Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"


  • The Coolescence test was a possible comfirmation that LENR do not cause or produce energetic particles, just as other tests from other researchers have indicated. So that part of SPAWAR, the CR39 results was in conflict with other LENR research.


    What Cooloescence did NOT test was excess heat (with co-dep), which is the most important issue in LENR.

  • P.A Mosier-Boss, L.P Forsley. 2015. Synopsis of Refereed Publications on Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions. (https://www.academia.edu/18051…efereed_LENR_Publications)


    Quote

    Most important, the co-deposition protocol discussed in many of these papers shows independent re- producibility and replication across multiple laboratories in four countries negating two primary criticisms of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS): irreproducibility and lack of independent replication.


    Quote

    We have sought to identify, characterize and elucidate the underlying mechanisms. Ours has been a collaborative effort with colleagues around the globe. To date, the SSC-Pacific/JWK team and colleagues have published 49 refereed papers in 14 journals and book chapters, spanning 25 years. Our colleagues include 46 authors and co-authors from ten countries representing 34 institutions. We have given more than three times as many conference talks and briefings. This is a well-represented, international effort.


    Several researchers have independently replicated our Pd/D co-deposition protocol, like Dr. Fran Tanzella et al, Dr. Kew-Ho Lee, et al and Pierre Carbonnelle; or modified it, including Dennis Letts and Dr. Mel Miles or, like Dr. Mitchell Swartz, independently developed their own. Drs. Peter Hagelstein and Dennis Cravens with Dennis Letts used co-deposition to create the gold-coated palladium structures they successfully laser irradiated. Drs. K. Sinha and A. Meulenberg dissected the mechanisms. Twelve of the papers are co-deposition replications, including researchers in the US, Belgium, Japan and South Korea.


    Quote

    32. D. Letts, “Codeposition Methods: A Search for Enabling Factors”, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 4(2011) 81-92.

    http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol4.pdf

    This paper is a preliminary report on results obtained from a series of experiments conducted April– September 2009. The experiments were designed to test for excess power using the basic methods dis- closed in 1991 by Szpak, Mossier-Boss and Smith. A large and repeatable excess power signal was ob- served and the efforts to test mundane explanations for the signal are described. The design, fabrication and calibration methods of a new type of Seebeck calorimeter used for these experiments are also dis- closed.


    Quote

    37. Letts, D. and Hagelstein, P., “Modified Szpak Protocol for Excess Heat”, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 6 (2012) 44-54.

    http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf

    In recent theoretical work, vacancies in PdD have been shown to be able to host molecular D2, which is conjectured to be necessary for excess heat in Fleischmann–Pons experiments. Vacancies in the original Fleischmann–Pons experiment are proposed to be created through inadvertent codeposition at high load- ing. This suggests that a better approach should be to focus on experiments in which Pd codeposition is controlled, such as in the Szpak experiment. Unfortunately, the Szpak experiment has proven difficult to replicate, and we conjecture that this is due to low D/Pd loading. A modified protocol has been tested in which codeposition is carried out at higher current density with a lower PdCl2 concentration. Positive results have been obtained in all of the tests done with this protocol so far.


    Quote

    39. M. H. Miles, “Investigations of Possible Shuttle Reactions in Co-deposition Systems”, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 8 (2012) 12–22

