Stephen,
Sorry, but you are quite mistaken. Here is the conclusion: Replication of experiments claiming to demonstrate excess heat production in light water-Ni-K2CO3 electrolytic cells was found to produce an apparent excess heat of 11 W maximum, for 60 W electrical power into the cell. Power gains ranged from 1.06 to 1.68. How is a gain of 1.68 NOT successful? When is "Considering the large magnitude of benefit if this effect is found to be a genuine new energy source, a more thorough investigation of evolved heat in the nickel-hydrogen system in both electrolytic and gaseous loading cells remains warranted." .not an endorsement? I think you failed to see that even though they put in the usual 'escape clause' (after all this is NASA and we are dealing with fundamental NEW PHYSICS) that they are completely clear that they have demonstrated a prima facie case for a "genuine new energy source." They sought additional funding. Politics intervened and they did not get it. Jones From: Stephen A. Lawrence 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.
