Hi Jones, Thank you very much. I really like making these movies.
They may have addressed these issues in later work, but I do not know.
I can ask about this when I speak to these guys again.
It is easy to see things in retrospect; much harder when you're living
it, and have to tip-toe around, too. I can't fault these guys (and
gal!) work, but say only that you're right, we need a big program hiring
lots of young scientists to test multiple scenarios to nail this thing down.
Will Gates Foundation do that for the Triumirate: SRI, Texas Tech (and
SKINR), and ENEA? I sure hope so!
On 4/12/15 6:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
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".
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.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Ruby <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org>
lenrexplained.com
--
Ruby Carat
Eureka, CA USA
1-707-616-4894
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org>
lenrexplained.com <http://www.lenrexplained.com>
