RE: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
Jed sed: There is nothing more ephemeral that a vitally important trade secret. Trade secrets about unimportant technology sometimes last for decades. Stealing trade secrets is probably right up there with absconding with military secrets. I wish I could find a brief You-Tube clip from the original Star Trek series, where Spock plays a double agent. The Vulcan keeps the Romulan captain preoccupied by wooing her while Kirk goes undercover. Kirk teleports into the bowels of the Romulan vessel's engine room in order to track down and steal a new secret stealth device known as the cloaking device. After an obligatory amount of running and jumping about Kirk manages to steal the cloaking device. When the Romulan captain finally realizes the fact that she had been had by the steely eye Vulcan she turns to him and expresses her displeasure at having been played a pawn in a game of espionage. (Never underestimate the scorn of a woman, no matter what the species.) Spock's reply was something to the effect that: Military secrets are the most fleeting of all secrets. BTW, by the time the Deep Space 9 Star Trek series rolled about the use of the cloaking device had become regulated by various interplanetary treaties. Initially only the Romulans were allowed to use the stealth technology - legally, that is. Well. after all, since they were the race that invented the device. But then, somehow, the Klingons managed to negotiate a deal with the Romulans, or perhaps they made an offer the Romulans couldn't refuse, and now their own bird of prey craft were also retrofitted with the same technology. I would imagine something just as messy will happen with the bulk of so-called CF trade secrets. Where trillions of dollars are at stake don't bet on the underlying technology remaining cloaked for very long. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
I was thinking about this overnight and I think the right answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Suppose you are able to obtain a working LENR device containing e.g. powdered Ni or a Pd-coated cupronickel wire or whatever. You can certainly put the active material under and SEM and a spectrometer and determine exactly what it is, that's no problem. But you do not have access to the process that caused it to get that way. The significance of this fact should not be underestimated. The processing may be extremely nontrivial, requiring very expensive equipment for e.g. vapor deposition of metals with precise control over process parameters. Consider semiconductor processing. How do you think Intel has maintained a lead over the rest of the world for decades? By investing heavily in the real crown jewels, their process technology. And by not talking very much. It's worked for them. It could work for others. At the very least, this situation poses a severe barrier to academic replication in the short term. Unless, of course, one or more of the leaders choose to share the precise details. Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:09 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Jed sed: ** ** There is nothing more ephemeral that a vitally important trade secret.** ** Trade secrets about unimportant technology sometimes last for decades.** ** ** ** Stealing trade secrets is probably right up there with absconding with military secrets. ** ** I wish I could find a brief You-Tube clip from the original Star Trek series, where Spock plays a double agent. The Vulcan keeps the Romulan captain preoccupied by wooing her while Kirk goes undercover. Kirk teleports into the bowels of the Romulan vessel’s engine room in order to track down and steal a new secret stealth device known as the “cloaking device.” ** ** After an obligatory amount of running and jumping about Kirk manages to steal the cloaking device. When the Romulan captain finally realizes the fact that she had been had by the steely eye Vulcan she turns to him and expresses her displeasure at having been played a pawn in a game of espionage. (Never underestimate the scorn of a woman, no matter what the species.) Spock's reply was something to the effect that: Military secrets are the most fleeting of all secrets. ** ** BTW, by the time the Deep Space 9 Star Trek series rolled about the use of the cloaking device had become regulated by various interplanetary treaties. Initially only the Romulans were allowed to use the stealth technology – legally, that is. Well… after all, since they were the race that invented the device. But then, somehow, the Klingons managed to negotiate a deal with the Romulans, or perhaps they made an offer the Romulans couldn’t refuse, and now their own bird of prey craft were also retrofitted with the same technology. ** ** I would imagine something just as messy will happen with the bulk of so-called “CF” trade secrets. Where trillions of dollars are at stake don’t bet on the underlying technology remaining cloaked for very long. ** ** Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:09 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson Spock's reply was something to the effect that: Military secrets are the most fleeting of all secrets. Episode 57, The Enterprise Incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUFbd9e-aY @ 3:55 T
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Spock's reply was something to the effect that: Military secrets are the most fleeting of all secrets. Arthur C. Clarke said the same thing, except he was talking about actual military secrets. He knew quite a few of them because he worked experimental GCA radar systems during WWII. There is no need to steal industrial trade secrets. The product itself tells you all you need to know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
At 07:39 PM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Thanks for writing this, I was also scratching my head trying to figure out whether Godes and W-L were saying the same thing or not. Minor comment: I think you typo'd 782MeV when meaning 782KeV. Yes. Thanks. They are not saying the same thing, though there is a small resemblance. Certainly Godes is not confirming W-L.
