreaction is accurate to about 15 parts in 3000: 2 0 + 14 D goes to 4 N + 4 H. Whatwas in the before reaction sample, what was in the after-reaction sample, howmany units of oxygen and deuterium disappear and how much nitrogen and hydrogenappear and to what accuracy those are hard facts. They were derived by reasonableassumptions applied to real data from Santilli’s intermediate fusion pending patent,US 2012/0033775 A1.

I do not think that reaction occurs in cold fusion. It would be easy to detect if it did, but it doesn't. Santilli claims it does, but that is not proof.

This is a little like saying "it should be easy to detect cold fusion from the neutrons." It would be, if cold fusion were plasma fusion and it produced neutrons, but it doesn't.

Quote from oystla

Huxley, you should read a litle more what F&P themselves stated .

During the 80's they had to run many parallell cells, in the hope that one of them indicated burst of heat after weeks of electrolysis.

In their later work I believe it was 1 of 8 cells that showed exces heat Events.

So, no, bulk Pd/D is not straight forward tests.

And You you would NEVER go straight to boil off experiment before identifying cathodes that had proven excess heat allready at lower temps.

Also, SPAWAR cells can go wrong. Researchers that fx started off with too high current got codeposition that flaked and falled off the electrode. So If they started very carefully, low current for a period, the co-dep had improved success rate compared to F&P cells.

Display More

None of this is straightforward tests. The question is what will most likely work. I'm sympathetic to co-deposition, if the evidence exists for it working better (rather than just having a one setup calorimetry artifact), since it is sort of the same thing as D/Pd.

No-one is saying you should go straight for boil-off without testing for excess heat (except possibly ascoli, and he will only be saying it because he follows statement from F&P in their paper).

1 in 8 is fine, google test hundreds, and would note 1 in 8 or even 1 in 50 positives.

None of the other options have anything like the credibility in terms of independent replication that D/Pd has. AFAIK. Maybe Takahashi does but I'm unclear - these were all labs working in the same project, might share the same methods and not be skeptical of each others results?

Quote from orsova

If bulk Pd/D is the best option, and it may well be, then a compelling argument in its favour would weigh it against the other experiments and explain why it is preferable.

I do not think it is the best option, but you might argue that it is, for two reasons:

It is the most widely replicated version so we can be sure it is real; and

The method was described in detail by Storms and Cravens.

It is very difficult and time consuming, as noted.

Well that's a bummer! Check out the Coolescence website showing a variety of failed replications including SPAWAR's C39 work being artifacts. Thanks to Ed Storms for pointing this out - maybe this just leaves the Takahashi group's work then, assuming they are willing to supply the complex nano structured Pd/Ni/ZrO or Cu/NI/ZrO catalytic materials. Coolescence ran for a few years with an expert team investigating LENR but achieved absolutely no positive results.

http://www.Coolescence.com

I suppose there's some hope for the SPAWAR data then - perhaps with the powerful alliance you suggest Forsley could now propose the ultimate TG experiment. Expert advice from the most recent research at this point could save the day.

Quote from Dr Richard

maybe this just leaves the Takahashi group's work then, assuming they are willing to supply the complex nano structured Pd/Ni/ZrO or Cu/NI/ZrO catalytic materials.

They are not willing to supply this material, as far as I know. As I mentioned, Ames Lab might be able to make something similar that works.

Quote from Shane D.

Do you know why? Biberian was kind enough to offer Trevithick a piece of that FP's electrode he analyzed, and reported on in a paper. Baffles me why Takahashi would not do the same.

I do not know why. They are also withholding details about the materials, which make it difficult to independently replicate. A recent paper said details will be published "later." It did not say when.

Just based on that sort of attitude, I guess they want to keep the credit and the technology for themselves as long as possible. That is just a guess. Along similar lines, I wonder why the people at Texas Tech have revealed nothing about their research, or whether they have made progress, and I wonder why the Google paper in Nature had essential no information in it. I cannot read minds but I suppose these people are all hoping they can steal the march and make progress in cold fusion before others do.

I think this is a bad strategy. I recommend applying for a patent as soon as possible, publishing the work, and helping others to replicate as much as possible. That has two advantages. First, you will soon learn whether your discovery is real or a mistake. Second, if it is real and other people improve it rapidly, your patent will earn more money than it would if you keep things secret.

