Two public talks on the topic of LENR will be given by members of the Energy 2.0 Society in April.
On Wednesday April 15, Gary Scott, electrical engineer and one of the founding board members of the Energy 2.0 Society will address the Madison, Wisconsin chapter of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) on the subject of: “LENR: Energy 2.0”.
The meeting will include a lecture by Gary Scott, along with pizza, salad and a beverage held at Engineering Hall Room 1800, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706 at 5:00 p.m. on April 15th. Cost is $5 for IEEE chapter members, free for IEEE student members, and $10 for all others.
Electrical engineer Scott does not care for the “cold fusion” name, calling it “incorrect”. We strongly disagree, nevertheless, his enthusiasm for LENR gains our support.
Talk: At the moment the most promising forms of LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions some times incorrectly referred to as Cold Fusion) are those that are able to operate using nickel and hydrogen — both plentiful and inexpensive natural resources. In LENR reactions no pollutants or emissions are produced, neither are harmful radiation or radioactive waste. This makes LENR a clean and sustainable form of energy. We are in the very early days of research and development in this field, and much about this phenomenon is poorly understood. There are competing theories proposed that try to describe the exact mechanism by which this anomalous heat is generated, but none has as yet been accepted as authoritative. There are many researchers and companies studying LENR at the moment, and it appears that we are on the verge of seeing commercial-grade LENR reactors appear in the marketplace. Ultimately LENR has the potential to revolutionize the way that energy is produced — cleanly and less expensively than current energy sources, and from elements that are cheap and abundant — making it a truly ‘2.0’ technology that we feel should be promoted for the benefit of humanity.
On Sunday April 26, Tom Wind, president of Wind Utility Consulting in Jamaica, Iowa, and president and founding board member of the Energy 2.0 Society will speak at the EarthFest EcoFair at the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester, Minnesota. Tom Will be speaking at 2:00 p.m. on the subject of “The Advance of LENR Technology”. Admission is free. For more information about the event visit http://www.earthfestrochestermn.org/
The Energy 2.0 Society is registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Iowa, USA. The society was formed to increase awareness about LENR technology and to promote its use with the purpose of improving quality of life for people everywhere. For more information please visit http://www.energy2point0.org
This is a re-post of “Scientists warming up to ‘cold fusion’, see potential in ‘other nuclear’ energy” by M Ramesh originally on Hindu BusinessLine. Links to relevant institutions and emphasis has been added.
Chennai, April 9:
About thirty scientists from all over India met in Bengaluru on Tuesday to discuss ‘the way forward’ in an emerging cheap and clean source of energy, called ‘low energy nuclear reactions’, or simply ‘cold fusion’. The meeting was chaired by Dr Anil Kakodkar, former Chairman of the Department of Atomic Energy.
Dr Raj did not give details of the meeting—he feels it is up to the Ministry to do so—but he said that the basic message that came out of the meeting was that there was a need to study ‘low energy nuclear reactions’ more.
The objective of the meeting was to further study the phenomenon of ‘cold fusion’, devices based on which are beginning to be commercialized elsewhere in the world.
Some experts, such as Dr Mahadeva Srinivasan, a scientist who worked for the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), believe that cold fusion has the potential to become the primary source of energy in the not-so-distant future.
Dr Srinivasan, who attended the Bengaluru meeting, said that one of the decisions taken at the meeting was that four groups of institutions and scientists would get into cold fusion research and there would be an informal oversight committee. Some of the institutions involved are the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), which, incidentally, was once headed by Dr Baldev Raj, the IIT-Madras, and the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology.
What is ‘cold fusion’?
Just as energy (heat) is produced when a nucleus splits in the nuclear power plants that we have, energy gets generated also when two nuclei merge. But it requires enormous input energy to get them to merge, as they contain positively charged particles—protons—and same charge tend to move away, not to come close. Therefore, to get nuclear happen at room temperatures—cold fusion—has been thought to be impossible.
In 1989, two American scientists—Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons—conducted some experiments and observed more heat given out than they could explain and inferred that the excess heat was due to nuclear fusion reactions. They became instant celebrities in the scientific world, but in a matter of weeks they got branded as incompetent scientists, or even frauds, after thousands of others tried their experiment and got no excess heat. ‘Cold fusion’ was practically buried.