    http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol8.pdf

    Experiments in the 0.025 M PdCl2 + 0.15 M ND4Cl + 0.15 M ND2OD/D2O co-deposition system pro- duced anomalous excess power in three out of three prior experiments in Japan. Completely new experi- ments have produced even larger excess power effects for this deuterated co-deposition system. The larg- est excess power effect in D2O produced 1.7 W or about 13 W/g of palladium (160W/cm3). These large excess power effects were absent in extensive studies of H2O controls. Excess power was also absent in various experiments involving the co-deposition of ruthenium (Ru), rhenium (Re), and nickel (Ni) in both H2O and D2O ammonia solutions. The statistical analysis of all 18 co-deposition experiments yields a probability of greater than 99.9989 % that the co-deposition excess power effect requires both palladium metal and D2O. Shuttle reactions have been proposed to explain the reproducible excess power effect in this ammonia co-deposition system. However, various electrochemical studies show no evidence for any shuttle reactions in this ammonia system. Nevertheless, the initial chemistry for the Pd system is complex leading to large pH changes, chlorine (Cl2) evolution, and the formation of nitrogen trichloride (NCl3) during the first few days. However, the large excess power effects are observed later in the experiments after this chemistry is completed. A better understanding of the chemistry should be helpful in the repro- duction of anomalous excess power in co-deposition systems


    Quote

    42. K. Lee, H. Jang and S. Kim, “A Change of Tritium Content in D2O Solutions during Pd/D Co- deposition”, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 13 (2014) 294–298.

    http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol13.pdf

    In this study electrochemical co-deposition of Pd/D on nickel electrodes was performed to determine whether a nuclear fusion reaction occurs in the palladium deposit. Co-deposition was performed with a palladium salt/D2O solution. The content of tritium in D2O solution was varied depending on the elec- trolysis procedure during co-deposition. A comparison between the co-deposition of Pd/D and the simple electrolysis of D2O was performed to investigate the change of tritium concentration in the D2O solution.


    Quote

    43. M. H. Miles, “Co-deposition of Palladium and other Transition Metals in H2O and D2O Solutions”,J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 13 (2014) 401-410.

    http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol13.pdf

    The co-deposition of palladium, ruthenium, rhenium, nickel, and iridium were investigated in H2O and D2O ammonia systems (NH4Cl/NH3). Significant amounts of excess power were observed only in the deuterated Pd/D2O system. There was no anomalous excess power observed for the co-deposition of ru- thenium, rhenium or nickel in any H2O or D2O experiment.


    P.A Mosier-Boss, L.P Forsley, P McDaniel. 2016. INVESTIGATION OF NANO-NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN CONDENSED MATTER. (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf)


    Quote

    The Pd/D co-deposition technique, pioneered by SSC-Pacific, is a robust, reliable and reproducible means of generating LENR in the Pd lattice. Heat effects using Pd/D co-deposition have been reproduced by Miles10 as well as Cravens and Letts.10,56 Bockris et al. reproduced the tritium results.69 Besides SRI, the CR-39 results have been replicated by Dr. Winthrop Williams of the University of Berkeley, Dr. Ludwik Kowalski of Montclair University; Mr. Pierre Carbonnelle, l'Université catholique de Louvain and three groups of undergraduates from UCSD as part of their senior projects.

  • No I'm not suggesting Rossi did not engage in fraudulent behavior. He lied many times. But he also told the truth on occasion. Rather than come to general conclusions, I suggest looking at what Rossi claimed with an open mind would be worth the trouble, but without ignoring his lies. According to Lewan, Rossi detected extra heat originally while attempting to make liquid fuel from CO+CO2+H2O. He would have used a Ni-based catalyst for such a study, not pure nickel. He hid this fact by claiming to use a form of pure Ni powder. His initial demonstration of LENR used this activated material + H2 that was heated electrically perhaps to only 150 C. Based on the statements of independent observes and on the provided data, he apparenty demonstrated excess energy. He later scaled up using the same material and method to produce at least 500,000 watt of extra power, enough to convince IH (Darden) that the energy was real. Then Rossi lied and claimed the active material was NI+LiAlH4. He never used this combination in any of his demonstrations. This lie encouraged several attempts to replicate the claim, all giving ambiguous results at the high temperature needed to cause the claimed reaction. Unfortunately, no one accepted Rossi's claim as a lie. Instead time and money were wasted in a wild goose chase while Rossi got much attention and about 10M$. Rossi also proposed a nuclear reaction as the source of energy that was apparently based on fraudulent manipulation. I suspect Rossi was able to activate enough catalyst to demonstrate extra energy on a small scale. But when he need many hundreds of pounds of the catalyst to scale up to 1 MW, he found he could not make enough active material, so he lied. I suspect he lied about the nature of his active material because he did not trust people to protect his discovery, having no patent to do this for him.


