Re: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
From Mr. Lawrence, OrionWorks wrote: Welcome back, Mr. Lawrence Thank you, Mr. Johnson ... and I would like to make a brief OT excursion to apologize to you for my sanctimonious, unpleasant, and undeserved comments to you just before I flounced out of the room and slammed the door, a couple of weeks back. Apology accepted, with the caveat that your observations were accurate. I am often guilty of playing the role of the armchair psychologist. It's a predilection that occasionally earns me hostile responses, some of it probably deserved. ... Eventually she just sighed, brushed against my ankle, and purred, Iem that Iem. She then took pity on my conundrum and suggested we occupy ourselves with another worthy pursuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5qd9Kp3Hfc Merci beaucoup! Very amusing! :-) I happen to know someone rather well who looks a whole lot like the star of the video. You may have met him if you took a peek at the 'images' directory under Iemy. Zoey tells me she frequently hangs out with Iemy at the water dish to discuss the latest techniques that have been applied to sequestering the long sought after field sparrow particle. In the meantime, Zoey wants you to know that she detected the secret paw print on your forehead. You can rub her belly anytime. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
[ Ahem ... I seem to be back... ] On 29 Jun 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:15:39 -0700 Kowalski, L., S. Little, and G. Luce. Searching for excess heat in Mizuno-type plasma electrolysis. in The 12th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2005. Yokohama, Japan. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf This paper reports a replication of plasma electrolysis heat that did not produce any heat. I guess I should say a non-replication. Couple observations about it. This was all done at Earthtech, and, of course, Scott Little is one of the authors, but only the second; Kowalski is lead. Is Kowalski also employed at Earthtech these days? It had always seemed to me like a one-man show. This paper also appears on the Earthtech website, same author list, same setup, same experiment, but a slightly different writeup, at: http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/Inc-W/Fauvarque/ I found the paper initially rather confusing because throughout, Kow. refers to their attempts at replicating the results of reference (8) (that's eight). They refer to reference (8) at least a dozen times. Reference (8) in their paper, however, is Cirillo et al, Transmutation of metal at low energy in a confined plasma in water, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Kowalski paper; Kow et al actually were attempting a replication of their reference (9), a paper by Fauvarque, Clauzon, and Lalleve. (Why can't these guys proof their papers as carefully as they design their calorimeters? This would not have been a hard mistake for them to spot, but it sure confused the heck out of at least one poor reader!) Anyhow with that little bit of confusion out of the way, I have to say this paper exhibits Little's usual over the top approach to building the equipment, and IMO they make a good case that Fauvarque may have been measuring an artifact. There was no calorimetry in this experiment; instead, both teams measured the weight loss of the water to determine how much energy came out, and compared that with power measurements going in. The energy-out calculation assumes all weight loss is due to evaporation of water (aside from pre-measured conduction losses). Kow/Little et al claim to have had a lot of trouble with loss of liquid electrolyte during early test runs, and the cell they finally used had a baffle in place to keep the liquid in while letting the vapor out. Of course any liquid which leaves the experiment is going to carry away only a fraction of the energy it would have carried off had it been vaporized, which will result in an overestimate of power-out. Kow/Little also ran a calibration run, boiling the cell with a joule heater, at the start of each live run, and their final measurements had COP within a few percent of 1 in all cases. That makes one think their baffle must have been doing the job. Fauvarque et al apparently used a setup with an open beaker, no baffle, no cover of any sort (see figure 2 of http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FauvarqueJabnormalex.pdf) This makes it seem plausible that they could indeed have lost enough liquid H2O to skew the energy calculations. They say in section 2, Experimental, that few unboiled droplets of water sprayed outside the beaker but particularly given how rapidly water at 212 degrees evaporates after hitting a countertop, and thus hides the evidence of the splash, it would have been nice if the evidence against this mechanism were a little more thorough than that rather subjective judgment. They calibrated with an Ohmic heater, but as far as I can tell they used it to measure conduction losses at boiling, but not to calibrate the rate of heat input versus the rate of weight loss *while* *boiling* the cell (which Kow/Little apparently did do, at the start of each run). This also brings to mind a claim I read somewhere (maybe Earthtech again? Not sure) that steam normally includes a significant fraction of entrained tiny droplets, which makes calculations of heat loss based on water weight loss somewhat suspect from the start; Little's baffle may have tended to catch the tiny droplets and hence give his team a more accurate reading (cf dust accumulating where an air current must turn a corner, commonly seen in houses around heating ducts and on fan blades -- when the vapor makes a sudden turn at the baffle the denser droplets tend to understeer and smash into it). I do also seem to recall that steam locomotives have a dryer in them to dry the steam, which implies that their designers were aware that freshly made steam tends to be wet. It's quite possible that Fauvarque et al actually measured enough excess heat that loss of liquid water couldn't account for it, but none the less it's a point that would need to be addressed, either with calculations or with reruns using a better controlled cell, before one would tend to accept the results entirely at face value. Oh, whatever...
