I went to look at the mailing list today, and it was gone.
Wow! -- I thought -- "they" really are quick!
But then I checked and found reference in the Help forum that quite a
number of new groups had disappeared, probably due to maintenance on
yahoogroups servers, and that probably everything will reappear
later. Frustrating, but not actual proof of a massive anti-cold
fusion conspiracy!
To join the group, send an email to coldfusionproject-subscr...@yahoogrous.com.
The group is not for debating theory, it is a "community of interest"
over the formation of a company or companies to engineer and market
cold fusion research kits, preferably cheap, plug-in-and-turn-on.
"Kits'" may be misleading, the full "kit" will more or less be
plug-and-play, but everything will be available, I expect, from the
actual engineering documentation used to manufacture the kits, up to
the supplies and instrumentation, etc. So anything can be done with
such kits including full independent replication, buying nothing from
the company, to a simple science fair project showing some
established phenomenon, to true controlled experiments, where one
variable is changed at a time. Analytical services will also be
offered (possibly -- and possibly ideally -- through an independent company).
My goal is that each test cell be cheap, very cheap, well under, say,
the cost of a Galileo Project replication, partly done through
economies of scale, partly through scaling the demonstration down,
and, as well, by picking only the cheapest of designs. So an
experimenter could test a whole series of ostensibly identical cells
to get statistically analyzable data, plus experimental data from
many buyers, I expect, will be available for overall analysis.
The "full kit," before being generally marketed, would be extensively
tested and "success rate" documented. The closer to 100%, the better,
but 100% is not actually necessary, merely desirable. If the cells
are cheap enough, even a quite modest success rate (which seems, from
the literature, very accessible) will be enough, it merely affects
how many cells buyers would need to test.
Jed has suggested wide replication of the Arata/Kitamura work, which
I think is a good idea, but the problem is that the material is
likely to be quite expensive, compared to, say, an experiment with a
piece of palladium foil or a codeposition experiment. Nevertheless,
Arata-type cells might be offered for those who can afford the cell
cost. (Off the top of my head, an Arata cell, in production, might
sell for about $200, whereas a codep cell might sell for $20. On the
other hand, if the quantity of nanoparticle palladium in an Arata
cell can be scaled down, and still see notable effects, maybe it's
more practical.)
Other possibilities exist. My own preference is for kits that
demonstrate already-published designs, not for speculative new
designs, though if someone independently, or in a small group of
people who find each other through our mailing list or in some other
way, develops and demonstrates a design, it could be considered.
Cheap. It better be cheap to make. Inventors looking for $100,000 to
test your nifty design need not apply. However, if you have a cheap
prototype that shows some LENR effect, great, let's talk.