    Here we come to the only important question. Can the commercial catalyst Rossi used in his initial study be made nuclear active in the same way the Case catalyst was made nuclear active? An answer to this question is the only useful idea that has come from the Rossi claim. Of course, all of this description is based on speculation, but is speculation not the most common approach in this field?



  • I attempted to replicate the SPWAR codeposition claim several different ways including a program supported by NASA. Unfortunately, none of this effort produced any excess energy (±0.01 watts). If the method were as easily reproduced as claimed, I should have been able to see some extra energy. Based on my efforts, I do not believe the method is reproducible because the important variables are not known. Also, production of chlorine oxides at the anode complicates any calculation of excess energy. Nevertheless, I was able to make excess energy by electroplating using other electrolytes. Unfortunately, this method was also not reproducible either. Like all claims for success, luck and chance seem to play a large role because people have neither the ability nor incentive to discover the important variables. My theory attempts to do this but my ideas are apparently not believed and applied. My attempts to apply my ideas to my samples are limited because I work at the hobby level without access to the required tools. So we continue to stagger like a drunken sailor down a dark and unknown path.

  • No I'm not suggesting Rossi did not engage in fraudulent behavior. He lied many times. But he also told the truth on occasion. Rather than come to general conclusions, I suggest looking at what Rossi claimed with an open mind would be worth the trouble, but without ignoring his lies. According to Lewan, Rossi detected extra heat originally while attempting to make liquid fuel from CO+CO2+H2O. He would have used a Ni-based catalyst for such a study, not pure nickel. He hid this fact by claiming to use a form of pure Ni powder. His initial demonstration of LENR used this activated material + H2 that was heated electrically perhaps to only 150 C. Based on the statements of independent observes and on the provided data, he apparenty demonstrated excess energy. He later scaled up using the same material and method to produce at least 500,000 watt of extra power, enough to convince IH (Darden) that the energy was real. Then Rossi lied and claimed the active material was NI+LiAlH4. He never used this combination in any of his demonstrations. This lie encouraged several attempts to replicate the claim, all giving ambiguous results at the high temperature needed to cause the claimed reaction. Unfortunately, no one accepted Rossi's claim as a lie. Instead time and money were wasted in a wild goose chase while Rossi got much attention and about 10M$. Rossi also proposed a nuclear reaction as the source of energy that was apparently based on fraudulent manipulation. I suspect Rossi was able to activate enough catalyst to demonstrate extra energy on a small scale. But when he need many hundreds of pounds of the catalyst to scale up to 1 MW, he found he could not make enough active material, so he lied. I suspect he lied about the nature of his active material because he did not trust people to protect his discovery, having no patent to do this for him.


    Here we come to the only important question. Can the commercial catalyst Rossi used in his initial study be made nuclear active in the same way the Case catalyst was made nuclear active? An answer to this question is the only useful idea that has come from the Rossi claim. Of course, all of this description is based on speculation, but is speculation not the most common approach in this field?





    The problem here is that Rossi's ability to know whether or not he has detected excess heat is terminally confused, and Mats has shown himself willing to accept Rossi's word for this. Rossi's on record technical incompetence is such that he would easily detect non-existent excess heat, so no reliable information can be obtained from him about that.


    I'd provide details but they would be of little interest to anyone here, having been oft repeated.

  • I know about Santilli’s work and, if it’s the patent I know of, the patent for that process went through all stages to a final rejection, and the main reason to reject, was that what he claimed and offered independent proof for (in the form of independent lab analysis of the gases prior and after the reaction) is unsupported by any known and accepted theory. We know Santilli’s Hadronic Mechanics is not mainstream at all, so it was also rejected as supporting literature.