RE: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence By the way, if anyone's actually read this far, and if you're not too mad at me as a result of my rather sympathetic comments regarding Little's group ... On the contrary, I am very supportive of the fact that this community has such a dedicated and carful individual (now semi-retired). He is both open-minded and aware of all the pitfalls that inventors allow themselves to fall into, but strictly by the book when it comes to replication. He is the anti-Tiller tiller, so to speak. If you have OU, and want if verified by Scott - you are going to have to essentially force it down his throat to the extent that there can be no doubt. I can say this and at the same time fully admit that LENR is a reality. Therein lies the crux of the situation. More than a few experimenters who have seen substantial gainfulness, are dismayed when they set up the experiment at EarthTech, with stricter controls, and careful oversight - and it doesn't perform. Much of this goes back to the expectancy effect, expectation-bias or Tiller effect, which we have all commented on in the past. This is related to other delusions that afflict even the smartest of us: the Plecebo effect, the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, or the Pygmalion effect: all of which are deeply ingrained into human nature. http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/AJPIAS-ft/vol_74/iss_7/578_1.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-expectancy_effect .. it can be shown that expectation will bias results in a number of ways, that when removed, it can convert the once successful experiment to the leveo of un-reproducible, at best. This does not imply actual deceit or dishonesty. We tend to overlook the fact that when dealing with quantum mechanics, essentially we are dealing with phenomena of LOW PROBABILITY. The goal then is NOT to merely show that a any QM reaction is effect is real. Transmutation essentially proves that LENR is real beyond any possible doubt, in the sense of showing that a nuclear reaction has occurred (at low probability). The challenge has always been to demonstrate - beyond that - that one can raise the probability of the reaction to a useful level and to do it *on demand*. The one demand is the hard part. It implies not just repeatability but a robust level of repeatability. Scott Little has not seen that yet. Is it out there? Yes, it is out there. Unfortunately, and for a variety of reasons, the people who have it or believe they have it, have not been ready to pack up the experiment and ship it off to Austin. That is understandable. Bravo! to Scott for being the ground state that many of us want to ... err, well ... to prove that we can get below ;-) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
Jones Beene wrote: Much of this goes back to the expectancy effect, expectation-bias or Tiller effect, which we have all commented on in the past. This is related to other delusions that afflict even the smartest of us: the Plecebo effect, the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, or the Pygmalion effect: all of which are deeply ingrained into human nature. Of course the same thing applies from the other direction, too. At this point, after all those null results, Scott must be *expecting* to get a null result in each new experiment -- at least, if he's any sort of normal human. Consequently he's more likely to be suspicious of the calorimetry, and work hard to fix it, if he's seeing an OU result than if he's seeing a null result! And that'll tend to skew his results in the null direction. This brings up an interesting question: Suppose for a moment that the CF results were all errors. Then, that would make me wonder -- is there some global, overarching reason why erroneous calorimetry would tend to OVERread the energy produced? And if not, if erroneous calorimetry results should be randomly distributed, *where* are all the under-unity results? With all those bogus results, really, half of them should have shown heat consumption, rather than heat generation! Are heat-deficit results just thrown away out of hand, as being obviously wrong? Or does this suggest that the extreme excess of excess heat results over heat deficits must mean there's really something there, after all?
