Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com> wrote: . . . in all these hundreds of successful runs have not one scientist saved > pristine and used samples of JM Pd? >
I am sure they did save them. The people at JM told me they did. > Very reasonable, cautious, open-minded agnostics can not be expected to > accept this story as convincing. > Then don't believe it. It is no concern of mine whether you believe it or not. I would point out though, that the version of this story you do not believe is embellished by you with many improbable imaginary details, such as JM not saving the cathodes, or the notion that no one can buy the material now. I wouldn't believe that version either! The JM Pd has existed for over 70 years? Wouldn't someone in the world > have some? Why not do a global search for it? > No need. As I said, it is the kind they use for palladium hydrogen filters. People at NASA and BARC used those filters directly inside Milton Roy hydrogen purifiers. They reported it worked very well. In the 1990s, JM changed the formula for the filters. The newer material probably works just as well as the older one did, but no one I know has tested it. After Martin retired, he and I asked JM to make some of the old formula Pd. They said they would be happy to, but the minimum order was 1 kg for $50,000 and we did not have that kind of money. We could not find anyone else interested in pitching in. By that time the ENEA was making pretty good material. > How about giving us the full text for the report with Miles Table 10 , > along with Joshua Cude's comments about it... " It worked 100% of the > time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power. " Huh? > Table 10 is right here, big as life, bold as brass: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf You can see for yourself that the samples marked "JM" work best. The ones marked "(F/P)" were supplied to China Lake by Fleischmann. The others came from JM directly. The JM Pd one was definitely the same stock, used for hydrogen filters. As you see they worked about 10 times better than palladium from other sources. In subsequent tests they worked about 100 times better. - Jed
