Thank you for reading that old paper. An other idea is the the process is very superficial and extremely local and this was not taken in account by the theorists. Because you was very nice to explain me your personal program in the field, I want to tell you with absolute sincerity what I think about the CF problem in toto.
a) my interest is strongly focused on CF as an energy source, I consider theory as a means and not an aims, b) obviously nuclear emisions and other nuclear reactions are intersting but secondary to energy generation; c) the slow development of the field is something very bad - am 73 years old and have slight chances to see the start of technological applications, but perhaps this tragedy is both alleviated and enhanced by the fact that the field is developing in a bad direction d) by far the worse thing is the palladium dependence of the field; palladium is very rare element you can calculate how much energy can be obtained with say 100 W/sq.cm Pd and a maximum of 100 tonnes of palladium used, and palladium is a consumable stuff in this case e) electrolysis seems to be compulsory for decent results and electrolysis is very bad for engineering, dry sytems (with the exception of the Piantelli and Focardi Rossi H/Ni that's different, and we have plenty of Nickel, thanks to Nature!) f) In 2005 Steve Krivit an I have made a survey and the results both regarding understanding what happens and of what happens really will be catastrophic after two stages of improvement. If we repeat this survey today, will it say different more optimistic thngs? g) Can Melvin's recent results change this in a radical, convincimg way? (Stan Szpak has invented co-deposition many years ago- the method generates a cleaner surface with good morphology but its efficiency has limits) But let's see the results Miles has obtained. h) I adore intersting things but I consider that it is my duty to do useful ones. When I have digested mentally the results of the survey I decided that I will observe with care what happens in the field but my emotional implication will not be more deep. I am now the editor of a great (as volume) weekly Romanian language newsletter specialized in websearch and real-life problem solving. Trying to develop rules for "good thinking". You can find a part of my ideas searching "peter gluck septoes" I have lost hope that anybody will take my poisononig hypothesis seriously- there are no high vacuum specialists there- the only people who have a right idea about how dirty is a surface, the oither think naively that there are Pd atoms at the very surface of a palladium cathode. Stimulation methods as Dennis Letts' and Deninis Craven's laser irradiation are good because they clean in situ a few active sites of Pd. Limited efficiency. I perfectly know that this message will be ignored by almost everybody. All I can do is to hope that Randy Mills' and the Piantelli method will succeed. On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 03:52 PM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf >> > > Very interesting. I picked up particularly on the comment that > > paradoxically, lack of reproducibility has an amazingly great informational > value. > > That's absolutely right, except in narrow circumstances. If one person > makes a report, and nobody can replicate, and especially if the one person > can't replicate later, and this persists, we have an unconfirmed anomaly > which can have, easily, prosaic explanations, that may have nothing to do > with any new discovery. > > But when replication is merely difficult and erratic, this is clear > evidence that there are unknown processes at work. I.e., if multiple > workers, with different materials, find a variety of results, the first > presumption should be that there are unidentified variables, such as, say, > you mention, sulfur contamination or something else. > > > > >
