You are all carefully avoiding the facts that:
This thread is about an experiment that is going on NOW, not 25 years ago.
This experiment is OPEN and any question can be put forward to Mathieu Valat or Jean Paul Biberian or Bob at MFMP.
Those of you who suggests or frankly claim having knowledge in science, please read fact and say something useful.
Facts here: http://www.quantumheat.org/ind…on-celani-wire-experiment
Thanks
Thomas and some others are obviously pooping this site with the ambition to have the last answer on every subject. I am perfectly sure that they are wrong in some areas. But they are trying to convince about opposite. For me presence of such individuals is very unpleasant. My visitation here is decreasing because of this. Community here was much better some time ago.
Nothing to see here, rotate - go home! 
Oh really? I thought only HG and MY vote counts...
OK folks, time to rotate - go home! There is nothing to see here, HG said so.
Yes, strange... But the same paper can be found at other publishers, try this link: https://www.researchgate.net/p…eudogap_Phase_of_Cuprates
Hi BEC, thanks for being here and share your opinion. Are you planning on doing some open live run of your NiH system to show it is not empty claims?
The small energy yield and intermittency of the PdD system is obviously a big hurdle for development. The transistor had the same kind of problem in it's infancy. It is likely there where many unbelievers of it at the time.
The most functioning seams to be presented by Hagelstein/Swartz but where did the 101 lecture go? Why stop putting it on display???
The NiH system seams to have the solution to both the drawbacks of PdD; energy yield and repeatability. DIY open science should keep working on the Piantelli-Rossi-Brillouin line to get closer to truth.
DIY open science is the fastest way to demonstrate the existence of LENR/Chemical induced nuclear reactions and by that spread the knowledge which is critical for this tech to develop without dependencies to single people like Mills, Rossi, Kesche and other self proclaimers with weak-to-none transparency.
DIY open science LENR has so far clearly demonstrated a number of weakness' of thermocouple measurements, pyrometers and thermal imaging methods. This is GOOD science, even if in the end no effect can be found.
If the effect can be demonstrated beyond doubt, well - we are all aware of the importance of that.
What gammas will your meter NOT detect? I see that if it detects something at all that would be Something but is it sensitive enough to detect a non-chemical signal?
HG: You have a syndrome but I guess that is a good thing in the physics community, I am still a student 
Great job Alan! You walk while we peanuts talk 
Another guy that walked the walk is Freethinker, he got radiation after prebaking as you just did. I noticed that in your list of equipment there is only one geiger meter, you might need two to identify the direction of the source of radiation to rule out other sources of radiation IF you will have such a signal. See Freethinker's replication attempts
I recommend read the whole thread, but page #12 is the shit.
TC (as in ThermoCouple) is the most common probe for LENR, TC suites you TC! Anyway I think Rossi is right about at least one thing: the unbelievers will not accept LENR/Cold fusion until there are products on the market to experience. If that ever happens (my extension, but at least I am open minded, not closing doors without fact first).
Thanks, its still 11 months to go there. Anyway talking about ghost science, I would like to know what is consider to be 'Giant phonon anomoly' in SC science, is it counted in mJ (milli)? Because if 'Giant' is in the order of J then the temp might rise above high temp SC which is still well below the temp in northen Sweden right now. And if so the SC would stop I guess...
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2…378/full/ncomms10378.html
This article was published in Nature today. To me a lot of the discussion says LENR - what's your analysis folks?
@me: Pardon me but have you done this experiment yourself? I know you are capable of it, and you seam quite shure about this reaction. Did you?
OK, let's say your three step process is a working ignition sequence. You have a few mJ pops not even measurable with MY best-of-breed calorimetry and then what? This process must be iterative without blowing out itself and die. How is this accomplished?
First, Grattis HG! i see you just became a LENR student! That makes us classmates 
Then to padam73: only three key parameters? If that was the case this puzzle would be solved long ago. I have heard old timers LENRists suggest up
to 21 params...
HG and MY, I do not understand what your message is.
When I look up Mr Geneste on LinkedIn which I am a member of, I can see in his resume:
"Advise Airbus Group CTO in the technical and strategic choices for the whole Airbus Group"
By common contacts I can see that this Geneste has connections in the LENR community.
Please back up your message.
My understanding is same as Oystein; the customer is in control of input and output and I think it is plausible that the parties that risk money and reputation which is Darden and Woodford is in control of the customer and a third party watcher. This is why Rossi says F9, it can be a positive or negative outcome of this test.
Still, as an outsider, I miss first hand knowledge of the situation , is it possible that Rossi is merely running a blog without doing any real work? Even MY think he sits in that container.