    All that said, Santilli works with powerful DC arcs inside his reactor (I have read 40 KW and up to 300 KW DC welders to create the arc between the carbon electrodes), so he is not by any stretch working in the same range of energy input than most LENR researchers.


    Santilli did the experiment and his data are certified lab data. But I did work to produce the theory of fusion on a catalyst from known and accepted theories, and I did the analysis to support nuclear fusion on a catalyst. Any of you can check the math by reviewing of my pending patent.


    Santilli started his investigation with AquaFuel, a form of Brown’s gas. In my pending patent, I show by analysis of Aquafuel data that: the Aquafuel reaction produces nitrogen from oxygen and hydrogen. I also show that based on the NASA analysis of Aquafuel, there is no chemical that can account for the 66% of heat or torque produced in the engine test. That fuel energy is logical due to a fuel that is produced by a nuclear reaction on a catalyst.


    Magnegas is a commercial product that is based on Santilli’s improvements on Aquafuel technology. Likely, Magnegas has a fuel component that is produced by nuclear fusion on a catalyst. The same is likely true of any Brown’s gas variation.


    Who said it would be hard to commercialize unconventional nuclear power? It is easy, one just claims it not nuclear, then the deception remains because of the mindset is that “… is unsupported by any known and accepted theory”. The same approach is being used by Brilliant Light Power: a claim of no nuclear origin for the energy produced.


    But is this easy way the right way? Whose to be held responsible if there are consequences of the new nuclear power? But worst of all, how can we advance to a future of abundant energy if we turn our heads away and say that the energy doesn’t have a nuclear origin? Do we believe Mills or general relativity? It requires energy to dilate time and contact space. So, no hydrinos but rather the shunken hydrogen is in space that is dilated and contacted. The energies BLP claims to produce by hydrinos are same energies that are needed to produce the catalyst and these energies are the expected energies for decay of the catalyst. We can redirect the abundant reports of BLP to a reasonable theory. As we can other approaches.


    Nuclear fusion on a catalyst broadly explains many approaches: electrolysis with metal hydrides, nanoparticles and lasers, cavitation, etc. I have scaled down the size and wattage from Santilli’s failed patent. Its engineering that a POSTIA can do. A pencil lead at high voltage and 60 watts works. Try it, you will see. This is a hard fact. It happens every time.


    A phat is an indirect catalyst for fusion just as a muon is direct catalyst for fusion. Phats are produced at energies used by LENR experiments. The catalyst is produced from hydrogen and it’s isotopes by combination with phats. The catalyst channels the energy from phats to lower the coulomb barrier which causes fusion in LENR and in other forms of fusion on a catalyst.


    Heat measurements don’t tell the story because some (if not most) of the energy is preserved as fuel. High energy nuclear products don’t tell the story because the catalyst generates numerous pathways to low energy nuclear products, and it preserves energy as a fuel. The transmutation is real. Understanding w-wave energy is the key to recovering that energy which must accompany transmutation. It deserves consideration for further research.

  • Storms you talked about Ecat Bt ( Doral test) as a possible CO + CO2 + H2O.

    in petrochemicals that's called a water shift reaction.

    I also studied this path but rather via a triangle reaction and with added lithium (LIOH).

    To try to reach 1MW AR's used several modules because surely at big scale reliability fail.

    I remain convinced he reached 1MW at run's beginning therefore quickly total power fell.

    So at this time Dewey became nervous.

    This chemical / nuclear process must have an hysteresis that makes it unstable for long duration.

