BTW one thing not discussed earlier was slide #48 - entitled "Preliminary Excess Heat Measurement" etc.
This used nanopowder supplied by Brian Ahern, if I am not mistaken, and yet it was NOT his most active nanopowder. Not even close. There is a typo in the description which should have included Ni at 65% -- so the material had a Ni:Pd ration of 65:35 and this nickel alloy was embedded in a zirconia matrix (using the Japanese technique which Arata/Takahashi and others used). As you may have noticed, a few of the last slides seem to be kind of an after-the-fact addition to an overall presentation that may have started out to be about Patterson only. These later slides have typos, and they seem to have been added as a hasty afterthought. I think what could have happened was that this line of experiments started out as a Patterson replication, but in the meantime they tested nano-powder from Ahern and got spectacular results with deuterium - to the degree that they wanted to get the information out there. Rumor has it that several hundred watts of continuous excess has been seen by Miley's group. I am hoping Brian will now send his most active powder, which has the copper addition (in the Romanowski ratio) instead of palladium, and let them use hydrogen for comparison. BTW - Copper is NOT a transmutation product in Ahern's results, it was specifically added in order to improve spillover, which it does better than palladium (with hydrogen). Importantly, slide #48 shows the run with deuterium instead of hydrogen. The lesson seems to be Ni-Pd nanopowder works best with deuterium and Ni-Cu works best with hydrogen. You can get the Pd ratio down to 5% and it still works. The zero-point vibration amplitude hydrogen vs deuterium depends on mass, and the 2:1 ratio means far different displacement parameters, when confined in cavities or matrices. Ahern used no deuterium in any testing, and he assumes Rossi did not either; but Ahern gets only a small amount of excess heat. That is why he has been so critical of Rossi. He thinks that Rossi is also getting only a smaller amount of excess than is claimed, but is making it look like far more by using intentionally deceitful measurements. You may be aware of Ahern's negative comments on Rossi on other forums. He does realize that Rossi is getting "some excess" but thinks the guy is dishonestly padding the results to make them look better. For instance, the "frequency generator" could be drawing FAR more power than indicated, if employs high voltage pulsation. AFAIK - Ahern has not considered the possibility that Rossi has been secretly using deuterium in his private testing (and plans to on the 28th). Rossi may realize that hydrogen works for some excess, but deuterium works more reliably. That could be the message we could be getting from Miley's slides. Miley's group apparently could be getting up to 50 times more excess heat from the same powder supplied by Ahern, using deuterium instead of hydrogen. This begs the question - given Rossi's past problems with confusing "trade secrets" with outright dishonesty: could he be planning on using deuterium (when it matters most) but trying to keep that as a trade secret by not using it at all, until the appointed hour? In one early test in Bologna, a tank of deuterium was seen, which -LOL- Rossi claimed was use to quench the reaction! In retrospect, this could be part as an outrageous deception - and D2 is in fact Rossi's only big secret, not the catalyst. Please do not remind us that Rossi has made it clear from the start that he uses only hydrogen. We can all agree that is what he has indicated publicly in the past many times. If he were an honest man, it would be case-closed, so spare me the counter-argument - as Rossi is not an honest man. Bottom line: deuterium may be substituted for hydrogen on the 28th, openly or in secret even though there is admittedly NO clear indication of this in the public record (other than the "quenching gas")... which nevertheless, does not rule it out. Side note: It is also likely that the lead shielding would be superfluous if it were not anticipated that deuterium would be used eventually (for the important testing). Side note: It should be noted that it is not incorrect (semantically) to call deuterium "hydrogen". Deuterium is hydrogen. If one has an intent to mislead onlookers or potential competitors, and to protect trade secrets, then this possibility is not out of the question. Jones -----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton > http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterso n-names-rossi/ Hi, David, This was discussed earlier in this thread if you are interested: http://firstname.lastname@example.org/msg53212.html T