There has been a lot of blather here along these lines: > That is how LENR is. This is no science behind it, It is all trial and > error. > > > Now LENR+. is analogous to the first vacuum tube radios. There is a degree > of science nad methodology behind it and LENR+ works well almost every time. > Okay, so what is the difference between LENR and LENR+? Is LENR with Pd-D, and LENR+ Ni-H? Why don't you just call it that?
Most people who tried to make Ni-H work got nothing. No heat, no results. So I do not understand why anyone claims "it works well every time." Maybe it works for Rossi, but he is not telling anyone else how to do it, is he? So we should not call this LENR+. We should call it "whatever Rossi is doing, assuming his results are what he and Levi et al. claim they are." That's not a generally applicable statement about any branch of LENR. It is a statement about Rossi. There was a time when Patterson had very promising results too, with high power density. Unfortunately, he did not tell anyone how to do it, and he took the secret to the grave. Rossi might do the same thing. Until he teaches, perhaps with a patent that is replicated, his discovery is not a new form of LENR in the broad sense of the word. It is a trade secret that at present no one else has any clue how to achieve. It may be that Defkalion has also achieved highly reliable Ni-H cold fusion. I wouldn't know; they have not published any data. The demonstration looked promising but it is not proof. To get proof, you have to have an independent team go on and wring the thing out for weeks. It takes weeks because you often encounter the kinds of problems that Levi et al. had, with the cell melting and so on. Plus the team may need to improve the instruments a couple of times, the way Levi did. - Jed