  • I would like to comment on the patent situation in response to several previous comments. If I can use the Mizuno method as an example, a patent of the burnishing method only becomes valuable if this is the only method that can produce LENR. If other methods are successful and can be better applied at industrial level, no one would use the burnishing method, except perhaps for research purposes. If he claims his method produces gaps which are the active sites. hence any other method that produces such sites would be covered, he would be using public knowledge, which is not allowed. In fact, any description of an effective method to produce LENR can be challenged as violating common knowledge. Given these concerns, what can be patented in this field? It seems to me no patent would survive a challenge, hence any method would be available without having to worry about honoring a patent, even if someone would be lucky enough to have a patent granted. So I ask the experts, is going to the trouble of submitting a patent about LENR worth the effort? Perhaps, the focus should be on patenting the final application of this energy source. Until we understand how LENR works, we are no where near this stage in the patenting process. What are your thoughts?

  • I'm very suspicious of the Coolescence data because this company suddenly appeared out of no-where with several well-qualified physicists with no prior experience in fusion tech or research. They proceeded to junk SPAWAR's CR-39 results as being due to an electrolyte leak, which is extremely unlikely given the number of test runs by Mosier-Boss, Szpak and co, Junked Miles' excess heat claims too as being due to calibration errors etc. They then suddenly folded and disappeared leaving behind a depository of crap data which looks impossible to make sense of = funded by the anti-LENR league , perhaps? (Petrochem industry/Hot Fusionistas/Establishment Academics) Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to keep us on our toes! - so watch out for any vested interests associated with future negative LENR replication reports.:)

  • If I can use the Mizuno method as an example, a patent of the burnishing method only becomes valuable if this is the only method that can produce LENR. If other methods are successful and can be better applied at industrial level, no one would use the burnishing method, except perhaps for research purposes. If he claims his method produces gaps which are the active sites. hence any other method that produces such sites would be covered, he would be using public knowledge, which is not allowed. In fact, any description of an effective method to produce LENR can be challenged as violating common knowledge. Given these concerns, what can be patented in this field? It seems to me no patent would survive a challenge, hence any method would be available without having to worry about honoring a patent, even if someone would be lucky enough to have a patent granted. So I ask the experts . . .


    I am no expert. But I have talked with experts, such as the late David French. Here is my understanding of how this works.


    With something like the Mizuno device, if possible, you would not apply for a narrow patent covering only Ni mesh with Pd applied. You would broaden the patent to cover any form of Ni with Pd burnished on. You might even be able to get a patent for any two metals burnished together where one absorbs more deuterium than the other, and where cracks and voids form. I do not know if that would be accepted, but that kind of broad patent is the goal. I think the patent might specify that the reaction occurs in the interface.


    As for challenges, they can only be met with large sums of money. Barrels of money. Hundreds of millions of dollars, I suppose. Obviously, Mizuno does not have that kind of money, so in order to defend the patent, he would have to ally himself with people who have that kind of money, either individuals or large corporations. If GE buys into the patent, they can afford to defend it against Hitachi. Mizuno by himself could no more defend against Hitachi than he could stop a Mack Truck.


    The patent I have read the most about is the Wright brothers first one, 821,393, May 22, 1906. See:


    http://invention.psychology.ms…SPatent/WrightPatent.html


    This is a classic example of broadly written, strong patent. It was written by one of the best patent attorneys in the U.S., Harry Toulmin. Some notable aspects of it relevant to this discussion include:


    It did not discuss engines, the best shape of the wing, the propellor design, or any wind tunnel data. No airplane could fly without deep knowledge of those things. The motor was quite innovative, but apparently Toulmin and the Wrights decided it was not worth trying to cover. I suppose they were left out because they were not original. Various explanations for not including this and other details have been described in books about the Wrights.