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
At 03:06 PM 8/17/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 01:17 PM 8/17/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Unreadable for me. Full paper : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf Appendix A just lists a bunch of reactions ... with NO direct reference to WL (may be in the other Godes papers). Interesting paper. This is *not* W-L theory compatible. However, first things first. This paper is most of all an experimental report. The abstract does not mention theory. The title, however, and the opening paragraph talk about the fusion theory they had in mind. The conclusion, however, doesn't make a claim that they proved the theory, only that they found certain operating characteristics. We conclude that the reaction producing excess power in the nickel hydride is related to and very dependent upon the frequency of the Q pulses applied. We have thus demonstrated that there is a repeatable and measurable relationship between excess heat production from the stimulated nickel hydride in the test cell and the repetition rate of the applied electronic pulses. When the repetition rate is changed from the optimum frequency, excess power production ceases in the nickel hydride lattice. When that repetition rate is restored, significant excess power production resumes. I'm very interested in this work for the same reasons I've been very interested in the THz (dual laser) stimulation work of Dennis Letts et al. Control over the reaction is being demonstrated. There is a fly in the ointment, though. Certain electrical inputs to the cell were changed deliberately in a proprietary manner effecting Q frequency content. In other words, we aren't being told enough information so that this finding could be independently replicated. We started with the hypothesis that metal hydrides stimulated at frequencies related to the lattice phonon resonance would cause protons or deuterons to undergo controlled electron capture. If this hypothesis is true then less hydride material would be needed to produce excess power. Also, this should lead to excess power (1) on demand, (2) from light H2O electrolysis, and (3) from the hydrides of Pd, Ni, or any matrix able to provide the necessary confinement of hydrogen and obtain a Hamiltonian value greater than 782KeV. Also, the excess power effect would be enhanced at high temperatures and pressures. Brillouin's lattice stimulation reverses the natural decay of neutrons to protons and Beta particles, catalyzing this endothermic step. Constraining a proton spatially in a lattice causes the lattice energy to be highly uncertain. With the Hamiltonian of the system reaching 782KeV for a proton or 3MeV for a deuteron the system may be capable of capturing an electron, forming an ultra-cold neutron or di-neutron system. The almost stationary ultra-cold neutron(s) occupies a position in the metal lattice where another dissolved hydrogen is most likely to tunnel in less than a nanosecond, forming a deuteron / triton / quadrium by capturing the cold neutron and releasing binding energy. This would lead to helium through a Beta decay. The expected half-life of the beta decay: if J_(4H)= 0-, 1-, 2-,t1/2=10 min; if J_(4H)=0+, 1+, t1/2=0.03 sec[1]. Personal correspondence with Dr. D. R. Tilley confirmed that the result of such a reaction would be ߯ decay to 4He. The only resemblance to W-L theory is that neutron formation from electron capture by a proton is being hypothesized. W-L proposes a surface mechanism, Brillouin is proposing a lattice mechanism, but that might be an inconsequential detail, i.e., the actual reaction site might be near or at the surface. W-L propose that ULM neutrons form by capture of heavy electrons have a high capture cross-section (expected, if I'm correct, from the very low momentum), but they have these neutrons react with lots of different stuff in the surface region. Brillouin has the ULM neutron sitting in the site where it was formed (as it would, initially at least), where it would be targeted by another proton, as, with the original proton's charge gone, this would be the preferred location for a new proton to occupy. Thus, with hydrogen, the initial (and doubtless main) reaction product would be deuterium. This is somewhat similar to Storms' proposal, except for the site. Storms has, in cracks: p + e + p - d + e. (The electron is catalytic and is pushed out of the way) There are obvious problems to be solved, if this theory is to sprout wings. Rate is not considered. The 782 MeV capture process is enabled by the uncertainty principle, and such processes are normally very much rate-limited. It's tunneling, in effect, but that's a boatload of energy to borrow in this way. The net energy is not high for the first proposed step: 2.2 MeV - 0.8 MeV. The process looks like, with H D, T, it would produce tritium proportionally to the D/H ratio,
