Posts by oystla

    what should be noted is

    - there are several flu virus versions around. The vaccines may or may not cover all virus versions. Therefore you may still get the flu Even after vaccination.

    - flu virus versions evolves and changes from year to year. That is why your protection weakens from year to year after you have had the flu.

    - vaccines changes from year to year to keep up with changes in the flu viruses.

    And that is why a yearly shot of flu vaccine is a way of reducing the risk getting the flu. But there is no guarantee.

    I am also confused.

    Confused why Ascoli and Huxley cannot understand that to do boil off, you would have to know FIRST If the Palladium Cathode is LENR active or not.

    And to find which Palladium cathodes are LENR active, you would NOT just jump to boil off, but OF COURSE do more controlled calorimetry experiments.

    So, boil off is NOT used to prove LENR, but an EXTENSION of LENR at higher temperatures in wet Pd/D cells.

    That is what Fleischmann and P. did. First electrolysis at low temepratures identified the active palladium cathodes. Then they extended the experiments to other territories.

    And that is what google could do, but then they should use dusins of parallell Runs at low temps and ensures the loading is good, and the other identified requirements, like current density etc....

    Now then, when they find the Active ones, they could drive them to boil off and check If excess heat increase further, as hypothesized and claimed in experiment by F&P.

    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.

    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.

    The coolescence website only refer to replication of the CR39 tracks, not excess heat measurments. So I think exces heat in co-dep is more important than to conclude if charged particles or not occurs in LENR as supposed by SPAWAR in CR39.

    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?…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...

    Bulk Pd/D has multiple successful (according to most here) replications by independent groups. Therefore:

    (1) It cannot be too difficult

    (2) Whatever it is appears to exist.

    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.

    Performing Gas phase research may be easier (I'm not fully convinced), but is the excess heat conditions easily reproducible? We will see on the success rate of the Mizuno recipe.

    I just think Szpak and Mosier-Boss did som wonderful creative work on CF at SPAWAR and deserves more attention on replication attempts.

    I agree with @oystia, the SPAWAR research is probably the most likely to yield positive results if replicated by TG - and I would suggest TG repeat not just one of their experiments but every experiment they have ever published. With further experiments to chase down interesting leads/anomalies etc. Such a comprehensive study would firmly establish LENR as the energy source to be developed for future generations!:)

    and it is OYSTLA for Øystein Lande 🤓

    Interesting to note that Stan Szpak and Pamela Boss did actually try Nickel Mesh and Palladium at SPAWAR.

    This was a test of using an IR Camera to observe thermal events on the mesh in their co-deposition research where Pd and D was deposited on Nickel Mesh.

    And Lo & behold! , there where thermal spots indicating excess heat events taking place in various spots on the mesh.

    So again I would suggest Google to look into the SPAWAR research. It was more reproducible than most of the other LENR research.


    There are many criterias to be fulfilled for F&P type LENR, many identified, and some criterias not yet fully identified and understood. That is why the sucessrate was low.

    But again, to my knowledge the SPAWAR co-deposition studies gave better LENR reproducibility than F&P style and if google havent tried this allready, they absolutely should.


    "Positive feedback" would only be relevant for the cells that have been first identified as having active LENR, in accordance with my procedure above.

    you still dont get it ?

    If F&P effect was easy to replicate it would no longer be a mystery.

    To my memory the best they achieved was 1 of 8 cells indicating LENR. But you will find info on this if you bother to investigate a litle are stop being lazy.

    So again: Many parallell F&P Runs must be set up for any hope of one or a few to show excess heat Events. And you would of course start with the easy tests of electrolysis Below Boiling to identify these.

    That is why I suggested the SPAWAR co deposition tests a better option for google , which had a higer rate of success.…_Fleischmann-_Pons_Effect

    That is beceause you have not read or understood the whole story.

    F&P managed to get at best "only" one of 8 electrolytic cells to show active LENR.

    So you do NEED to find what cells are active and which is not active before you try more advanced tests like the boil off.

    And the way of finding active cells is to test many parallell cells like 20 off for weeks at temperatures below boiling and identify by excess heat or bursts of heat.

    same BS again.

    Anyone trying F&P Pd/D system MUST set up 10 or 20 parallell cells and hope one or more of them show signs of heat bursts according to the F&P Seminal paper of 1990.

    The cells that prove signs of active LENR i.e. heat burst, may the used to test their 1992 hypothesis of larger excess heat at higher temepratures.

    But hey, they do not need to because their first test according to 1990 proved the LENR phenomenon.

    The recent Mizuno experiment is an obvious one.

    And I think the SPAWAR rsearch was good and should be tried.

    For other I would suggest google should discuss the matter with Mitchell Swartz and Peter Hagelstein, which would have some very good suggestions I believe.

    And you did not get my point.

    No one should do boil off test before they know for sure they have a Pd/D cell that actually produce excess heat.

    So they would have to first test according to F&P 1990 paper.

    And f they acihieve positive result by F&P original experiment, they have allready proven LENR and do not need boil off, since that was only an extension to prove increased excess at elevated temperatures.

    Before doing a boil off experiment you would first like to know if the particular Pd/D cell actually produce excess heat.

    F&P found some 1 of 8 cells producing excess heat.

    So google would in any case replicate the 1990 paper of F&P BEFORE they would try the 1992 paper. Which is an extension of the 1990 paper and excess heat at elevated temperatures.

    But we have discussed this before, and you never understood the F&P experiment.

    If the SPAWAR work has not been tried replicated, it should absolutely be on top of the list.