Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Rich Murray wrote: > > Zounds! So, at first scan, the Toyota results are never presented in >> precise details of procedures, materials, people, runs, results, control >> runs, micro and nano level studies . . . >> > > First, those studies were mainly done by JM, not Toyota. Second, these are > corporations, not universities or national labs. They never release that > kind of information. It is a trade secret. > > Another convenient excuse for why nothing ever came of it. It gets hauled out to explain the failure of Patterson's power cell, and it will get used again when Rossi and Mills fade from the scene.
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> But it was inferior calorimetry, and it used boiling water. Rossi is a >> master at the boiling water fake, getting a factor of 7 out of it. Pons >> only managed a factor of 2 or so. >> > > As anyone can see from the paper, the method is completely different from > Rossi's. It is not "inferior." > > Yes, it's different from Rossi's. I was just saying that whenever boiling water is used, there are opportunities for error. Quoting from Morrison (1997): "With the IMRA(Japan) calorimeter, the water jacket surrounding the cell is kept at constant temperature so that any heat exchange with the outside is constant. With the IMRA(Europe) calorimeter, as the temperature changes up to boiling point, the heat flow to the outside must vary substantially and the calibration becomes critical. Instead of employing calculations and some doubtful controls, it is good standard experimental technique to use an external water bath at constant temperature, as IMRA(Japan) has done, but IMRA(France) has not." Japan got no excess heat in 26 cells; France got excess heat in 3 out of 7 cells. > The "factor of 2" is incorrect. They sometimes ran it in heat after death, > meaning the factor was infinite. > > > I did not see any reference to heat after death in the paper. The summary table showed COPs of 2.5, 1.5, and variable.
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > As Miles showed in Table 10, if the person doing the experiment is >>> skilled, the success rate varies from zero to 100% depending on the >>> material. >>> >> >> >> Really? You need skill to get a success rate from 0 to 100%? >> > > You need skill to get any excess heat at all. > So you mean > 0%, not 0 to 100%. Because who wants clean abundant energy? Who wants to save the world? Who >> wants honor glory fame. No one wants that! >> > > That is not the reward for doing cold fusion, > That's because so far those doing it haven't convinced the mainstream that it works. But you were talking about commercial levels of power, remember. That would make it unambiguous and completely convincing. If *that* were true, then those would be the rewards. No one would shut down the research if they believed those levels were achievable. > or anything else that upsets mainstream institutions. > Maybe, but why would mainstream institutions be upset by working on cold fusion if they thought it worked? Do they hate clean abundant energy? Do they hate honor glory and fame? > As I mentioned, what happens is a funding agency in Washington calls you > and threatens to close your lab; > Again, what do they hate about cold fusion. Washington especially stands to benefit enormously from cold fusion; strategically, economically, and environmentally. There is simply no downside from Washington's point of view. So if they want to shut it down, it's because they don't believe the results. > the Washington Post, Time Magazine and the New Scientist accuse you of > being a lunatic and a criminal, destroying your career and your personal > life. > Same question for them. Do they hate clean and abundant energy? In 1989, for a brief time all the journals were singing about the benefits of cold fusion. Clearly they would love it to be true. It means that the results are not convincing anyone that matters. > > Martin Fleischmann predicted this would happen on the day of the press > conference. > Do you have some evidence for this, because that certainly didn't seem to be his attitude in the various interviews, where he was beaming with pride. > He was not surprised by the reaction. > So he said later. Do you have any evidence he said it at the time? > Anyone who has studied history will not be surprised. This is real life, > not a Hallmark Hall of Fame movie. > > Charles Beaudette quoted Fleischmann and summarized the situation at the > end of his book, > This was retrospective rationalization. Where is the evidence he predicted this reaction on the day of? > > Is this not similar to the response of the Swedish chemist Svente > Arrhenius with his discovery of the mechanism of electrolytic conduction > more than one hundred years ago? He believed he was right and he persevered > for twenty years before receiving the recognition that was his due. > Total, unadulterated nonsense. Talk about making stuff up. I don't know if you're quoting here or if this is your comment, but it's wrong. I admit, my source does not go beyond wikipedia, but according to it, Arrhenius's controversial ideas were presented in his doctoral thesis. While there were local skeptics, his degree was granted, and when the dissertation was sent to other European scholars, they came to Sweden trying to recruit him. Doesn't really sound much like cold fusion, does it? The Swedish Academy then awarded him a grant to study with the likes of Boltzmann and van 't Hoff. That doesn't sound like persevering to get recognition. A few years after his graduation, he was *given* an appointment at the Stockholm university, and was a full professor/chair (rector) about a decade after his PhD. That doesn't sound much like rejection to me. It did take almost 20 years to recognize his work with a Nobel prize, but maybe the fact that the prize was not initiated until about 17 years after had something to do with that. He got the 3rd one in chemistry. He was on the Nobel committee from the beginning until his death.