But the subject was roused again in 2011, when an Italian engineer called Andrea Rossi unveiled his invention—a fist-sized device that produced more energy than it consumed, using only nickel powder spiked with some chemical, and hydrogen as raw materials. He kept the name of the chemical secret.
An outraged scientific community branded Rossi a charlatan, but the engineer proceeded regardless and started selling his ‘E-Cat’ machines and has scaled up their capacity to 1 MW.
But lately the world is being less cold towards cold fusion, thanks to a number of experiments that proved that E-Cat-like devices work, though nobody, including Rossi, knows how.
For instance, a group of scientists performed “independent third party tests” on the E-CAT in February-March 2014 at Lugano, Switzerland and the results were announced in October. Their report said that the devices produced more heat than can be explained by chemical burning and conceded that they had “no convincing theoretical explanation”. But the report also said that the results were “too conspicuous not to be followed up.”
Another scientist, Alexander Parkhimov of Russia, also conducted experiments using E-Cat-like devices and said that they produced energy.
Furthermore, several universities (Texas Tech University of the US and the Tohoku University of Japan, to name two examples) are opening research divisions or forming committees to look into cold fusion.
Next week, the 19th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-19) will take place in Italy. The ICCFs have been generally dismissed as ‘meeting of believers’ but this time around many potential investors, notably the Bill Gates Foundation is taking part in it.
It is learnt that after the Power Minister, Piyush Goyal, was briefed about these developments, he personally requested Dr Kakodkar to look into the matter—which culminated in the Bengaluru meeting.
Title graphic: M. King Hubbert’s graph of the fossil fuel age and it’s successor nuclear power in geologic time.
This is a re-post of an article written by Tom Whipple of the Falls Church News Press.
The original article is here.
Even Saudi Arabia’s oil minister is starting to talk about the advent of a “black swan.” These are defined as completely unexpected developments which cause lots of unexpected change. I believe we are going to be seeing a major black swan event in the not too distant future.
It should be clear to everyone that the earth’s climate is becoming so laden with carbon emissions that civilization as we know it on this planet is unlikely to make it through the next few centuries. Fortunately, however, the combustion of carbon-based fuels will be slowly on its way down as most of the oil that is left is becoming too costly to extract, and in the case of coal, is killing too many people from unhealthy air. Even the Chinese seem to have gotten the message and are cutting back on coal burning as fast as they can without collapsing their economy and getting the government overthrown. However, running out of cheap oil, killing ourselves off from dirty air, or devastating climate change induced weather events are not black swans as these developments are already well anticipated. What is desperately needed is a way for the world to stop burning carbon as quickly as possible without creating economic turmoil. There just may be an answer.
Coming down the road are a pair of technologies that will produce nearly unlimited amounts of cheap, pollution-free energy, and have the potential to change life-as-we-know-it.
I am talking about the twin technologies of cold fusion and hydrinos, each of which, when widely deployed, will constitute a revolution in the history of mankind fully equivalent to the discovery of fire, the wheel, the agricultural revolution, or the industrial revolution. Both of these technologies are based on turning the hydrogen found in water into virtually unlimited amounts of energy at very low cost and without any harmful pollution. Recent developments suggest that either or both of these technologies could become available for commercial applications in the next few years. In recent years, new technologies such as cell phones have spread across the globe in a few decades.
So where are these technologies and when can we expect to hear and read about them in the mainstream media, especially if they are getting close to becoming commercial products? The answer to this is simple. Both these technologies are based on science that is beyond that generally accepted by scientific community, especially those who have never looked into the results of the experiments. While those few scientists who have tested and are familiar with the details of these technologies tell us that they are for real, the bulk are waiting for irrefutable proof that they actually produce large amounts of cheap energy before they are willing to accept that our knowledge of nature may not be as complete as we like to think and that some scientific theories may be wrong.
The hydrino theory holds that there exists in nature a stable, compact form of hydrogen which does not absorb or emit light, making it very hard to detect. Under the proper conditions, normal hydrogen atoms such as those found in water can be transformed into hydrinos accompanied by a massive release of energy. This theory is the brainchild of one man, Randall Mills of BlackLight Power in New Jersey, who has been working on the development of the theory and a practical way to release energy for nearly 30 years. The reason the theory has received little attention is that it appears to violate fundamental principles of atomic science which would have to be rethought if it fact there is such a thing as a hydrino.
