It is clear that there is no scientific, reproducible evidence that either Rossi or Parkhomov demonstrated substantial excess heat, and that Morriss’s work is higher quality than either and his null result is troubling. Together with null or inconclusive results from Jack Cole, Brian Ahern, MFMP, Alan Goldwater, Ed Storms (?) and several others – the entire “glow-tube” subfield is going sideways and needs a boost… or better yet - redirection away from Rossi.
Despite the pessimism implied in the above assessment – there are still valid reasons to think that someone will discover the right combination of factors which works at the hundred watt level “on demand”. The most obvious issue with Morriss’s null result is that he used hydrogen gas admitted from outside the systems instead of LAH4. The mechanics of hydrogen transfer from LAH4 is complicated, and may involve “hydrogen densification” as a side effect, which takes place on at least of a small portion of the hydrogen, when done properly. I have been holding out hope that evidence would be forthcoming to show that “dense hydrogen cluster” formation was the key to success. Alan Goldwater’s lack of success with the iron oxide catalyst of Holmlid seems to cast doubt on that explanation. However, AG used only a tenth-gram and did not allow a long aging period for build-up of a population of dense clusters… so it cannot be said that that he negated the underlying premise. As always, there is little agreement on which details are important, and which are not. Apparently the “dense hydrogen” approach is not appreciated by all. From: Jed Rothwell See the slides here: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/470-E-cat-cell-to-post-pdf/?s=f386c23c9028da91b72c24b95d920d4381f273fc These are nice slides describing what looks like solid, well-made equipment. Conclusion, p. 15: "Lack of excess energy, despite close adherence to Parkhomov protocol indicates that key information is missing * Assume that both Rossi, and Parkhomov did generate COP >>1 . . . That seems like an unfounded assumption. I would say an equally likely conclusion is that Parkhomov did not get excess heat and the results are a mistake. I do not think the Lugano experiment produced any excess heat. It is difficult to judge from the report. - Jed