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
Rich Murray wrote: Zounds! So, at first scan, the Toyota results are never presented in > precise details of procedures, materials, people, runs, results, control > runs, micro and nano level studies . . . > First, those studies were mainly done by JM, not Toyota. Second, these are corporations, not universities or national labs. They never release that kind of information. It is a trade secret. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
Joshua Cude wrote: As Miles showed in Table 10, if the person doing the experiment is skilled, >> the success rate varies from zero to 100% depending on the material. >> > > > Really? You need skill to get a success rate from 0 to 100%? > You need skill to get any excess heat at all. You also need good material to make it work at all, even at low power, with some samples. You need superb material to make it work every time at high power. > I think an incredulous smirk is appropriate. > That's against the rules here. > Because who wants clean abundant energy? Who wants to save the world? Who > wants honor glory fame. No one wants that! > That is not the reward for doing cold fusion, or anything else that upsets mainstream institutions. As I mentioned, what happens is a funding agency in Washington calls you and threatens to close your lab; if you have a green card they threaten to deport your; a Congressman demands your tax returns and personal correspondence; and the Washington Post, Time Magazine and the New Scientist accuse you of being a lunatic and a criminal, destroying your career and your personal life. Martin Fleischmann predicted this would happen on the day of the press conference. He was not surprised by the reaction. Anyone who has studied history will not be surprised. This is real life, not a Hallmark Hall of Fame movie. Charles Beaudette quoted Fleischmann and summarized the situation at the end of his book, QUOTE: Fleischmann was fulsome in his summary view: "If it had been anything else, we would have said, Oh . . . People don’t want us to do it; forget it; just leave it alone. But this is not in that category. This is interesting science. New science, with a hint of a possibility of a very useful technology. Therefore, if you’ve got any integrity, you don’t give it up. You give it up if you find you are wrong. But as long as you believe that you are right, you have to continue with it. And you have to take the consequences." Is this not similar to the response of the Swedish chemist Svente Arrhenius with his discovery of the mechanism of electrolytic conduction more than one hundred years ago? He believed he was right and he persevered for twenty years before receiving the recognition that was his due. One can only wonder why discovery seems to be so punished. Why, so often, must the next Columbus be brought home in chains? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
Joshua Cude wrote: > But it was inferior calorimetry, and it used boiling water. Rossi is a > master at the boiling water fake, getting a factor of 7 out of it. Pons > only managed a factor of 2 or so. > As anyone can see from the paper, the method is completely different from Rossi's. It is not "inferior." The "factor of 2" is incorrect. They sometimes ran it in heat after death, meaning the factor was infinite. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
Rich Murray wrote: . . . in all these hundreds of successful runs have not one scientist saved > pristine and used samples of JM Pd? > I am sure they did save them. The people at JM told me they did. > Very reasonable, cautious, open-minded agnostics can not be expected to > accept this story as convincing. > Then don't believe it. It is no concern of mine whether you believe it or not. I would point out though, that the version of this story you do not believe is embellished by you with many improbable imaginary details, such as JM not saving the cathodes, or the notion that no one can buy the material now. I wouldn't believe that version either! The JM Pd has existed for over 70 years? Wouldn't someone in the world > have some? Why not do a global search for it? > No need. As I said, it is the kind they use for palladium hydrogen filters. People at NASA and BARC used those filters directly inside Milton Roy hydrogen purifiers. They reported it worked very well. In the 1990s, JM changed the formula for the filters. The newer material probably works just as well as the older one did, but no one I know has tested it. After Martin retired, he and I asked JM to make some of the old formula Pd. They said they would be happy to, but the minimum order was 1 kg for $50,000 and we did not have that kind of