There's nothing normal about these gains. They're anomalous in the sense that they are not understood. If they're "normal" in any way whatsoever that means they are repeatable in at least a statistical fashion -- which means they are amenable to scientific discovery. As Ramsey said, even one well validated case is a scientific revolution and scientific revolutions are *not* "normal" as they are happening -- they are revolutionary.
Of course, there is always the fact that neither government nor private funding sources should be allowed to keep any of their money in the face of a scientific revolution of such profound importance that those funding sources refuse to fund. Seriously, take their money from them by any means necessary. On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Curious observation - funny in a sardonic way, but not completely humorous > - > and it can be called the "new normal". To cut to the chase, the new normal > is 1>COP<2 but non-nuclear (supra-chemical). To be explained. > > What do Ni-H experiments with potassium (or another spillover catalyst like > constantan), from all of these researchers have in common: > > 1) Thermacore > 2) Mills > 3) Niedra > 4) Noninski > 5) Haldeman (MIT) > 6) Focardi > 7) Celani > 8) Piantelli > 9) Ahern > 10) Kitamura > 11) Takahashi > 12) And approximately 2 dozen others > > Answer: gain, but LOW gain - and remarkably consistent long -term low-gain. > In other words, the new normal. > > To wit: NASA paper worth a re-read, despite its age: > > lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf > > Essentially - what we suspect with pretty good certainty is that K2CO3 and > nickel work for reliable gain in an electrolytic or gas-phase system, but > it > is always 1>COP<2. There are documented systems running for over a year at > this level. Recent results with zeolites are turning up something similar. > > Everything anomalous in energy needs to be compared with "chemical energy" > to see if there is a mundane explanation. But the subject is more complex > than it may seem if one is basing expectations on the "heat of combustion." > > We went through many versions of this with the original Rossi experiment 22 > months ago. It is easier to eliminate chemical contributions when a reactor > is sealed, since we have a maximum volume or reactants which cannot change. > However, reality is seldom that simple. > > In the case of a sealed reactor, we have what is similar to a battery, in > that only electrical energy goes in, but heat -instead of electricity- > comes > out, and there could be relativistic effects from reversible redox > reactions > - turning "chemistry" into "supra-chemistry". No one could ever completely > eliminate the suprachemisty possibility from Rossi's original "percolator" > since it was clearly gainful, but not even close to what he was claiming > due > to the dry steam fiasco. > > Bottom line: it is looking like the new normal for "chemistry" is what was > formerly 1>COP<2 and is not nuclear and not chemical - thus it can be > called > suprachemical. > > But no one is sure what how far you can go with rock solid COP of 1.5 ... > in > terms of a commercial item... Essentially that is Gibbs' point, no? > > Jones > > >
