Dear Cousin Jed, You are right in principle, we have many elements of *know wha*t and *know how *re the cells. We know the critical parameters but we cannot always achieve them. We definitely have no *know why* because we do not have first class theories that predict, we also do not have second class theories that prohibit only third class that explain, and don't explain clearly. Do you have a favorite theory?
And we are unable to explain miraculous results as Mizuno's unquenchable cathode or Energetics' cathode no 64- such events are unique and cannot be understood yet. And only these are good for a technology, not those asking for sensitive calorimeters. . And we do not have examples of solid reproductbility. We perhaps know, but we can not as much as we know. My guess is that this situation si due to the poisoning- in an uncontrolable way of the active sites (Ed Storm' NAE) with S, C, N trace compounds from air- the same that are causing climate change. In order to try to get coontrollable LENR these poisons have to be removed from the system. Nobody believes me, and I have no lab to try myself.. Perhaps we know what makes the cells work, but it is equally important to know what makes the cells to NOT work. Unfortunately the cells know this too Peter On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Michel Jullian wrote: > > It is less independent than using a fresh cathode and >> > your own cell. >> >> Which, since you don't really know what makes the original cell work, >> is even harder than moving the original cell. >> > > We know what makes the cells work. With bulk Pd the control parameters are > well known: high loading, stimulation and so on. They are difficult to > achieve, but we know what they are. > > If you mean that we need to know what makes the cell work on theoretical > basis, that's just plain incorrect. Look carefully and ask enough questions > and you we will find that people do not know the theoretical basis for > anything, not even the formation of ice from liquid water. > > > > Anyway, I said "independent measurement", not independent replication. >> > > It is almost as difficult to do an independent measurement as a > replication, unless you are visiting the lab and using the experimenter's > own equipment. > > > > I am sure it would convince many on the contrary. What would you think >> of someone telling you he can fly to the moon by flapping his arms, to >> use your analogy, and never letting anyone watch for 20 years? >> > > That's silly. Energetic Technology welcomed Rob Duncan. McKubre has had > hundreds of visitors, such as Richard Garwin. Garwin wrote a report saying > he found no error. What more do you want? Heck, even I've been to plenty of > labs. > > - Jed > >