money. We could not find anyone else interested in pitching in. By that time the ENEA was making pretty good material. > How about giving us the full text for the report with Miles Table 10 , > along with Joshua Cude's comments about it... " It worked 100% of the > time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power. " Huh? > Table 10 is right here, big as life, bold as brass: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf You can see for yourself that the samples marked "JM" work best. The ones marked "(F/P)" were supplied to China Lake by Fleischmann. The others came from JM directly. The JM Pd one was definitely the same stock, used for hydrogen filters. As you see they worked about 10 times better than palladium from other sources. In subsequent tests they worked about 100 times better. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
note that the role of impurities seems well known, and probably linked to crystallography http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?706-DARPA-Navy-Research-Labs-PdD-impurities-amp-LENR Dominguez: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Dominguez-Anomalous-Results-Slides-ICCF17.pdf and that article from ENEA may explain why: http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?616-ENEA-paper-ICCF15-(2009)-Cristallography-conditions&highlight=cristallography Violante: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVevolutiona.pdf This is in my opinion one of the best evidence that this is real. Anayway that is a personal opinion, given the hundred of "best evidence" that are published already... Anyway I like it because fraud follow easy path. Note to some people more realist than me: of course all is faked, because it was done by people who believed in LENR, of believe afterward. No people believing in LENR may be trusted. thus no trusted researched accept LENR. QOD. more simple to decide. Especially if you have no money to win/lose if LENR is real. 2013/5/13 Rich Murray > Zounds! So, at first scan, the Toyota results are never presented in > precise details of procedures, materials, people, runs, results, control > runs, micro and nano level studies of changes in the Pd, throrough > measurements of impurity and isotopic shifts, radioactives, radiations, no > archived samples of the magical > Johnson Matthey Pd for future study -- just rambling, poorly referenced > fantastic yarns -- impossible to replicate -- in all these hundreds of > successful runs have not one scientist saved pristine and used samples of > JM Pd? I visited Storm's house on a hilltop in Santa Fe in maybe 1996, and > saw dozens of pieces of shiny Pd fragments in his lab -- aren't the chaotic > conditions at Toyota fairly ideal for producing inadvetent or deliberately > faked false positives, a la Rossi and BlackLight Power? > > Very reasonable, cautious, open-minded agnostics can not be expected to > accept this story as convincing. > > "The Pd at Toyota was supplied by Johnson Matthey (JM). As shown in Miles > Table 10, JM material in the 1990s was FAR better than anyone else's. It > worked 100% of the time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power. > Nowadays the ENEA might have caught up. I wouldn't know about that. Anyway, > back then JM knew how to make this material and everyone else was guessing > and shooting in the dark. Tanaka Precious Metals was trying to figure it > out. If they had listened to Storms they might have done better. JM learned > how to make this material in 1930s, for their palladium filters. It happens > the two applications have similar requirements." > > The JM Pd has existed for over 70 years? Wouldn't someone in the world > have some? Why not do a global search for it? > > How about giving us the full text for the report with Miles Table 10 , > along with Joshua Cude's comments about it... " It worked 100% of the > time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power. " Huh? > > Is this the paper -- doesn't have a "Table 10" > > A search on "Table" found: > > "My previous research on anomalous effects in deuterated materials (cold > fusion) at China Lake, California and sponsored by the Office of Naval > Research, produced excess power levels of 100–300 mW with a high of 520 mW. > The excess power density was typically 1–5 W/cm3 of palladium. Only 28 out > of 94 different experiments produced excess power (30% success), but the > success ratio was high for Pd–B alloys (88%) and Johnson-Matthey palladium > samples (61%) as shown in Table 10 of Ref. 1 (p. 42). The success ratio > however, was very low for many other palladium materials." > > "1. M.H. Miles, B.F. Bush and K.B. Johnson, “Anomalous Effects In > Deuterated Systems”, NAWCWPNS