RE: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
Stephen - The only insurmountable problem with an all erroneous hypothesis is *transmutation* (and/or radioactivity). Transmutation, or an isotope imbalance, cannot be faked, and there is no valid relic in instrumentation or technique to account for it unless it solely in helium or hydrogen. If it involves new isotopes in the cathode, as is most often the case, especially those near Pd in atomic number (45, Pd, 47, 48, etc) then that is proof positive of a nuclear reaction. Cadmium and silver, in particular, are often seen. If experimenters has a good PR man (public relations) they would spin everything in that direction and forger excess heat, for the time being. Nuclear proof, in the form of electrode transmutation, is there. Period. Mainstream physics must come to terms with that fact. If you have nuclear transmutation in the experiment - which can be a given, looking at the prior published results, then you are left with only these possibilities: 1) The transmutation did not produce excess energy, or 2) The excess energy which was produced, with so slight as to not be significant, relative to the input. Usually the problem is 2) since this is a QM reaction, and of low probability. If you look at some of the tables in Scott's old experiments - he does show excess on occasion in the few percent range which he does not try to hide or recalibrate for. If the problem were to turn out to be 1) instead of 2), then you essentially have new physics and can win a big prize for explaining the situation- i.e. that all the excess energy escaped as neutrinos, or whatever. My advice to companies like Energetics: hire a good PR firm and focus on documenting and emphasizing nuclear transmutation, as opposed to heat. Jones -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Jones Beene wrote: Much of this goes back to the expectancy effect, expectation-bias or Tiller effect, which we have all commented on in the past. This is related to other delusions that afflict even the smartest of us: the Plecebo effect, the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, or the Pygmalion effect: all of which are deeply ingrained into human nature. Of course the same thing applies from the other direction, too. At this point, after all those null results, Scott must be *expecting* to get a null result in each new experiment -- at least, if he's any sort of normal human. Consequently he's more likely to be suspicious of the calorimetry, and work hard to fix it, if he's seeing an OU result than if he's seeing a null result! And that'll tend to skew his results in the null direction. This brings up an interesting question: Suppose for a moment that the CF results were all errors. Then, that would make me wonder -- is there some global, overarching reason why erroneous calorimetry would tend to OVERread the energy produced? And if not, if erroneous calorimetry results should be randomly distributed, *where* are all the under-unity results? With all those bogus results, really, half of them should have shown heat consumption, rather than heat generation! Are heat-deficit results just thrown away out of hand, as being obviously wrong? Or does this suggest that the extreme excess of excess heat results over heat deficits must mean there's really something there, after all?
