George Miley trained Scott Little in person in Nov 1996 on use of costly CETI RIFEX kit -- Little had many discussions during his runs -- no hints re using D2O not H2O: Rich Murray 2010.08.10
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
[ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
[you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser]

The remarkable amount of detail in the two Earthtech reports
is essential for starting to appreciate the multitude of things
that have to be very carefully dealt with in order to achieve
accurate results.

"Initial Preparations and Description of Apparatus

We received our RIFEX kit in December 1996 immediately
after attending a training session hosted by Dr. Miley on the
University of Illinois campus.
The session provided basic instructions on the experiment
protocol and a review of Dr. Miley's findings."


We would like to thank Dr. George Miley and Mike
Williams of the University of Illinois for discussions.
We are also indebted to Dr. Dennis Cravens and Maria
Okuniewski of CETI for their patience and guidance with the
RIFEX protocol."
33 pages  288 KB

Search for Evidence of Nuclear Transmutations in the

Scott Little and H. E. Puthoff, Ph.D.,
EarthTech International, Inc
4030 Braker Lane West, Austin, TX 78759


A series of experiments has been performed with the CETI
RIFEX kit.
In each experiment an electrolytic cell with a cathode
composed of metal-coated plastic beads was operated for
two weeks.
The cathode beads were then analyzed by x-ray
fluorescence for evidence of nuclear transmutations.
Several elements were observed to appear in the reacted
Analyses of the electrolyte and other components of the
system in contact with the electrolyte are not conclusive
but suggest to us that these elements were present in the
system initially.
15 pages 246 KB

Calorimetric Study of Pd/Ni Beads From the CETI RIFEX
Scott Little and Hal Puthoff, Ph.D.,
EarthTech International, Inc.
4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759


A series of calorimetric experiments have been performed
with the CETI RIFEX kit.
In these experiments an electrolytic cell with a cathode
composed of Pd/Ni-coated plastic beads was operated in a
calorimeter that simultaneously measured the heat evolved
from the cell by two independent methods.
With a detection limit of approximately 0.1 watts we did not
observe any excess heat from these beads.
Included is a detailed description of the calorimeter, which
was designed and constructed specifically for these


The Rifex kit is part of a program initiated by CETI 1 to allow
cooperative laboratory exploration of the transmutation effects
that have been reported in the Patterson 2 cell by Dr. G.H.
Miley, et al 3,4.
EarthTech purchased a Rifex kit and attended a training
seminar presented jointly by Dr. Miley and CETI in Nov 1996
at the University of Illinois.

----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 8:52 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens comments on the need for heavy

BTW --  having reread the EarthTech report, with the
advantage of hindsight -- where they used DI water, we
should remember (if I am not mistaken) that this is made by
passing water through ion exchange columns, one of which
can contain sodium hydroxide.

This can inadvertently enrich the water with sodium ions
and may have contributed to the failure of EarthTech to
reproduce excess heat.
Maybe Dennis would like to comment on that detail.

Li2SO4 was the electrolyte and if sodium ions were present,
this could yield sodium sulfate which is chemically stable and
unreactive at ambient temperature.
Probably this experiment had no chance from the start -- if
that is the case.

Had they used pure heavy water instead -- and gotten
positive results back then, who knows that history might
have been changed in miraculous ways -- given the financial
connections which were involved.

From: Jones Beene

Just so we are clear on this, EarthTech and others who
showed no excess heat with the CETI beads used DI water
(distilled) but not heavy water.
Miley got positive results with D2O.

As Dennis says "pure heavy water is essential with Pd, bulk
or gas loading nano-particles."

Therefore there is no evidence here to counter my original
claim that there is ZERO experimental data to show that
hydrogen can perform as well as or better than deuterium
in similar experiments.
However, lots of data shows that deuterium performs better.

ERGO, the BLP reactor, should it ever emerge from the
laboratory, will likely perform better with a deuterium
This probably voids the warranty <g> and also the patent.

The fact that H is a poison for D does not change that
conclusion -- in fact it reinforces the conclusion, AFAIK?