TP 8302, 98 pp., Naval Air Warfare Center > Weapons Division, China Lake, CA. U.S.A., September 1996." > pp. 1-98 (September 1996). > See also Infinite Energy, Vol. 315 & No. 16 pp. 35-59 (1997). > > http://coldfusion-miles.com/presentations.html ? > > Can someone give a link to this 98 page report? > > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMnedofinalr.pdf 42 pages no photos > > NEDO FINAL REPORT > ELECTROCHEMICAL CALORIMETRIC STUDIES > OF PALLADIUM AND PALLADIUM ALLOYS > IN HEAVY WATER > Dr. Melvin H. Miles > NEDO Guest Researcher > NHE Laboratory > 3-5 Techno-Park 2-Chome Shimonopporo > Atsubetsu-ku, Sapporo-004, Japan > DATES: > October 23, 1997 to March 31, 1998 > PRESENT ADDRESS: > Dr. Melvin H. Miles > Department of Chemistry > University of La Verne > 1950 3rd Street > La Verne, California 91750 > 909-593-3511 Ext. 4646 > mmi...@ulv.edu - work > Work Fax: 909-392-27 > > Bewildered by the beach, in Imperial Beach, 10 miles south of San Diego, > > within the fellowship of service, Rich Murray > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >>> >>> The most important factor in
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
Zounds! So, at first scan, the Toyota results are never presented in precise details of procedures, materials, people, runs, results, control runs, micro and nano level studies of changes in the Pd, throrough measurements of impurity and isotopic shifts, radioactives, radiations, no archived samples of the magical Johnson Matthey Pd for future study -- just rambling, poorly referenced fantastic yarns -- impossible to replicate -- in all these hundreds of successful runs have not one scientist saved pristine and used samples of JM Pd? I visited Storm's house on a hilltop in Santa Fe in maybe 1996, and saw dozens of pieces of shiny Pd fragments in his lab -- aren't the chaotic conditions at Toyota fairly ideal for producing inadvetent or deliberately faked false positives, a la Rossi and BlackLight Power? Very reasonable, cautious, open-minded agnostics can not be expected to accept this story as convincing. "The Pd at Toyota was supplied by Johnson Matthey (JM). As shown in Miles Table 10, JM material in the 1990s was FAR better than anyone else's. It worked 100% of the time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power. Nowadays the ENEA might have caught up. I wouldn't know about that. Anyway, back then JM knew how to make this material and everyone else was guessing and shooting in the dark. Tanaka Precious Metals was trying to figure it out. If they had listened to Storms they might have done better. JM learned how to make this material in 1930s, for their palladium filters. It happens the two applications have similar requirements." The JM Pd has existed for over 70 years? Wouldn't someone in the world have some? Why not do a global search for it? How about giving us the full text for the report with Miles Table 10 , along with Joshua Cude's comments about it... " It worked 100% of the time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power. " Huh? Is this the paper -- doesn't have a "Table 10" A search on "Table" found: "My previous research on anomalous effects in deuterated materials (cold fusion) at China Lake, California and sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, produced excess power levels of 100300 mW with a high of 520 mW. The excess power density was typically 15 W/cm3 of palladium. Only 28 out of 94 different experiments produced excess power (30% success), but the success ratio was high for PdB alloys (88%) and Johnson-Matthey palladium samples (61%) as shown in Table 10 of Ref. 1 (p. 42). The success ratio however, was very low for many other palladium materials." "1. M.H. Miles, B.F. Bush and K.B. Johnson, Anomalous Effects In Deuterated Systems, NAWCWPNS TP 8302, 98 pp., Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, CA. U.S.A., September 1996." pp. 1-98 (September 1996). See also Infinite Energy, Vol. 315 & No. 16 pp. 35-59 (1997). http://coldfusion-miles.com/presentations.html ? Can someone give a link to this 98 page report? http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMnedofinalr.pdf 42 pages no photos NEDO FINAL REPORT ELECTROCHEMICAL CALORIMETRIC STUDIES OF PALLADIUM AND PALLADIUM ALLOYS IN HEAVY WATER Dr. Melvin H. Miles NEDO Guest Researcher NHE Laboratory 3-5 Techno-Park 2-Chome Shimonopporo Atsubetsu-ku, Sapporo-004, Japan DATES: October 23, 1997 to March 31, 1998 PRESENT ADDRESS: Dr. Melvin H. Miles Department of Chemistry University of La Verne 1950 3rd Street La Verne, California 91750 909-593-3511 Ext. 4646 mmi...