Re: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
Jones, I think we need to be clear about the attitude toward CF. If a person does not accept the basic concept that a nuclear reaction can occur under CF conditions, either because they are totally committed to conventional ideas or because they are just plain ignorant, no evidence short of a huge effect will have any effect on their attitude. On the other hand, if a person accepts the basic idea behind CF, the huge amount of evidence based on production of heat, tritium, transmutation, and emitted radiation is more than sufficient. People who have reached this level and want to invest in the process are only interested in energy production. Therefore, proving that significant excess energy is produced and showing how this process can be increased is important. Transmutation is irrelevant and showing that it occurs is a waste of time. For the field to move forward, we need to understand the process that produces energy. The other reactions are at best minor secondary reactions that have no practical importance at this time. We need to keep our eye on the prize. Ed On Jul 3, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Stephen - The only insurmountable problem with an all erroneous hypothesis is *transmutation* (and/or radioactivity). Transmutation, or an isotope imbalance, cannot be faked, and there is no valid relic in instrumentation or technique to account for it unless it solely in helium or hydrogen. If it involves new isotopes in the cathode, as is most often the case, especially those near Pd in atomic number (45, Pd, 47, 48, etc) then that is proof positive of a nuclear reaction. Cadmium and silver, in particular, are often seen. If experimenters has a good PR man (public relations) they would spin everything in that direction and forger excess heat, for the time being. Nuclear proof, in the form of electrode transmutation, is there. Period. Mainstream physics must come to terms with that fact. If you have nuclear transmutation in the experiment - which can be a given, looking at the prior published results, then you are left with only these possibilities: 1) The transmutation did not produce excess energy, or 2) The excess energy which was produced, with so slight as to not be significant, relative to the input. Usually the problem is 2) since this is a QM reaction, and of low probability. If you look at some of the tables in Scott's old experiments - he does show excess on occasion in the few percent range which he does not try to hide or recalibrate for. If the problem were to turn out to be 1) instead of 2), then you essentially have new physics and can win a big prize for explaining the situation- i.e. that all the excess energy escaped as neutrinos, or whatever. My advice to companies like Energetics: hire a good PR firm and focus on documenting and emphasizing nuclear transmutation, as opposed to heat. Jones -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Jones Beene wrote: Much of this goes back to the expectancy effect, expectation-bias or Tiller effect, which we have all commented on in the past. This is related to other delusions that afflict even the smartest of us: the Plecebo effect, the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, or the Pygmalion effect: all of which are deeply ingrained into human nature. Of course the same thing applies from the other direction, too. At this point, after all those null results, Scott must be *expecting* to get a null result in each new experiment -- at least, if he's any sort of normal human. Consequently he's more likely to be suspicious of the calorimetry, and work hard to fix it, if he's seeing an OU result than if he's seeing a null result! And that'll tend to skew his results in the null direction. This brings up an interesting question: Suppose for a moment that the CF results were all errors. Then, that would make me wonder -- is there some global, overarching reason why erroneous calorimetry would tend to OVERread the energy produced? And if not, if erroneous calorimetry results should be randomly distributed, *where* are all the under- unity results? With all those bogus results, really, half of them should have shown heat consumption, rather than heat generation! Are heat-deficit results just thrown away out of hand, as being obviously wrong? Or does this suggest that the extreme excess of excess heat results over heat deficits must mean there's really something there, after all?
Re: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
On Jul 3, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Whatever you might be expecting, I am certain that this is *not* it: http://physicsinsights.org/iemy/ Iem so Ido. They were, and so they did. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
Ed, I understand where you are coming from, but I think that you are mistaken as to this being a black and white issue. A substantial percentage of physicists, many of whom provide opinions for such things as ARPA-E, have more flexibility and open-mindedness than you are giving them discredit for. LENR is NOT an either-or proposition for them. Just as in politics, where there are groups on both the left and the right and a larger percentage in the middle who lean one way of the other but who are STRONGLY swayed by current events and emerging sentiment and RD, we have a similar situation. In politics, it may be 25% on either extreme and 50% in the middle. In LENR it is more like 40% naysayers of the Park persuation, 5% true believers, and 55% who can be swayed one way or the other, depending on the quality and quantity of evidence. We saw a taste of this recently with the rather large positive media response given to the SPAWAR stuff. I never thought 