Jones, did you read that paper before citing it?
It's not a successful replication.
Quote from the abstract:
The apparent excess heat can
not be readily explained either in terms of nonlinearity of
the cell's thermal conductance a low temperature
differential or by thermoelectric heat pumping. However,
the present data do admit efficient recombination of
dissolved hydrogen-oxygen as an ordinary explanation.
They ran *one* active cell, and got ambiguous results.
Contrast the original study, in which they ran dozens of cells, and
found excess heat in about 1/5 of them. A "replication" with just one
active cell would not be expected to see excess heat -- and, indeed,
they probably didn't.
On 11-12-16 04:05 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
No it is not "more likely" - this appears to be your bogosity quotient
at work again - but it raises another issue.
Why would anyone invent a bogus rationale unsupported by the record--
especially under the guise of Occam - except to justify the continuing
failure to do their homework in this field? This is reminiscent of
Park's refusal to even accept papers on the subject, since his mind
was already made up.
Once again, Yugo has failed to avail herself of the information
available on the LENR website.
Here is NASA's replication of Thermacore's wet cell work
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf
*From:*Mary Yugo
JB: Simple, in the context of the time period.
<SNIP>
It is a perfect storm of coincidence leading to the biggest missed
opportunity in alternative energy.
MY: Isn't there a more likely reason that fits the Occam's Razor
principle? That they couldn't get a robust and reproducible result
from the devices and gave up because they figured that it didn't
really work? Otherwise it's hard to believe everyone concerned was
willing to give up on a working energy source that new and that
different and promising.