@ulv.edu - work Work Fax: 909-392-27 Bewildered by the beach, in Imperial Beach, 10 miles south of San Diego, within the fellowship of service, Rich Murray On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> >> The most important factor in a cold fusion experiment is the choice of >> host metal; the Pd cathode in this case. As Miles showed in Table 10, if >> the person doing the experiment is skilled, the success rate varies from >> zero to 100% depending on the material. >> > > > Really? You need skill to get a success rate from 0 to 100%? I should > think it would take skill to get outside that range. > > > > >> >> The Pd at Toyota was supplied by Johnson Matthey (JM). As shown in Miles >> Table 10, JM material in the 1990s was FAR better than anyone else's. It >> worked 100% of the time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power. >> > > Hmm. Not in my version. As I read it, he lists 17/28 as the success ratio > for the JM cells. And the power ratio can be anything from zero to > infinity, depending on which cells you pick. But the power density was as > high as 15 W/cm3, and the highest from other Pd was 2.1, so about 7 times > more comparing peak to peak. > > >> Martin Fleischmann understood that. He knew that before he began the >> experiments in the 1980s, because -- as he told me -- "I told JM what I was >> looking for, and they gave me this Pd." He was a complicated person but >> sometimes he used the direct approach. >> >> The point is, when it began to smell like a tri
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > The most important factor in a cold fusion experiment is the choice of > host metal; the Pd cathode in this case. As Miles showed in Table 10, if > the person doing the experiment is skilled, the success rate varies from > zero to 100% depending on the material. > Really? You need skill to get a success rate from 0 to 100%? I should think it would take skill to get outside that range. > > The Pd at Toyota was supplied by Johnson Matthey (JM). As shown in Miles > Table 10, JM material in the 1990s was FAR better than anyone else's. It > worked 100% of the time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power. > Hmm. Not in my version. As I read it, he lists 17/28 as the success ratio for the JM cells. And the power ratio can be anything from zero to infinity, depending on which cells you pick. But the power density was as high as 15 W/cm3, and the highest from other Pd was 2.1, so about 7 times more comparing peak to peak. > Martin Fleischmann understood that. He knew that before he began the > experiments in the 1980s, because -- as he told me -- "I told JM what I was > looking for, and they gave me this Pd." He was a complicated person but > sometimes he used the direct approach. > > The point is, when it began to smell like a trillion dollar market, both > sides decided they wanted all the marbles. That often happens in business. > > That's the story I heard anyway. A typical cold fusion tragic fiasco. You > don't know whether to laugh or cry. > I think an incredulous smirk is appropriate. > > So, JM knows. Or knew. The people there who knew are retired or dead. > > Very convenient for true believers, but Fleischmann lived for a long time after. Couldn't he just go and tell someone else what he was looking for? You know use that direct approach that worked before. > Clearly, the fix was in. They did not want any excess heat. My gut feeling > is that they wanted it when the project began but by the time Miles was > there, they had given up hope and they wanted to close the program down. > Because who wants clean abundant energy? Who wants to save the world? Who wants honor glory fame. No one wants that!
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I have often cited this paper, which describes the final results from > Toyota's lab in France: > The results were presented in 1996. The lab closed in 1998. How could they be final, unless they got nothing in the last 2 years. > FAKE. This was published by Toyota researchers at conference sponsored by > a Japanese government agency (NEDO). It would be out of character for > Toyota or NEDO to countenance fake data. They would surely know it is fake. > > I don't know if they were fake, but between out-of-character and revolutionary physics, the former is more likely, especially in view of the subsequent shut-down of the lab, and absence of any subsequent comparable results. > MISTAKE. As you see in the paper, the temperatures were high and easy to > measure, and the input to output ratio was high. I do not think there is > any chance this was a mistake. > > But it was inferior calorimetry, and it used boiling water. Rossi is a master at the boiling water fake, getting a factor of 7 out of it. Pons only managed a factor of 2 or so.
