Thanks again to Ruby for this effort. Well done, but begging for more…
I share James Bowery’s sentiment of a “maddening” realization (in retrospect) but for a different reason. That reason is lithium for me, instead of nickel for him. The recent experiments of Parkhomov/Rossi have opened up the possibility that what we are seeing in LENR is based on thermal gain in lithium. It could be bulk lithium or one of the two isotopes. Cook and Rossi are saying lithium-7, but there are better reasons in nuclear physics to suggest that Li-6 - which is more considerably active (even if both are active). And since the active isotope, if it is Li-6, is only a few percent of natural lithium, even if they had realized the importance of lithium in general back then, Szpak and Boss could have missed that it was Li-6. Caveat: no one has data now to prove that Li-6 is the active isotope, but that important detail will probably be determined within a few weeks to months. The maddening realization for all of us could be that lithium would have plated out on the cathode as well – but this was never mentioned or considered. Lithium would probably have plated better as a different salt than the chloride – but in retrospect it is maddening that they did not think to try plating enriched isotopes of lithium (as well as nickel) as well as using different salts. Of course they would have needed a larger staff. There are dozens of permutation and combinations if we want to go this far - yet in a perfect world of adequate funding, this would have been done. The fact the various combinations with lithium and nickel and hydrogen were not done may (in retrospect) have meant that at least 20 years of research has been misguided in pursuit of deuterium fusion – when we should have been looking at lithium all along. (again, there is no proof of that for now, and the idea will be resisted by those who are fully invested in Pd-D -- but we will know more within weeks). From: Ruby Hi James, they did not speak about that substitution, and I am not sure if they did that or not. I do not recall reading that in the subset of papers I have "read". There was a time limit interviewing Stan Szpak as he has some health issues. He also had a lot to say, so I hardly got to ask questions; he just kept talking on about what he wanted, and then we had to go. It is just really something that you can get such heat generated from palladium and H2O. That seems to further the notion that the reactions from Pd-D and Ni-H are of the same ilk, does it not? How do we explain this otherwise? There is so much to bring to light from these earlier experiments. James Bowery wrote: Its rather maddening that they got thermal runaway in 3 out of 10 trials in a very simple set up using light water and palladium but they never thought to replace the palladium salts with nickel salts to codeposit nickel rather than palladium. Or did they and they simply did not talk about it? On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: I made a new movie called Following Nature's Documents Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition (18:28): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBJjWzlKl0 -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 [email protected] www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
