Dear Mark, First- thanks for the article. And may I invite you for a friendly visit to my blog http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com, papers labelled NEW ENERGY?
A good candidate for the best Pd-D LENR peak performer is described here: http://www.fondazionefrisone.it/eventi/catania07/LesinSreportonelectr.pdf It is cathode no 64 of Energetics Israel, ; excess power up to 34W, average 20W for 17 hours. An Everest for Pd-D. Peter On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people > have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to > help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into > an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a > list that includes: > > - where > - when > - technology > - run time > - COP > - experimenters and affiliations > - observers and affiliations > - references > > I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the > reality of cold fusion. > > [mg] > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly >> more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence >> of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the "...slow >> erosion of the psuedoskeptic position..." that Abd described in email to >> the group some time back? >> >> Possible answer - "read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his >> references" ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer? >> >> Jeff >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Dear Jed, >>> >>> Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell) >>> was the best ever? >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs. >>>> >>>> Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The author wrote: "Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any >>>> cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone, the best so far and >>>> they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a >>>> serious scientist." >>>> >>>> This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in >>>> hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these >>>> runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of >>>> these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in >>>> calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in "60 >>>> Minutes." >>>> >>>> The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, >>>> China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and >>>> produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests >>>> the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there >>>> was no input, so the ratio was infinite. >>>> >>>> Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been >>>> published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. >>>> Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few >>>> preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold >>>> standard of established science. >>>> >>>> >>>> - Jed >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>> Cluj, Romania >>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>> >>> >> > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