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
Thanks for writing this, I was also scratching my head trying to figure out whether Godes and W-L were saying the same thing or not. Minor comment: I think you typo'd 782MeV when meaning 782KeV. Jeff On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:06 PM 8/17/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 01:17 PM 8/17/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Unreadable for me. Full paper : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/**conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-** 17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-**Capture-Paper.pdfhttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf Appendix A just lists a bunch of reactions ... with NO direct reference to WL (may be in the other Godes papers). Interesting paper. This is *not* W-L theory compatible. However, first things first. This paper is most of all an experimental report. The abstract does not mention theory. The title, however, and the opening paragraph talk about the fusion theory they had in mind. The conclusion, however, doesn't make a claim that they proved the theory, only that they found certain operating characteristics. We conclude that the reaction producing excess power in the nickel hydride is related to and very dependent upon the frequency of the Q pulses applied. We have thus demonstrated that there is a repeatable and measurable relationship between excess heat production from the stimulated nickel hydride in the test cell and the repetition rate of the applied electronic pulses. When the repetition rate is changed from the optimum frequency, excess power production ceases in the nickel hydride lattice. When that repetition rate is restored, significant excess power production resumes. I'm very interested in this work for the same reasons I've been very interested in the THz (dual laser) stimulation work of Dennis Letts et al. Control over the reaction is being demonstrated. There is a fly in the ointment, though. Certain electrical inputs to the cell were changed deliberately in a proprietary manner effecting Q frequency content. In other words, we aren't being told enough information so that this finding could be independently replicated. We started with the hypothesis that metal hydrides stimulated at frequencies related to the lattice phonon resonance would cause protons or deuterons to undergo controlled electron capture. If this hypothesis is true then less hydride material would be needed to produce excess power. Also, this should lead to excess power (1) on demand, (2) from light H2O electrolysis, and (3) from the hydrides of Pd, Ni, or any matrix able to provide the necessary confinement of hydrogen and obtain a Hamiltonian value greater than 782KeV. Also, the excess power effect would be enhanced at high temperatures and pressures. Brillouin's lattice stimulation reverses the natural decay of neutrons to protons and Beta particles, catalyzing this endothermic step. Constraining a proton spatially in a lattice causes the lattice energy to be highly uncertain. With the Hamiltonian of the system reaching 782KeV for a proton or 3MeV for a deuteron the system may be capable of capturing an electron, forming an ultra-cold neutron or di-neutron system. The almost stationary ultra-cold neutron(s) occupies a position in the metal lattice where another dissolved hydrogen is most likely to tunnel in less than a nanosecond, forming a deuteron / triton / quadrium by capturing the cold neutron and releasing binding energy. This would lead to helium through a Beta decay. The expected half-life of the beta decay: if J_(4H)= 0-, 1-, 2-,t1/2=10 min; if J_(4H)=0+, 1+, t1/2=0.03 sec[1]. Personal correspondence with Dr. D. R. Tilley confirmed that the result of such a reaction would be ߯ decay to 4He. The only resemblance to W-L theory is that neutron formation from electron capture by a proton is being hypothesized. W-L proposes a surface mechanism, Brillouin is proposing a lattice mechanism, but that might be an inconsequential detail, i.e., the actual reaction site might be near or at the surface. W-L propose that ULM neutrons form by capture of heavy electrons have a high capture cross-section (expected, if I'm correct, from the very low momentum), but they have these neutrons react with lots of different stuff in the surface region. Brillouin has the ULM neutron sitting in the site where it was formed (as it would, initially at least), where it would be targeted by another proton, as, with the original proton's charge gone, this would be the preferred location for a new proton to occupy. Thus, with hydrogen, the initial (and doubtless main) reaction product would be deuterium. This is somewhat similar to Storms' proposal, except for the site. Storms has, in cracks: p + e + p - d + e. (The electron is catalytic and is pushed out of the way) There are obvious problems to be solved, if
