Bob H— Why not do an experiment with a small concentration of D to determine whether or not it changes the repeatable reaction (with normal H). It may be a little D does poison the reaction. Getting rid of all the D may be the ticket to higher energy production. Such information may also help understanding the Ni system geometry and other physical properties that are important for the reaction to occur.
Bob Cook Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Bob Higgins<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 10:08 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation You missed my point - and, of course, I could have said it better. The problem is that a failed quasi-replication (Ahern's experiment was FAR from replication) does not mean the reaction does not work. It means the experimenter failed to adequately replicate variables that were important, about which little or nothing may have been reported. Also, just because a single experiment with LAH or LAD fails to produce XH, does not mean that it is not possible to get XH from that system. You would like someone successful with LAH to evaluate the enrichment with LAD - that would be Parkhomov, not Ahern. It was failed quasi-replications of F&P that sent the whole field into a tailspin. There were eventually things that could be learned from those experiments, but initial conclusions from them were totally wrong. The answer is not going to be found in just a single experiment. I am not against quasi-replications, just against drawing false conclusions from them. On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > As we have all seen in this field, failed quasi-replications don't mean > squat. > > No at all! On the contrary, quasi-replications mean quite a lot, if not > everything. > > AP had his first quasi-success in performing a quasi-replication of the > hot-cat, and he has done little else except quasi-replication of that > first one - which was actually not successful… and he finally found > modest success by varying parameters, not by following a presumed path. > > There really is no decent model out there - and no strategy except to > learn from the failures, which is at the 90% rate… so there is a lot to > learn from analyzing the quasi-replications. > >