Some people may not understand the latter point. It seem counter-intuitive that you can make more money by encouraging competition than preventing it. Here is how that works (how it works sometimes). A patent lasts for 20 years, which is not long. If a cold fusion device is not rapidly commercialized after a patent is granted, the patent will never earn much in royalties. If the technology languishes for years before and after you get a patent, most of the earnings will come after it expires. Technology can languish even when it is patented. That is why Tesla decided to put all their patents in the public domain, and Toyota recently decided to put their Prius hybrid technology into the public domain, licensing it for free. They realized they can make more money selling the actual hybrid engine components than they can licensing them, because the self life of this kind of parallel hybrid technology is limited. They think it will soon be overtaken by pure electric cars, as batteries improve. I wonder if that is true, but I see their point.

All a bit worrying tho - one major research group linked to NASA and SPAWAR churning out multiple publications where everything works just dandy in LENR-world, then you have others like Coolescence where nothing works and everything LENR can be accounted for as either artifacts or calibration errors. Totally negative results in TG's Nature paper and a negative Deneum replication. Lets hope we have some positive results soon otherwise we'll have to think about improving renewable energy instead.

Here is Tesla's statement putting all their patents in the public domain. You may recognize a computer geek joke in the title:

All Our Patent Are Belong To You

https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

Here is an article about the Toyota announcement licensing patents for free:

Toyota's hybrid strategy: Patents are free, the hardware will cost you

Become a supplier to its rivals — and more than 50 companies are interested

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/…s-plans-to-sell-hardware/

Both are sound business strategies, in my opinion. I would recommend these strategies to anyone who discovers a practical cold fusion device, even a large organization such as GE or Toyota. No organization is large enough to do the whole job of commercialization of cold fusion. It is a multi-trillion dollar market. Thousands of variations will be needed. The strategies of Tesla and Toyota are the extreme opposite of most cold fusion researcher's strategies, such as Patterson's. Patterson took his technology to the grave, achieving zero market share. I expect anyone else who tries to do what he did will also fail. I expect the NEDO researchers, Texas Tech, and the Google researchers will also fail if they continue trying to keep their work under wraps. I am not hoping for that, but history shows that is the likely outcome.

When Bell Labs discovered the transistor, they soon went totally public. They published a comprehensive book describing how to make transistors; they licensed the technology to many companies; and they held long, grueling, 5-day symposiums to teach engineers how to make transistors (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtransistora.pdf) If they had not done this, semiconductors would have taken much longer to develop, and their patent would have earned far less than it did.

One of the managers at AT&T later estimated that they earned more money by buying transistors from other companies and upgrading their telephone network than they earned by selling and licensing the technology. In other words, if they had given away the technology for free (which they did not do), they still would have earned tremendous profits just by buying transistorized equipment from other companies. They were huge, but they still were not capable of developing every kind of semiconductor that was useful in telephony applications.

Let me add something. I do not recommend giving away cold fusion patents for free. I propose a hybrid strategy, somewhat similar to what AT&T did with the transistor, and what Toyota recently did with hybrid car technology. AT&T licensed the transistor widely, at a moderate cost. They did not try to monopolize the technology or get 100% market share the way Patterson did. (That was partly because Uncle Sam was pressuring them on antitrust grounds.) Toyota is giving away free licenses but I think they want the licensee to agree to buy components. That's my understanding of their announcement and the trade magazine article I pointed to. "We are not charging royalties but you have to agree to buy some components from us." That seems reasonable. It is less onerous than royalties because a competitor does not have to replicate the invention and make a production line. He just has to issue purchase orders and wait for boxes of gadgets to arrive at his door. The gadgets will be as good quality as Toyota's own, or as any competitor's, and they will be available in unlimited quantities. If I were Ford or anyone else thinking of making a parallel hybrid, I would go by this route, because -- as I said -- the technology has a limited shelf life. It is like making impact printers in 1982. People back then knew that laser and inkjet printers would soon make impact printers obsolete, so they had to bring them to market quickly and skip as much R&D as they could. I am sure that first generation cold fusion devices will have a very short shelf life. They will be obsolete in a few years, or even a few months.

Storms

Quote

As result, Rossi is considered a fraud while the real evidence is ignored.

Respectfully, are you suggesting that there is any chance at all that Rossi is not a fraud? If so, I propose that you have not looked critically at the longitudinal history of Rossi, starting with the Petroldragon environmental disaster, through the thermoelectric scam perpetrated on DOD, and then on to how he fooled Lewan, the Swedish scientists, and finally Darden. However, Darden, to his credit, finally pretty much put a stop to Rossi's activities when Rossi unsuccessfully sued his company for more than $300 million resulting in large amounts of depositions, all damning to Rossi's veracity.

Let's wait for Christmas time then we'll see various confirmations and the ... rest.