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Certain electrical inputs to the cell were changed deliberately in a proprietary manner effecting Q frequency content. In other words, we aren't being told enough information so that this finding could be independently replicated. Is the first comment a quote from the paper, or a report? Anyway, ask the authors. Maybe it is not longer proprietary. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
I saw this too. It's a quote. The word proprietary actually appears 6 times in the Godes document, in relation to this and other aspects of the work. It seems unlikely to be an accident or temporary. Celani also describes the large help of an unnamed Italian company with respect to processing the CONSTANTAN wire - in particular, the exact wire (wire #2) that was shown at both conferences, NI and ICCF. It's unclear whether he plans to provide the information required to replicate, either. Certainly it is not in the ICCF paper. And you have Piantelli apparently withdrawing from ICCF at the last moment, rumor has it to protect proprietary information ... I suppose that if this work all holds up, the mainstream scientific community may get what it deserves for shunning the discipline: all the key results may be locked up behind an impenetrable veil of trade secrecy. Jeff On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Certain electrical inputs to the cell were changed deliberately in a proprietary manner effecting Q frequency content. In other words, we aren't being told enough information so that this finding could be independently replicated. Is the first comment a quote from the paper, or a report? Anyway, ask the authors. Maybe it is not longer proprietary. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose that if this work all holds up, the mainstream scientific community may get what it deserves for shunning the discipline: all the key results may be locked up behind an impenetrable veil of trade secrecy. That subject came up in the panel discussion; the panel of which I was a member. An audience member expressed concerns that if cold fusion transmogrifies into something like the semiconductor industry, how will scientific information spread from what Berkowitz calls an impenetrable veil of trade secrecy. I address this question. I don't recall exactly what I said, but the gist of it is that trade secrecy is not impenetrable. It is a sieve. In industry, proprietary information floods out by well known means such as reverse engineering of machine and poaching top employees who have technical knowledge. (I believe the whole thing is on video, so you might find I blurted out something quite different, but that is what I mean to say.) There is nothing more ephemeral that a vitally important trade secret. Trade secrets about unimportant technology sometimes last for decades. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
This is a very refreshing response. I certainly hope you are correct. Jeff On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose that if this work all holds up, the mainstream scientific community may get what it deserves for shunning the discipline: all the key results may be locked up behind an impenetrable veil of trade secrecy. That subject came up in the panel discussion; the panel of which I was a member. An audience member expressed concerns that if cold fusion transmogrifies into something like the semiconductor industry, how will scientific information spread from what Berkowitz calls an impenetrable veil of trade secrecy. I address this question. I don't recall exactly what I said, but the gist of it is that trade secrecy is not impenetrable. It is a sieve. In industry, proprietary information floods out by well known means such as reverse engineering of machine and poaching top employees who have technical knowledge. (I believe the whole thing is on video, so you might find I blurted out something quite different, but that is what I mean to say.) There is nothing more ephemeral that a vitally important trade secret. Trade secrets about unimportant technology sometimes last for decades. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
At 10:24 PM 8/16/2012, you wrote: From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Jed just informed me that it's okay to open this one: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDyUINIZG8/edit They quietly endorse Widom-Larsen : A Hamiltonian with ⥠782keV can cause a proton to capture an electron to yield an ultra cold neutron. p + ⥠782KeV + e- » n + νe Unreadable for me. Krivit is making a Big Deal out of this presentation, and McKubre's co-authorship. I rather doubt that McKubre has reversed his position on neutrons. It is not clear at all that co-authorship represents endorsement of all of a presentation's conclusions or speculations.
