I don't think this went through . . . If it did, here it is again. Here is a new paper that calls into question some of the nanoparticle powder results, I think especially those by Kitamura:
Storms, E. *Examination of errors that occur when using a gas-filled calorimeter*. in *16th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science*. 2011. Chennai, India: LENR-CANR.org. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexaminatio.pdf (I listed the publisher as "LENR-CANR.org" here temporarily, because I do not know who the publisher will be.) Ed tells me the potential error caused by this artifact may be on the order of ~100 mW. That's enough to obviate most of Kitamura's results. When Mizuno was working on proton conductors he observed the same things Ed describes in this paper. Different kinds of gas have different thermal conductivity, whereas changing the pressure did not have much effect. Dennis Cravens is working on gas loaded nanoparticles. I mentioned that here On Oct. 6 in a critique of an experiment he proposed. He has since revised the proposed method completely. In my opinion his new plan is much better. I don't know if my opinion had an effect on his planning . . . Anyway, Cravens, Storms and I discussed his new plans at some length. I do not think his proposed method will be affected by the artifact described in this paper, because he is not comparing deuterium gas to hydrogen gas, and he will not need a joule heater to maintain the working temperature. At least, he hopes he will not need one. On a completely unrelated subject, here is a depressing map showing the rapid increase of diabetes in the U.S., especially around where I live: http://labs.slate.com/articles/diabetes-in-america/ - Jed
