Here is a new paper that calls into question some of the nanoparticle
powder results, I think especially those by Kitamura:
Storms, E./Examination of errors that occur when using a gas-filled
calorimeter/. in/16th International Conference on Condensed Matter
Nuclear Science/. 2011. Chennai, India: LENR-CANR.org.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexaminatio.pdf
(I listed the publisher as "LENR-CANR.org" here temporarily, because I
do not know who the publisher will be.)
Ed tells me the potential error caused by this artifact may be on the
order of ~100 mW. That's enough to obviate most of Kitamura's results.
When Mizuno was working on proton conductors he observed the same things
Ed describes in this paper. Different kinds of gas have different
thermal conductivity, whereas changing the pressure did not have much
effect.
Dennis Cravens is working on gas loaded nanoparticles. I mentioned that
here On Oct. 6 in a critique of an experiment he proposed. He has since
revised the proposed method completely. In my opinion his new plan is
much better. I don't know if my opinion had an effect on his planning .
. . Anyway, Cravens, Storms and I discussed his new plans at some
length. I do not think his proposed method will be affected by the
artifact described in this paper, because he is not comparing deuterium
gas to hydrogen gas, and he will not need a joule heater to maintain the
working temperature. At least, he hopes he will not need one.
On a completely unrelated subject, here is a depressing map showing the
rapid increase of diabetes in the U.S., especially around where I live:
http://labs.slate.com/articles/diabetes-in-america/
- Jed
