Jed,
Thanks again for your thorough reply. I understand your perspective now.
Heat, heat, heat. That's what it's all about. Heat > Energy > Useful
Application Sorely Need by Society. I get it.
Switching threads now once again....
I have not examined the other claims because frankly, I only care about
heat. If they have not nailed down heat who cares what else they have? I
don't give a fig about tritium or neutrons or shrinking Mills hydrinos for
that matter, and especially I don't care about theory.
It is also common, and unfortunate, that people charge off inventing new
and unlikely methods of calorimeter instead of reading Himminger and Hohne
or consulting with an expert. Or even reading Storms' papers on
calorimetry at LENR-CANR.org. Bockris is no slouch at calorimetry, and
needless to say he is a world-class expert on electrochemistry, but when
he began these experiments, he took the trouble to hunt up the best
calorimetry expert in Texas. The guy came to the lab, looked at the
equipment and asked some questions, the way Rob Duncan did at Energetics
Technology. Then he asked: "How much heat are we talking about? What is
the power level input and output?" Bockris told him and the guy laughed
and said, "you don't need me. Any calorimeter can measure that." He was
right, but he meant any calorimeter constructed by a professional chemist
using proper instruments. Not the many peculiar instruments that have
enlivened the history of cold fusion much like the multi-wing airplane
designs in the photos here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf
What was the basis on which you had derived/developed your "feelings"
about the Piantelli-Focardi work?
Please note the use of "feelings" in my writing is academic jargon. It
means I am trying not to be too insistent. It doesn't mean I have only
vague or initiative "feelings" in the normal sense of the word.
- Jed
Let me throw out what might seem like a thought out of left field. Please
bear with me in PART 1, I will get to my point in PART 2.
PART 1
What if I were to say that the researchers in the field do not know how to
make heat, and do not know how the heat is made when it does come.
But, surely, you will quote even myself, from my presentations in the past
when I have said that people like McKubre have identified the required
conditions prerequisite to making heat (Loading, current density,
disequilibrium and D flux). And we may both remember McKubre once saying
that every time he attains the prerequisite conditions that he can produce
heat. So...Hey! Where's the heat? (Said to the tune of "Hey, Where's the
Beef!")
McKubre et al published the results of their international collaboration to
produce heat in the ACS book that I co-edited last year. On average, I
think they got heat about 60-70% of the time, if I recall, all but one
properly loaded experiment gave PxH. That one gave Tritium. So why is
loading so crucial in bulk Pd expts? Why didn't the other 30-40% load?
Nobody knows! Crucial information is missing. Also, why does the SPAWAR
co-dep protocol produce results for them every time they do a run?
All we can say about the known parametric requirements to produce PxH in
bulk Pd is what does NOT work. PxH does not work in bulk Pd with D/Pd < ~
0.85. PxH does not work in bulk Pd with < 2.5 amps/cm2. PxH does not work
in bulk Pd when the cell is at equilibrium.
PART 2
My only point in all of that - NOT TO ARGUE ANY MINUTIA - is that some
crucial knowledge is missing. Hopefully we are in agreement that some
knowledge is missing that is preventing the full development and the
arrival of the inevitable Useful Application Sorely Need by Society.
Considering that the mystery to 100% PxH is unsolved, what sense does it
make to wear blinders with any of the related aspects of LENR research, be
they transmutation, tritium, neutrons or theory?
Steve
