Jed, Brian Albiston <http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/09/test-in-progress-using-fuel-recipe-of-e-cat-patent-brian-albiston/> and me356 / MFMP <http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/10/live-experiment-by-me356-using-rossi-patent-recipe-2/> have included free lithium so far to no effect. The Kazakstan replication reported 2KWh excess, which I think would be well within the possibility of chemical effects (assuming the Google translation can be trusted). In fact, that would be downright tiny over the course of an hour (~.5 watts). There have been other occasional positives (as I have seen myself, MFMP on one occasion, and Brian Albiston on one or two occasions). I do agree Jed, that there have not yet been enough replication attempts (although there have been quite a few and the vast majority are negative). Also, it seems like the higher the quality of the replication attempt, the less likely it is to be positive. There is a large "file drawer effect" with most of the negative replication attempts not being reported. As far as I know, a replication by Parkhomov has never been witnessed while producing excess heat by anyone other than Parkhomov. Parkhomov also seems to have gone silent in terms of reporting any new experiments after the silly photoshopping incident, which is unfortunate as he does seem to be very skilled in many ways.
Of course one could argue that you must have the multi-layered sandwich design from the patent (with it all sealed in and welded together). I hold out some hope yet. I wish the current trend of results was not so negative. Jack On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:47 AM Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > David French pointed out that Biberian "apparently did not test the > formula described in the Rossi August 25th US patent. He omitted to include > free lithium." So his experiment is not a replication attempt according to > the patent, and it has no bearing on whether the patent is valid. > > > - Jed > >
