Jeff,
Caution is always called for in LENR claims and there is some contradictory information amongst all the slides. However, I think there are a number of interested parties who do not want this paper to be true, since it does not bolster a pet theory. Technova's stated claim, which is remarkably similar to Mills in total gain - is for ~200 times more energy than is possible from chemical (i.e. burning hydrogen in oxygen). No way can this be accounted for, or written off as chemical. Quote: Summary of Present Status .High energy density (>800 eV/Ni-atom) power lasting several weeks or more, with negligible radiation Technova is somewhat of a mystery in how their work fits into the business Toyota strategy, but is well-funded and with qualified personnel - I give this more credence than anything from Rossi, DGT, Brillouin or Piantelli, for instance. From: Jeff Berkowitz Following up on Eric's mail, I have gotten other feedback on the side suggesting the "excess" heating can all be accounted for chemically in this particular case. I cannot comment on your analysis, Jones, but it seems caution may be called for here. (Unfortunately what received was actual pdf's which I cannot blast out to the alias for copyright reasons. I will see if there are links to said pdfs when I get a chance and post the links, if so.)
