From: Jed Rothwell
> Cerron-Zeballos did a careful, year-long attempt to replicate, as you see in the paper. As far as I can tell, they disproved the Focardi claims.... On the contrary, as far as I can tell, they merely failed to replicate the Focardi claims. "Failure to replicate" should never be confused with "disproof." Just as with Pd-D experiments, where there are many careful attempts at replication that unfortunately end in failure to replicate, a null result *disproves* nothing (unless there was a claim of 100% reproducibility, and if there was that - it was foolishly made). "Failure to replicate" does prove one thing, however: that there are unknown or unexplained factors - which can keep this type of experiment from producing the desired results. What factors? In both cases, an adequate explanation for null result - if not the best explanation - is that the matrix material, whether it is Ni or Pd - differed very slightly in composition, and that the more active electrode contained (inadvertently or intentionally) either an active dopant ... or more likely (if the A-Z experiment has broad generality) that the surface nanostructure differed is being in the FRET range, or not. The Forster radius may be absolutely essential to LENR, and this is the wider value of Arata (in my interpretation) - and that small detail of nanostructure was not realized by the experiment replicator, and could even have been serendipitous to the original claimant. Jones