    The original method of control was wing warping, in which the entire wing was flexed. This was innovative, but the method was not used for long. It was soon replaced with flaps, which are still used. The patent describes warping in detail, but it goes on to say that other methods are also covered by this patent. That led to a large number of court cases and lawsuits, which the Wrights ultimately won. Warping is described here, on line 40:


    ". . . each aeroplane surface is given a helicoidal warp or twist. We prefer this construction and mode of operation for the reason that it gives a gradually-increasing angle to the body of each aeroplane from the central longitudinal line thereof outward to the margin, thus giving a continuous surface on each side of the machine, which has a gradually increasing or decreasing angle of incidence from the center of the machine to either side."


    They immediately go on to broaden the patent to cover wing flaps and other mechanisms:


    "We wish it to be understood, however, that our invention is not limited to this particular construction, since any construction whereby the angular relations of the lateral margins of the aeroplanes may be varied in opposite directions with respect to the normal planes of said aeroplanes comes within the scope of our invention. Furthermore, it should be understood that while the lateral margins of the aeroplanes move to different angular positions with respect to or above and below the normal planes of said aeroplanes it does not necessarily follow that these movements bring the opposite lateral edges to different angles respectively above and below a horizontal plane, since the normal planes of the bodies of the aeroplanes are inclined to the horizontal when the machine is in flight, said inclination being downward from front to rear, and while the forward corners on one side of the machine may be depressed below the normal planes of the bodies of the aeroplanes said depression is not necessarily sufficient to carry them below the horizontal planes passing through the rear corners on that side. . . ."



    Until we understand how LENR works, we are no where near this stage in the patenting process.


    First, a patent should not include a theory, because if the theory is wrong the patent will be invalidated, whereas if it has no theory, it might stand up even if your theory is wrong. Second, before the late 20th century, many technologies were patented without anyone knowing in detail how they worked. That is less common today.

  • Ed, Jed, David and others.


    Because of the shortage of solid data data and the strength of people's feelings on the topic the forum management team prefer that Rossi discussions should be carried on on a Rossi thread. Also, there is luttle chance that Google would touch this hot potato readily, so Rossi and the Wright brothers are all 'off topic' , As much as I love aeroplanes!

  • Agree with what you said Storms therefore my more general question would be if a non-oil-producing country, rebelling against unified countries from UN Security Council, found Lenr recipe, what would happen ?


    Countries do not file for patents or manufacture machinery. Corporations do. Corporations do not need to "rebel" against anyone or any institution to manufacture machines. They just need to meet safety and other regulatory conditions. If it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, I have no doubt whatever that every major industrial corporation will frantically begin R&D, and later manufacturing of cold fusion devices. There are two main reasons they will do this: opportunity, and risk:


    OPPORTUNITY. The market for cold fusion devices will be roughly $6 trillion per year. Companies can tap into this river of money mainly in taking away business from the oil, gas and coal companies. This will be like taking candy from a baby. Energy companies will be utterly unable to defend themselves, because they have no relevant expertise. Anyone who thinks energy companies can stop this by pulling strings in Congress or advertising in the New York Times does not understand the power of money and technology. They can no more stop cold fusion than the mechanical calculator and slide rule companies could stop the development of computers in 1945. No doubt they will try to pull strings, but vast sums of money always overrule politics. Any member of Congress will listen first to GE and GM who will tell them that without cold fusion, U.S. industry will be relegated to third-world status in a generation, and our military will be as vulnerable to attack as the Spanish Navy in the Spanish-American War of 1898, in which the U.S. sank entire fleets without any serious casualties.


    RISK. I should not call it risk, but "certain death." Any industrial company that does not develop cold fusion will be bankrupt 20 years after the rush begins. It would resemble an industrial company that does not incorporate microprocessors in its product after 1980. Starting in 1980, every manufacturer in every industry began frantically introducing microprocessors, and they soon showed up in most machines, from automobiles, to hotel door locks to Jacuzzi bathtubs and sewing machines. By 1990 you could not have sold these machines without computer controls, because computer controls were more flexible, longer lasting, cheaper, and better by every standard. Today, every automobile company is frantically developing electric cars and self driving cars, because anyone can see they are the wave of the future, and in 20 years, people will not want any other kind of car. If Ford or Toyota were to bow out of this R&D effort, they would be signing their own death warrant. They might as well declare bankruptcy now and get it over with. The same will be true of cold fusion, only about 200 times more so, since that is the price difference between cold fusion and conventional energy.