From: Jed Rothwell

I asked Dennis Cravens (D2) if he recalls whether
Patterson's beads worked better with heavy water.
My question and his response is below.
I concur with his belief that H is a poison in the gas loaded
Pd system, and I would say in the pure Pd electrolysis system
as well.


Do you recall whether anyone tested Patterson's beads with
heavy water or mixed heavy and light water?
Did such tests enhance the effect?

As far as I know, pure heavy water is essential with Pd, bulk
or gas loading nano-particles.
However, assuming Ni, Ti or any other kind of cold fusion
works, it does not seem to care whether you use light or heavy
That's my impression, but I have not made a careful study to
confirm it.
There are not many reliable, replicated, well-documented
experiments with materials other than Pd and heavy hydrogen.

[ Dennis Craven answer ]
yes, if you look at his first pat. appl. he shows such a

Realize that almost all the reasonable work with the beads
that gave much heat were either heavy water or with
10%+ D2O after they were loaded with D2O originally in
their formation.
I always thought that is why they eventually "lost their zip"
in runs of any length.
Realize too, that CETI very seldom said "light water",
just "water".
The term water includes both light, heavy and mixes. ..... it
was one of those patent position things where you always
use the most general term possible.
In the case of bead, the Pd was plated from D2O and then
Ni (also formed from D2O solutions) was layered over it.
The diffusion time of H in Ni at lower temp is fairly large, so I
don't know how much D and H was in the Pd layer during
short runs of such beads.
Notice that as the bead aged the effect was much harder to

In the case of H and D, here is my copy of my Marwan
APS book article . . .
Basically, I view H as a poison in a Pd gas system.


----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell
To: ;
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A latent problem with the BLP agenda

Jones Beene wrote:

Can anyone site any experiment done anywhere by anyone --
comparing hydrogen with deuterium on a lattice catalyst --
where the hydrogen performed better?

I do not know if anyone ever tested Patterson's beads with
anything other than light water.
I will ask Cravens.
But it is hard to imagine anything working much better than
the beads did with light water.
Assuming there was no mistake in the calorimetry, the power
density was about as high as any practical device needs to be.
If it were much higher it would melt.
It would be nice to have a super-high power density,
high-temperature effect for rocket motors and the like,
but those beads would not cut it.
For most applications the core of a fission reactor is fine.
Not that hot or concentrated.

I am not aware of any likely mistake in that experiment.
A lot people tried hard to find mistakes.
The quality of the calorimetry was poor but the heat was so
high I do not think it could have been a mistake.

I do not think Mizuno has found any difference with heavy
water with the phenanthrene effect . . . but who knows what
to make of that.
Who knows if it is real, or whether it is cold fusion.
It was done by Soejima back in the 1930s and replicated
by Mizuno today.
No one else has replicated yet as far as I know, so we can't
determine whether it is real or not.
On the other hand, you can't ask for a more "fully
independent replication" than one performed in a different lab
long after the original scientist died.
So I take this claim seriously.

I assume it is cold fusion because it is not likely there are two
heretofore undiscovered ways to get energy out of a metal
lattice exposed to hydrogen isotopes.
That's not a particularly compelling reason but it is better than
Peter Hagelstein and Mike McKubre agree with me.

-- Jed

SPAWAR CR-39 single triple track gives neutron energy --
repeats 'external electric field' error in July EPJAP paper,
PA Mosier-Boss et al -- L Kowalski re lack of proof of
nuclear reactions 2010.06.12: Rich Murray 2010.07.21
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
[ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
[you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser]

Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a
conducting liquid in an insulated box with two external
charged metal plates, re work by SPAWAR on cold fusion
since 2002 -- also hot spots from H and O microbubbles:
Rich Murray 2010.02.22
Monday, February 22, 2010
[ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
[you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser]

Rich Murray, MA
Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology,
BS MIT 1964, history and physics,
1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
505-501-2298 new primary archive
group with 146 members, 1,609 posts in a public archive

participant, Santa Fe Complex

Reply via email to