60 Minutes would get into the Act... none of it was news to us, in fact it was old-hat, but it made a fairly big splash nationally. If this had been followed with a strong presentation of the transmutation evidence, it would have been even more effective. It is important to keep hitting that middle percentage of fence-straddlers with every bit of strong evidence available. Why? Well ARPA-E is one reason. I suspect that you, like myself and many others, spent a good deal of time and effort getting in a proposal for the June 2 deadline. It have may be a wasted effort, but perhaps not - if they stick to the original mandate of funding high-risk transformative technologies, then there will be some of those funds going into LENR. There will be many people in DoE and ARPA who can be swayed by good evidence, DESPITE what the dyed-in-the-wool skeptics. They are aware of how many times the mainstream has been totally wrong before. Jones -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Jones, I think we need to be clear about the attitude toward CF. If a person does not accept the basic concept that a nuclear reaction can occur under CF conditions, either because they are totally committed to conventional ideas or because they are just plain ignorant, no evidence short of a huge effect will have any effect on their attitude. On the other hand, if a person accepts the basic idea behind CF, the huge amount of evidence based on production of heat, tritium, transmutation, and emitted radiation is more than sufficient. People who have reached this level and want to invest in the process are only interested in energy production. Therefore, proving that significant excess energy is produced and showing how this process can be increased is important. Transmutation is irrelevant and showing that it occurs is a waste of time. For the field to move forward, we need to understand the process that produces energy. The other reactions are at best minor secondary reactions that have no practical importance at this time. We need to keep our eye on the prize. Ed On Jul 3, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Stephen - The only insurmountable problem with an all erroneous hypothesis is *transmutation* (and/or radioactivity). Transmutation, or an isotope imbalance, cannot be faked, and there is no valid relic in instrumentation or technique to account for it unless it solely in helium or hydrogen. If it involves new isotopes in the cathode, as is most often the case, especially those near Pd in atomic number (45, Pd, 47, 48, etc) then that is proof positive of a nuclear reaction. Cadmium and silver, in particular, are often seen. If experimenters has a good PR man (public relations) they would spin everything in that direction and forger excess heat, for the time being. Nuclear proof, in the form of electrode transmutation, is there. Period. Mainstream physics must come to terms with that fact. If you have nuclear transmutation in the experiment - which can be a given, looking at the prior published results, then you are left with only these possibilities: 1) The transmutation did not produce excess energy, or 2) The excess energy which was produced, with so slight as to not be significant, relative to the input. Usually the problem is 2) since this is a QM reaction, and of low probability. If you look at some of the tables in Scott's old experiments - he does show excess on occasion in the few percent range which he does not try to hide or recalibrate for. If the problem were to turn out to be 1) instead of 2), then you essentially have new physics and can win a big prize for explaining the situation- i.e. that all the excess energy escaped as neutrinos, or whatever. My advice to companies like Energetics: hire a good PR firm and focus on documenting and emphasizing nuclear transmutation, as opposed to heat. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
Welcome back, Mr. Lawrence ... By the way, if anyone's actually read this far, and if you're not too mad at me as a result of my rather sympathetic comments regarding Little's group, and if you have any interest in something so far off topic it's beyond off-topic, then you might be at least slightly amused at one of the things I was doing during my vacation from Vortex. Whatever you might be expecting, I am certain that this is *not* it: http://physicsinsights.org/iemy/ Mr. Lawrence's valuable contribution concerning the Book of Iem, however OT some Vorts might consider the mysterious transcripts to be, seems to point to numerous profound observations. I asked my cat, Zoey, for the hidden meaning behind several iconic phrases from this book, such as, My hovercraft is full of eels! I didn't understand Zoey's translations even after repeated attempts on her part to educate me. Eventually she just sighed, brushed against my ankle, and purred, Iem that Iem. She then took pity on my conundrum and suggested we occupy ourselves with another worthy pursuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5qd9Kp3Hfc Happy Forth'o'July to all, legal or illegal. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
