Two other details worth casual comment from this video. 

Of course, the focus is on Pd-D back in the day when SRI was active in
actual R&D instead of posturing; yet they essentially ignored Ni-H ... plus
the Pd was bulk material or foils - not nanopowder. But in terms of loading
time vs. active particle size, the several hundred hours needed for success
with Pd-D at SRI (up to 900+) could drop to less than a few minutes with
Ni-H, and that seems fairly consistent with the gain in surface area using
"nano." Retrospect is 20/20 as we know.

Too bad SRI did not use nano, back in the day when it would have made a big
difference in perception by the mainstream. In retrospect, SRI had modest
success, but was never on the cutting edge, were they? A cynic might say
their efforts almost look like they were intentionally dumbed down.

The other curiosity is the story of the one little Italian guy in Rome who
could always make active Pd cathodes... Hmmm... Did not our beloved AR have
a similar story ... about one little Italian guy, who is the only one who
can make his active nanometric material? Were the two dwarfs related? Or is
this some kind of odd coincidence, or floating meme? 

Maybe these magical fellows were of the infamous seven, and Ing Rossi is yet

Not sure if he is Cucciolo or Brontolo ... <g>

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Blanton 

>> Yes, McKubre's suggested "site" alteration is the most likely reason that
so many LENR experiments, going back decades, seem to be unreliable, even
when identical experiment works well - at other times. Do you by any chance
have a citation for McKubre's observations?

Here it is at about 8:30 into #4:

In #3 he speaks of how the excess heat is maximized by "breathing" the
D into and out of the cathode, ie varying the loading.  In #4, he says
the Pd becomes "constipated" and no longer allows the cathode to
breathe.  He also speaks on rejuvenation of cathodes.


<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to