Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: Calorimetry was a curse and a burden for Pd- D CF/LENR because much more > money, creativity, patience, discusions was consumed for measuring small > quantities of released heat instead of focussing on the intensification of > the process. The results are known.
I think Storms or McKubre would take exception to that. Not to speak for them, they have often said: 1. Scaling up Pd-D electrochemistry tends to scale up and amplify the noise as much as the signal. 2. You cannot intensify a process if you cannot even detect it. The main purpose of making sensitive calorimeters was to capture and then optimize tiny effects. The other purpose was to satisfy the skeptics, which was futile. 3. They did the best they could to intensify it, and succeeded to some extent. Techniques such as Energetics Technology produced much higher heat and a higher input to output ratio than older techniques; i.e. ~1 W input, ~20 W output. Bear in mind also that one of Rossi's key advantage's is the use of gas-loaded nanoparticles. This originated with Pd-D studies, by Arata. I do not know if Rossi was aware of Arata when he began working on this approach. Perhaps he only found out when he wrote the patent. Anyway, this was a major contribution from the Pd-D school of cold fusion. - Jed
