Jed, the procedures you and we describe improve the chance of creating a working cathode but this does not make it 100%. McKubre also had good success, but only as long as he used Pd from a particular source. Other people have had the same experience. The source and the treatment are both important but a person only has control over the treatment.
Some sources are better than others. Violante has created a source with a high probability for success but this Pd is not generally available. The Pd-B made by NRL is said to have high probability, but this material is also not generally available. Why the source is important is a matter of debate, with the argument being determined by theory. If we had a laboratory able to combine these ideas and apply them using modern equipment, we might find the solution. Ed Storms Ed On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > > I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late > hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four > successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about > building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly > generate excess heat 100% of the time? > > Ed says no, but as a practical matter I think he did, and so did Cravens, and > Pons. That's what I said here: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf > > I mean it works even though there is no theory, and even though it takes > months to find one good cathode. It isn't useful, but it works. I'll bet if > someone spends a year doing the procedures in this paper with another 92 > cathodes, some will work. > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf > > Needless to say, if the people from ELFORSK are right, Rossi is miles ahead > of this. Even though he has no theory as far as I know. > > - Jed >
