Let me expand on my comment: The economics of cold fusion research are constrained by the cost of testing cathodes. We know that the original experiments did not use sophisticated techniques to produce the cathodes and the cathodes used a very tiny amount of Pd. The cost was not in the cathode -- it was in getting the electrochemistry and the diagnostics right. The diagnostics can be absurdly expensive if you're trying to detect marginal signals -- but we know that the reason people are tantalized by the phenomenon is not the marginal signals. This has been true from that first laboratory accident that burned a hole in the table back in the mid 80s. So we shouldn't be bothering with the enormous costs of diagnostics. We should, instead, be focusing on the economics of getting the electrochemistry right so that the loading threshold is reliably reached.
What is the economic bottleneck on getting the electrochemistry right? On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Clearly what's needed is a process by which working cells can be created > with some degree of reliability, even if only 0.01%. > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I wrote: >> >> >>> Testing cells that do not produce heat is not much help. >>> >> >> It can be a little helpful. It is the process of elimination. You may be >> able to rule out various hypotheses. >> >> - Jed >> > >
