On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:26 PM, <peter.heck...@arcor.de> wrote: > Many universities and prominent institutes make experiments with metal > powder and hydrogen. > The Max Planck Institute for example examines the heat storge capacity at > 400° for such arrangements. > They also mill powder in ball mills in hydrogen athmossphere to research > the hydrogen storage capacity. > Many others do similar experiments and research. > They try all tricks possible to optimize the effects. Anomalous energy is > not reported. > They have probly tried any arrangements one could think about. > So I think, all chemicals can been excluded as a catalyst. >
In my experience, in most cases one will not find what one is not looking for. That is, only seldom are we able to get beyond our goals and objectives and see all the possible implications of the experiment we are running. Said another way, if it does not perform as we hoped, we call it trash. If they are looking for hydrogen storage, that's what they are looking for, not heat production. Unexpected results will be treated as an error, a fluke, a bad data point. I remember a graduate student in a group in which I was a postdoc, crying (crying!) over a series of IR spectra that resulted from her latest series of experiments, saying "I will never graduate, this system just does not work, everything just turns to crap". I looked it over and told her to go show them to the prof. "He's going to hug you for these". It was not crap at all, the reaction was not stopping where supposed but continuing in an unexpected and new way forming new species until that point never observed. In other words, a discovery (published on the Journal of the American Chemical Society) instead of a third decimal quantification of a known phenomenon (to be published at most in a small journal). But it was going to be tossed out as crap. Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
