You ignore the finding of 4He in my improvements upon and replication of the Case catalyst. http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2013/05/03/wired-magazine-report-on-cold- fusion-includes-segment-on-my-work/
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]:The identifty of a catalyst that was known in 1966 or earlier Connect the dots (none of these items mean much alone, but all of them come together in the end) Dot #1. Here is the original observation of a possible thermal anomaly in phenanthrene, dating from 1966 by Arndt and Damask, which reported 380 cal/mole unexplainable gain at around 70°C. <http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/45/2/10.1063/1.1727640> http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/45/2/10.1063/1.1727640 Dot #2. Mizunos 2008 paper on phenanthrene is here: <http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomaloushb.pdf> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomaloushb.pdf Mizuno based his work on anecdotal thermal anomalies of coal tar from Japan, going back to the 1940s. The reports were similar to Arndt. Dot #3- Phenanthrene is often the most stable aromatic component of coal tar or charcoal - due to Clars rule, but other similar compounds may be active for thermal gain when hydrogen is present. Dot #4. Les Case saw thermal gain using a catalyst made of charcoal and palladium. Surprisingly the gain could have come from the aromatic. Phenanthrene and related aromatics make up most of any type of pyrolyzed organic material like coconut shells. <http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CaseLCcatalyticf.pdf> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CaseLCcatalyticf.pdf Dot #5. Dennis Cravens saw long term significant thermal gain at low temperature in his famous NI Week demo using the Case carbon along with added magnetism. His catalyst not doubt contained substantial phenanthrene and other aromatics. <http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/08/02/dennis-craven-demo-for-niweek/> http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/08/02/dennis-craven-demo-for-niweek/ Dot #6. Larsens excellent slide-show on phenanthrene and other aromatics (PAHs) is here: <http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overview pahs-and-lenrsnov-25-2009> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewp ahs-and-lenrsnov-25-2009 Dot #7. Lastly, Focardi and Rossi acknowledged Mizunos work and un-named catalysts, according to Passerini and others who have suspected a phenanthrene connection. Since as far back as the Petroldragon story, a secret catalyst was used to turn waste from old tires into liquid fuel. Thus, phenanthrene would have been known to Rossi when the Mizuno report came out in 2008, but if this led to the E-Cat (and it could have been the prime inspiration), it was not mentioned in ECat patents In short, Rossi could not patent phenanthrene, due to Mizunos prior art, even if he used it beforehand - so it had to remain a secret. Connecting the dots, the aromatic compound phenanthrene could be the secret sauce catalyst that only works in the low temperature versions of E-Cat. It will boil water but not much more. It only works for low gain and will degrade at high temperature. Low gain is defined herein as gain of less that COP=2 but make no mistake, this low-cost catalyst would still be extraordinarily valuable to society, if proved scientifically, even if its only use is for hot water. I am assuming that -- although IH reports (in sworn documents) to NOT having witnessed excess heat at all from Rossi, nor having scientific evidence that any ECat actually produced thermal gain, that some prior versions did work for low gain, at low temperature. That combination of facts would mean that these E-Cat versions were actually suppressed by the inventor himself. Why? Simple. Under the contract with IH, thermal gain with COP less than 2 was not just worthless, it was harmful to Rossi as it would have meant no bonus payment at all. Thus, low gain could not be admitted, despite its value to the rest of science. What a predicament. Nevertheless, based on the strong evidence from Cravens and the prior work of Mizuno - one can make a good case for phenanthrene being a key route to modest thermal gain at low temperature. Why are Mizuno and Cravens not replicated?? Apparently, low gain at low power is not very interesting to replicators. Yet - it is of extreme importance to the field of LENR to replicate these experiments immediately, since Rossigate has created nothing but turmoil, and will consume the field for the next year. Cravens demo, or something like it at a larger scale, needs to be demonstrated ASAP with tens of watts of excess heat ongoing for months using low input power.
