"Nano" is the key to many anomalies, and the follow numbers tend to support a surprising conclusion, to wit: Rossi's "industrial secret" catalyst is NOT nearly as good as the original .
In 1994 in a series of experiments lasting over a year, but before nickel nanopowder was available, Thermacore was able to get ~50 watts of continuous excess energy - output over the input - from what works out to 143 cm^2 surface area of nickel. This is based on the surface area of polished capillary tubing, which was in contact with a catalyst (one of several alkali metals, as specified in CQM theory based on Rydberg's constant). If the surface area had been etched and pitted, as would be expected, then the true surface area could be a multiple of that, but probably not over 400 cm^2. BTW Rydberg was a Swede, and his constant was found experimentally - since it predated the development of quantum theory. But nowadays, it can be derived from quantum mechanics, which gives it extra credence. Perhaps this is a detail which has attracted the Swedes to the recent incarnation of this early experiment. http://free-energy.xf.cz/H2/papers/Anomalous-Heat-from-Atomic-Hydrogen.pdf Now fast-forward 17 years. The spec sheets from nano-nickel suppliers say that 400,000 cm^2/gm of surface area is available from this geometry as opposed to the ~400 cm^2/gm of the older tubing. Therefore, only one gram of nano nickel should give an increase of (400,000/400) or about 3 orders of magnitude more surface area. If surface area correlates well to excess energy, and this is almost a given - then this incredible increase should easily push the 50 watts seen in 1994 above the heat level now claimed by AR. Is there a surprising conclusion that one draw from this set of circumstances ? Guess what, sports fans: this could indicates that Rossi's catalyst may NOT be as good as the potassium carbonate used initially ! But even if it is exactly the same catalyst (or one the other alkali metals mentioned in the CQM theory) - then this fact, plus the old experiment, may also indicate why the present inventor has been reluctant to disclose its true identity. Jones