Last summer Mills reported in a fascinating video on his website, blacklightpower.com, that he has recently made significant breakthroughs in developing the technology. Last month he reported that all of the subsystems of his prototype “SunCell” now are working and that the first prototype of a commercial device is now being integrated. He also says that a business relationship for distribution of commercial products is being established. If the prototype devices work as advertised and can be tested by independent laboratories, the arguments over the existence of a hydrino should end fairly quickly unless some other explanation can be found. If the subsystems work as claimed, I would be surprised if we did not see the first prototype in operation before the end of the year.
The second of our black swan technologies is our old friend “cold fusion,” which now goes by several other names, largely to assuage the feelings of those scientists who claim there can be no such thing as cold fusion. There now is no question that the nuclear reactions are for real and that commercial quantities of heat can be produced under proper conditions by heating hydrogen in the presence of nickel and other elements. As far as we know, the Italian entrepreneur Andrea Rossi still seems to be the furthest ahead in the race to build and market commercial-scale devices although numerous people around the world are producing heat from laboratory scale devices.
Unlike Mill’s hydrino device, cold fusion is far more difficult to control and many experiments are producing so much heat that they melt down their test apparatuses. Only Rossi, who is now working from a US company, Industrial Heat, down in North Carolina, says he has developed the techniques to keep a commercially viable heat generating device under control. For several months now he has had a commercial sized 1-megawatt prototype device, which has been installed in a factory at an unrevealed location in the U.S., undergoing a year’s acceptance test. If this test is successful, and we won’t know until early next year, Industrial Heat will at some point likely begin publicizing and marketing commercial cold fusion devices.
If either of these endeavors meets their developers’ expectations, we should be seeing the biggest black swan in centuries land in our midst fairly soon.
The first thing to record is that the document under consideration is an informal, preliminary research note available to me only in English translation of the Russian original. Despite that it reads well. Alexander Parkhomov is a “known” scientist from a highly reputable Institution, Lomonosov Moscow State University, which I have visited on several occasions. He has published work with friends of mine including Yuri Bazhutov (Chairman of ICCF13 and member of the IAC) and Peter Sturrock (Stanford University). These are both very capable senior scientists so that when this research is prepared for formal publication I am sure we can anticipate a complete and solid report.
In the meantime I will comment briefly on what is presented. Because of the community interest in the topic and the apparently clear and elegant nature of the experiment, Parkhomov’s preliminary report has already received an astonishing amount of discussion on the CMNS news group. What is stated in this preliminary report is encouraging, potentially even interesting, but one is struck by material information that is not made available in this report. Much, most or all of this added detail apparently is available to the author so one must await further elucidation from Parkhomov or a serious engineering effort at replication before final conclusions can be arrived at.
Although clearly motivated by the Rossi “Lugano” experiment it is not correct to call either a replication of the other or of any before. These are new experiments, with new characteristics, and some common features. As shown below the reactor active core consists of nickel powder intermixed with a hydrogen (lithium and aluminum) source, LiAlH4, enclosed in an alumina tube and confined with bonded ceramic plugs. This core is surrounded by a helically wound, coaxial electrical heater extended in length to provide closely uniform heating. The whole is potted in ceramic cement to incorporate a single sense thermocouple.
To this extent this configuration mirrors the Rossi reactor recently reported from Lugano although we do not know the similarity or differences between the Ni samples used in each. Since LiAlH4 decomposes to liquid and H2 gas at the temperature of operation its source and nature of are presumed not to make much difference although the impurity content (unstated) may. Also different is the nature of the electrical input used for heating. For Parkhomov this is unspecified. The Rossi effort at Lugano employed 3-phase (50 Hz.) power for the calorimetric input and thermal stimulus but also includes an unknown amount of power in unstated form as a trigger. No such trigger apparently was used by Parkhomov.
The two experiments diverge radically in their chosen means of calorimetry. Parkhomov states that the “Rossi reactor technique based on thermovision camera observation is too complex,” with which I tend to agree. The chosen mean of calorimetry on the new report is to employ the latent heat of vaporization of water — the well known amount of heat required to boil water to steam, in this case at ambient pressure. The heater/reactor combination shown above was enclosed with partial insulation inside a rectangular metal box that was contacted on 5 of 6 surfaces by water.