Jones, this is indeed a black and white issue because success comes from easily understood events. For example the SPAWAR results got attention for three main reasons. The evidence is based on radiation, which has fewer ways it can be rejected; the claimed radiation is neutrons, which the skeptics insist need to be found; and the source is the Navy, which is a credible institution. Claims for other kinds of radiation and evidence from other institutions have been predictably ignored. Furthermore, the results are at such low levels that the energy industry is not threatened, hence can be open minded. Therefore, this work is consistent with the requirements of the skeptics. I'm only suggesting that the behavior of the system, as represented by the outspoken skeptics, needs to be understood and handled in a potentially successful way. Anyone who writes successful grant proposals to the government knows this kind of approach is an essential requirement. In contrast, claiming to look for transmutation products in a proposal to the government will not get funding because this kind of evidence is not consistent with any theory and can be confused by normal processes. In the same way, a proposal written to a venture capitalist will not get funding unless it promises to make useful energy. You need to use an approach that fits with the needs and preconceptions of the funder. This requirement is black and white as any salesman knows. None of this matters to a skeptic who is unwilling to review what is already known. No amount of additional result can add significantly to what has already been published if the person is unwilling to read the literature. If they read the literature, they would no longer be a skeptic and would not be in this discussion. What is the point of writing more papers that are going to be ignored as have all the other work? Success requires a different approach. The 60 minutes program provided part of this requirement, i.e,. it explained to the ordinary person the potential for the effect being real. We need more of this. The other requirement is a useful theory that can be used to guide successful research toward a reproducible effect. I predict that no funds will go to LENR unless this requirement is part of the proposal. Ed On Jul 3, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Ed, I understand where you are coming from, but I think that you are mistaken as to this being a black and white issue. A substantial percentage of physicists, many of whom provide opinions for such things as ARPA-E, have more flexibility and open-mindedness than you are giving them discredit for. LENR is NOT an either-or proposition for them. Just as in politics, where there are groups on both the left and the right and a larger percentage in the middle who lean one way of the other but who are STRONGLY swayed by current events and emerging sentiment and RD, we have a similar situation. In politics, it may be 25% on either extreme and 50% in the middle. In LENR it is more like 40% naysayers of the Park persuation, 5% true believers, and 55% who can be swayed one way or the other, depending on the quality and quantity of evidence. We saw a taste of this recently with the rather large positive media response given to the SPAWAR stuff. I never thought 60 Minutes would get into the Act... none of it was news to us, in fact it was old-hat, but it made a fairly big splash nationally. If this had been followed with a strong presentation of the transmutation evidence, it would have been even more effective. It is important to keep hitting that middle percentage of fence- straddlers with every bit of strong evidence available. Why? Well ARPA-E is one reason. I suspect that you, like myself and many others, spent a good deal of time and effort getting in a proposal for the June 2 deadline. It have may be a wasted effort, but perhaps not - if they stick to the original mandate of funding high-risk transformative technologies, then there will be some of those funds going into LENR. There will be many people in DoE and ARPA who can be swayed by good evidence, DESPITE what the dyed-in-the-wool skeptics. They are aware of how many times the mainstream has been totally wrong before. Jones -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Jones, I think we need to be clear about the attitude toward CF. If a person does not accept the basic concept that a nuclear reaction can occur under CF conditions, either because they are totally committed to conventional ideas or because they are just plain ignorant, no evidence short of a huge effect will have any effect on their attitude. On the other hand, if a person accepts the basic idea behind CF, the huge amount of evidence based on production of heat, tritium, transmutation, and emitted radiation is more than
Re: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
OrionWorks wrote: Welcome back, Mr. Lawrence Thank you, Mr. Johnson ... and I would like to make a brief OT excursion to apologize to you for my sanctimonious, unpleasant, and undeserved comments to you just before I flounced out of the room and slammed the door, a couple of weeks back. ... ... Eventually she just sighed, brushed against my ankle, and purred, Iem that Iem. She then took pity on my conundrum and suggested we occupy ourselves with another worthy pursuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5qd9Kp3Hfc Merci beaucoup! Very amusing! :-) I happen to know someone rather well who looks a whole lot like the star of the video. You may have met him if you took a peek at the 'images' directory under Iemy.
Re: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
On Jul 3, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: You may have met him if you took a peek at the 'images' directory under Iemy. You really do have to be aware regarding those with whom you are associated! http://physicsinsights.org/iemy/felix_resilleserre.html Black market deuterium indeed! 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Kowalski paper
Kowalski, L., S. Little, and G. Luce. Searching for excess heat in Mizuno-type plasma electrolysis. in The 12th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2005. Yokohama, Japan. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf This paper reports a replication of plasma electrolysis heat that did not produce any heat. I guess I should say a non-replication. - Jed
