Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: Nicely done paper, but it raises many questions. You say “nanoparticles” > but the active electrode appears to be wire and much less wire than before. >
There is more wire, I think. In Ref. 1 he used 1 m. This is 3 m. > Are you saying the wire treatment amounts to nanoparticles? > The wire treatment produces nanoparticles. See Ref. 1. Which is: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf See also: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTposterform.pdf > Why so little active material compare to the earlier presentation? Why not > space the pulses closer together? > For the reason stated in the paper: to keep the noise from input power and input heat to a minimum. I asked him to do that. This is not the only way to conduct tests with this system. As I said, previously he ran input power constantly, for days on end. I was looking for a clear-cut result with a high signal to noise ratio, which in this case -- with this system -- is not the same as the most anomalous power or the best input/output ratio. > Is nuclear data available? > Nope. I don't understand it enough to comment. Mizuno may present it at ICCF19. - Jed