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
Can a cold neutron capture reaction create a temperature inversion like an inhaling singularity can? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 10:24 PM 8/16/2012, you wrote: From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Jed just informed me that it's okay to open this one: https://docs.google.com/**presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_** HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDyUINIZG**8/edithttps://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDyUINIZG8/edit They quietly endorse Widom-Larsen : A Hamiltonian with ≥ 782keV can cause a proton to capture an electron to yield an ultra cold neutron. p + ≥ 782KeV + e- » n + νe Unreadable for me. Krivit is making a Big Deal out of this presentation, and McKubre's co-authorship. I rather doubt that McKubre has reversed his position on neutrons. It is not clear at all that co-authorship represents endorsement of all of a presentation's conclusions or speculations.
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
At 01:17 PM 8/17/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 10:24 PM 8/16/2012, you wrote: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDyUINIZG8/edit They quietly endorse Widom-Larsen : A Hamiltonian with ⥠782keV can cause a proton to capture an electron to yield an ultra cold neutron. p + ⥠782KeV + e- » n + νe Unreadable for me. Krivit is making a Big Deal out of this presentation, and McKubre's co-authorship. I rather doubt that McKubre has reversed his position on neutrons. It is not clear at all that co-authorship represents endorsement of all of a presentation's conclusions or speculations. They just state it as a fact (in a couple of places ... for p+e and d+e ) Haven't been to Krivit's yet. But Coulomb shielding and hydrinos are still in play : see [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg69419.html http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation - Krivit link
At 01:17 PM 8/17/2012, you wrote: They quietly endorse Widom-Larsen : Unreadable for me. Krivit is making a Big Deal out of this presentation, and McKubre's co-authorship. I rather doubt that McKubre has reversed his position on neutrons. It is not clear at all that co-authorship represents endorsement of all of a presentation's conclusions or speculations. ICCF-17 Update and News http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/08/17/iccf-17-update-and-news/
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
At 01:17 PM 8/17/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Unreadable for me. Full paper : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf Appendix A just lists a bunch of reactions ... with NO direct reference to WL (may be in the other Godes papers).
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Jed just informed me that it's okay to open this one: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDyUINIZG8/edit They quietly endorse Widom-Larsen : A Hamiltonian with ≥ 782keV can cause a proton to capture an electron to yield an ultra cold neutron. p + ≥ 782KeV + e- » n + νe
RE: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
Alan, The link got mangled and I couldn't get it to work... try tinyurl? -Mark -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Jed just informed me that it's okay to open this one: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PUL TBceDyUINIZG8/edit They quietly endorse Widom-Larsen : A Hamiltonian with ≥ 782keV can cause a proton to capture an electron to yield an ultra cold neutron. p + ≥ 782KeV + e- » n + νe
RE: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
Never mind, took out a '/' and got the link put back together... -mi -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Jed just informed me that it's okay to open this one: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PUL TBceDyUINIZG8/edit They quietly endorse Widom-Larsen : A Hamiltonian with ≥ 782keV can cause a proton to capture an electron to yield an ultra cold neutron. p + ≥ 782KeV + e- » n + νe
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Whoa. 130 bar light water electrolysis instead of gas phase! Yeah, what a surprise. T
[Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
Jed just informed me that it's okay to open this one: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDyUINIZG8/edit My wife kept me up long enough talking about LENR that we got the okay from Frank. She's never been this excited about my hobby. :-) T
RE: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
Whoa. 130 bar light water electrolysis instead of gas phase! -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed just informed me that it's okay to open this one: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDy UINIZG8/edit My wife kept me up long enough talking about LENR that we got the okay from Frank. She's never been this excited about my hobby. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
I think that is their wet boiler? On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Whoa. 130 bar light water electrolysis instead of gas phase! -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed just informed me that it's okay to open this one: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDy UINIZG8/edit My wife kept me up long enough talking about LENR that we got the okay from Frank. She's never been this excited about my hobby. :-) T