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
Mark Gibbs wrote: Are the fine details of the Toyota experimental set up known? > Not known to me. But some details are straightforward. You can see from the paper it was bulk Pd-D at high temperatures. When the Pd loads and the effect turns on, high temperature increases the reaction rate, so it is no surprise they got so much heat for so long. The most important factor in a cold fusion experiment is the choice of host metal; the Pd cathode in this case. As Miles showed in Table 10, if the person doing the experiment is skilled, the success rate varies from zero to 100% depending on the material. (This is one of the things I will talk about at ICCF18.) The Pd at Toyota was supplied by Johnson Matthey (JM). As shown in Miles Table 10, JM material in the 1990s was FAR better than anyone else's. It worked 100% of the time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power. Nowadays the ENEA might have caught up. I wouldn't know about that. Anyway, back then JM knew how to make this material and everyone else was guessing and shooting in the dark. Tanaka Precious Metals was trying to figure it out. If they had listened to Storms they might have done better. JM learned how to make this material in 1930s, for their palladium filters. It happens the two applications have similar requirements. Martin Fleischmann understood that. He knew that before he began the experiments in the 1980s, because -- as he told me -- "I told JM what I was looking for, and they gave me this Pd." He was a complicated person but sometimes he used the direct approach. Anyway, JM supplied all of the materials used in the Toyota lab. They did all of the post-experiment analysis and other materials work. The materials got better. The electrochemistry got better. When it began to work like gangbusters, Toyota and JM began arguing about who owned what, and they both ended packing up their marbles and going home. I have my own opinions about who was more at fault, but I'll keep that opinion to myself. The point is, when it began to smell like a trillion dollar market, both sides decided they wanted all the marbles. That often happens in business. That's the story I heard anyway. A typical cold fusion tragic fiasco. You don't know whether to laugh or cry. So, JM knows. Or knew. The people there who knew are retired or dead. > Has anyone tried to replicate that configuration? > ENEA, as I said. They are doing pretty well. > and regarding the NEDO project "we never replicated" (which was an >> outright lie). >> > > Who were the "others"? And who delivered the outright lie? > I refer to the work done by Fleischmann there, and also Miles, which he described here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMnedofinalr.pdf The agency is NEDO, the project was called NHE (New Hydrogen Energy). When Miles started getting excess heat, he invited the Japanese managers to come down the hall and look. They did not rouse themselves to do that. After he left, they published a report that did not mention the work of Fleischmann or Miles. As I recall, they published an absurd version of his graph, physically impossible, with negative heat (impossible endothermic reactions). He reproduced it in one of his papers. As I recall, the official report ignored Fleischmann and Miles. They published a confidential report, in Japanese. Someone at NEDO leaked it I guess. Fleischmann and Miles sent me a copy. I translated it. It distorted their results and denigrated them. They were pretty upset! That's where the story ends. Clearly, the fix was in. They did not want any excess heat. My gut feeling is that they wanted it when the project began but by the time Miles was there, they had given up hope and they wanted to close the program down. The project was pretty much as waste of money, as McKubre and others agreed. It was basically a bunch of highly skilled corporate engineers learning electrochemistry by trial and error on the government's dime. They did not have any professional electrochemists involved. Mizuno was 40 minutes away, right there in Sapporo, but they did not invite him. When the staff started talking to him, they ordered them not to. They did not want to be associated with any cold fusion researchers I guess. I got a sense the the NHE people considered cold fusion researchers to be freaks and losers. They were going to take over the research and show how to do it right. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
Are the fine details of the Toyota experimental set up known? Has anyone tried to replicate that configuration? On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Others said that the Toyota research and the NEDO program were stopped > because "progress was too slow" (I agree), and "we determined this did not > align with our corporate goals" (which I think is nonsense), and regarding > the NEDO project "we never replicated" (which was an outright lie). > Who were the "others"? And who delivered the outright lie? [m]
[Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
I have often cited this paper, which describes the final results from Toyota's lab in France: Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. *Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Run at IMRA Europe. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy*. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf Some people have expressed doubts about this because it is no peer-reviewed. I think this data is credible. It is probably not fake, and not a mistake. FAKE. This was published by Toyota researchers at conference sponsored by a Japanese government agency (NEDO). It would be out of character for Toyota or NEDO to countenance fake data. They would surely know it is fake. MISTAKE. As you see in the paper, the temperatures were high and easy to measure, and the input to output ratio was high. I do not think there is any chance this was a mistake. I wrote: "This project was terminated because of politics and disputes over money between Toyota and other companies, not because the research itself failed." That is what I heard from Martin Fleischmann and others connected with the project. I expect this is true because it was against their interests to tell me this. As a long-time employee of a large company once told me: when you hear bad news about a big corporation, you should always believe it. Others said that the Toyota research and the NEDO program were stopped because "progress was too slow" (I agree), and "we determined this did not align with our corporate goals" (which I think is nonsense), and regarding the NEDO project "we never replicated" (which was an outright lie). The latter upset Mel Miles even though he is phlegmatic. He almost cursed about it. He came as close to cursing as a devout Mormon chemist can come. - Jed
