Jones, let me try to simplify this suggestion. The LENR process requires a special condition that is difficult to create in a material. Unless this special condition is created (I call the NAE) no treatment will cause LENR. This what 25 years of study of the effect has demonstrated and what can be concluded from over 100 years of experience in chemistry.
Occasionally, this special condition is created in a material by chance, which produces the unreliable reproducibility. In contrast, Rossi has found a way to make this condition every time. Once an active material is created, it can be caused to make LENR many different ways, including simply by heating it in hydrogen gas (any isotope). Once the process starts, the rate can be increased using lasers, magnetic fields, increased temperature, and probably other ways not yet considered. Consequently, a kit or test is useless unless the material has been made active. We do not know how Rossi does this. We do not know how Cravens does this. Until this knowledge is revealed and a material can be treated in a way to make it active, success will be based on chance. If people want to advance the field, they need to focus on how a material can be made active. What about the material has to change and what unique condition has to be created? Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Caveat: > There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC) > will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to > Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result, > based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated. > > Once a particular brand, or type of CC has been identified as active, then > it would be significant if a half dozen experimenters - or possibly many > more- were able to verify the ongoing thermal anomaly in different parts of > the US and the World - but all using unpowered experiments in the > Arata-to-Cravens tradition. > > Essentially this kind of democratic experimental base - and hopefully a > positive end-result is was what A. Lomax was trying to do with his LENR > kits. I'm not sure how that went over, but it was probably doomed by > complexity and cost. > > However, this type of CC demonstration would be more dramatic and cheaper, > since it gets away from deuterium and promises significant output. The CC > are mass-produced devices, coming from low wage suppliers, and there is > certainly no more efficient way to get large amount of catalytic transition > metals onto a ceramic support. > > In short, this could be a great opportunity for grass-root science to be > able to stuff a bit of experimental truth about LENR down the collective > throats of ivory tower skeptics... > _____________________________________________ > > The thread about the H-Cat, as an inexpensive but meaningful > experiment in its base-level incarnation - raised the possibility that an > automotive catalytic converter ($40 -$100) - filled with hydrogen. It could > show a steady temperature gain over ambient of more than Cravens' ongoing > gain of 5 degrees - essentially for years. > > That kind of experiment would cost a few hundred, > out-of-pocket dollars for any garage lab with hydrogen, a datalogging PC, > thermocouples and about a square meter of space to spare. To actually burn > the hydrogen is counter-productive for proving gain. > > From: James Bowery > > How expensive is it to replicate? > > http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf > Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite > COP for 2.5 months before NI Week, and he indicated that he would keep it > going (that needs to be confirmed). > If true, this one has been ongoing for > almost 10 months at infinite COP. > > <winmail.dat>
