Steve Krivit has several papers scanned with better quality than my
copies. I took the opportunity to OCR a few of his copies. You can
see the latest here:
http://lenr-canr.org/FilesByDate.htm
I am working on one more:
Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and G. Preparata, Possible theories of cold
fusion. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1994. 107: p. 143.
Here is one I should have uploaded a long time ago:
Cerron-Zeballos, E., et al., Investigation of anomalous heat
production in Ni-H systems. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1996.
109A: p. 1645.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf
This calls into question claims by Piantelli, Focardi et al. I have
always felt uncomfortable with Piantelli's calorimetry. I think this
paper shows that it is almost certainly wrong. Given all the money
they put into this project, I never understood why they do not put
the entire cell into a Seebeck calorimeter.
I have not heard from these people lately. I assume they have made no
progress. Frankly, I assume they were wrong all along.
I got a bad feeling about Piantelli's calorimetry years ago when I
worked with Mizuno on his papers about proton conductors. I spent a
lot of time looking at calibration data. A proton conductor is
mounted inside of a gas calorimeter, in an arrangement similar to
Piantelli's Ni rod. Conductivity changes quite a bit with the type of
gas, and also with gas pressure, although to a lesser extent. The
kind of temperature differences that Piantelli reported could easily
have prosaic causes, if his calorimeter works the way it Mizuno's did.
Mizuno's own results were much more convincing because input power
was extremely low (microwatts in some cases) and the proton conductor
melted in a few cases. However, most of the elevated temperature
inside the calorimeter was from a Joule heater, not from the
reaction. Proton conductors will only conduct (and load) at high temperatures.
- Jed