  • Also, there is luttle chance that Google would touch this hot potato readily, so Rossi and the Wright brothers are all 'off topic'


    The Wright brothers' patent is smack on topic. It is a classic example of how a broad patent can cover a relatively narrow invention that was quickly made obsolete in the first implementation. It answer Ed Storms' question.

  • I would like to start a project to develop


    The Electrically Pinned Phased Electron Driven Nuclear Fusion Methods


    Basically the key to "cold fusion" is the phased electrons wave that drives the fusion reaction.

    For D2HO and hopefully H2


    Hopefully, a team can be formed to develop what I call the "fusion filter" and the community power stations.

    Who is interested?


    Check out my Twitter:@TheIdeasG

  • He would have used a Ni-based catalyst for such a study, not pure nickel.


    I am still convinced that LENR is a kind of exothermic stripping reaction and pulverized carbon is the secret triggering element. In some cold fusion experiments excessive heat reactions occurred due to minimal and random contaminants on the surfaces of the selected metal powders by carbon nanoparticles. That would also explain why replications often failed, because the carbon coating was coincidental and actually an unwanted pollution in the selected starting materials.

    An exothermic stripping reaction (like for example the Oppenheimer-Phillips process), would explain the transmutations taking place and solve our problem with the coulomb barrier:


    http://books.google.de/books?id=vzorAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=Oppenheimer-Phillips+coulomb+barrier&source=bl&ots=OmTeKltAGI&sig=J8q1tOZQA4zHRvNI3jcv4GW3srg&hl=de&sa=X&ei=TZpTVJbMAcPvObaOgIAC&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Oppenheimer-Phillips


    http://books.google.de/books?id=KCo2gG5fRaQC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Oppenheimer-Phillips+standard+modell&source=bl&ots=lPnz9vHb5E&sig=hJCbuwv39YIfrce6E1RdKaU-7JY&hl=de&sa=X&ei=CZpTVIzAGILyOIXegLgN&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Oppenheimer-Phillips


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…%E2%80%93Phillips_process

    From the Lugano Report:



    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…et-catalyst-jamie-sibley/


    Quote

    2) Lugano reactor contains more carbon than would be expected from a carby-nickel produced powder. Possibly up to 6.6% by weight. I suspect that this carbon is actually only on the surface of the particles.


    I think the purity of the fuel is the problem with any replication, if the fuel is to pure without traces of e.g. C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn (and here especially Carbon) then there will be no excess heat. I personally think that Rossi has found the Carbon reaction by coincidence.

  • We are coming to the end of this. Friday will be the last day I believe. Matt and I will talk about it then, and see where to go from there. I suspect we will keep this thread running because it serves as a direct communications line between TG, and the LENR community. Correct me if wrong, but right now my take-away after reading hundreds of comments, is that the LENR communities message to TG is that:


    "There are no experiments we can recommend with a guaranteed 100, 80, or even 50% chance of seeing an LENR effect. There is not a "top 3". There are however, a number of high quality experiments, that when pursued with the resources available to TG, the cooperation of the authors, and comprehensive instructions, will give a high probability of success. Success being defined as a small percentage of the total tests performed, will clearly demonstrate the effect."


    Not passing judgement, or being a grump, as I think this has been a very productive discovery process...both for TG, and LENR. The only reason I bring this up, is so we can all come together behind one message by Friday. So what do you think...Anything to add, subtract?

  • Very short term I think that the Google calorimetric team should thoroughly review the Mizuno airflow calorimetry system, and maybe replicate it (with resistive generators).

    I have some issues with it, particularly R20, but haven't had time to make a post out of it.