Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
This is an important paper, by the way.
Looks like it. But this is what is frustrating about a lot of
publications in the field, particularly with excess heat, but it
afflicts many other phenomena.
There are some experiments where it's only practical to do one
At 05:17 PM 6/2/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
1000% sounds great, but what if this was one or two cells in a
series of, say 64 cells?
They have tested a lot more than 64 cathodes, I think.
And you know the drill. They vary the hell out of those cathodes,
trying to
At 05:17 PM 6/2/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
1000% sounds great, but what if this was one or two cells in a
series of, say 64 cells?
They have tested a lot more than 64 cathodes, I think.
And you know the drill. They vary the hell out of those cathodes,
trying to
Vittorio Violante sent me a correction to this paper:
Sarto, F., et al. Electrode Surface Morphology Characterization by
Atomic Force Microscopy. in ICCF-14 International Conference on
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008. Washington, DC.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SartoFelectrodes.pdf
At 01:44 PM 6/1/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SartoFelectrodes.pdf
The excess heat value in Table I for Sample #64 was listed as 80 -
100%. Apparently that was a typo. It has been changed to 1000% (10
times input). That is a big difference! I am glad to hear they got
At 01:44 PM 6/1/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SartoFelectrodes.pdf
The excess heat value in Table I for Sample #64 was listed as 80 -
100%. Apparently that was a typo. It has been changed to 1000% (10
times input). That is a big difference! I am glad to hear they got
6 matches
Mail list logo