There are some second order effects that might pertain to this boiling water calorimetry but the method is “tried and true.” It has been employed accurately for well over 100 years and in a slightly different form (boiling liquid nitrogen) was the method selected in recent SRI calorimetry. With simple precautions such a calorimeter should be accurate within a few percent over a wide range of powers and reactor temperatures. One must be concerned to interrogate the heat that leaves the calorimeter by means other than as steam escaping at ambient pressure, that water does not leave the vessel in the liquid phase as splattered droplets or mist (fog), and to accurately measure the water mass loss (or its rate to determine output power). Obviously one also needs to accurately and completely measure the electrical input power.
Although this last issue has been recently (and anciently) raised it is very rarely a problem. Measurement of current, voltage and time (power and energy) are some of the measurements most easily and commonly made. Parkhomov does not supply details of the electrical power or its measurement and he is very much encouraged to do this in his formal reporting. I have no reason, however, to doubt the input power statements. Splatter and mist are issues of observation and calibration and heat leaks are a matter of calibration. Much detail is missing here. Full information about the calibration(s) must be provided in any formal report and full resolution of the question “what do the data tell us?” awaits this detail.
In the meantime what can we learn? Parkhomov states without showing that data that: “The power supplied to the heater stepwise varied from 25 to 500 watts.” The thermocouple in the reactor reached 1000°C approximately 5 hours after initial heating. It would be very nice to have these early-time data together with the data for calibration with which to compare; the greatest weakness of this report is the paucity of data. We are forced basically to rely on three data pairs that I have re-tabulated below from the Parkhomov report with some calculated numbers. Three time intervals are reported of varying duration (Row 2) in which the cell reported an average temperature resulting from the stated average electrical input power, and accumulated the stated Energy In. Parkhomov states from his calibration (not shown) that the heat leak from the system to the ambient is 155 W with the boiler at 100°C. From this heat leak rate we can calculate the energy that leaves in each interval through the insulation and from the mass of water lost we can calculate the heat that leaves as steam by using the known latent heat of vaporization of water (40.657 kJ /Mole or 2258.7 kJ / kg of H2O). The sum of these is the Total Energy Output, the second half of our three data pairs.
These tabulated data (although few) exhibit an impressive set of characteristics:
Excess energies of ~120 to ~1900 kJ in 40-50 minutes.
Energy output greater than heat leak rate for the two higher input powers so that even if this loss approaches zero there is still calculated excess energy.
Percentage excess energies (and therefore average power) of ~20-160% with increasing input power and temperature.
Average excess powers of ~50 to nearly 800 W with a very small “fuel” load (0.9g of Ni).
Excess power densities of ~60 to nearly 900 W g-1 of Ni, well within “useful” regimes and consistent with previous CMNS results.
Excess power densities for the small reaction volume (~1 cm3) of ~50 to nearly 800 W cm-3.
All of these characteristics are exceptionally favorable. In the “plus column” we can also add that the experiment should be very easy to reproduce and we will hopefully soon have well-engineered replication attempts and conceivably confirmations. The experiment also does not appear to need stimulation other than heat, hydrogen and possibly lithium or the need for solid-nickel/molten-metal interaction. So what are the worries? A very large amount has been said about this experiment in part because of the spectacular character of the tabulated data. Over and above the obvious need for calibration data and complete run-time data (ideally in the form of numbers not just plots) not everybody is happy. Why not?
Although others may have further points to add I would summarize three major concerns expressed with the material that has been presented (rather than what was not):
The unexpected behavior of the Temperature at high power. When excess power (of apparently considerable power density) is being created one would expect to see the temperature of the source to be increasingly elevated. The observed trend is not in the “right” direction.
A plot of the data tabulated by Parkhomov for Reactor Temperature vs. Input Power is a stunningly good fit to a parabola. Because of limits of accuracy and precision experimentalists normally expect such close fits to be the result of calculation, not measurement. The goodness of fit may be explicable by the author or just be a fascinating coincidence.
A temperature arrest of approximately 8 minutes occurred at the end of the experiment after the rapid power and temperature drop following heater failure. This “Heat after Death” episode was preceded by a similar period of apparent temperature fluctuation. Either episode or both might be important signals of the underlying heat generation process or may signal sensor failure. It is difficult to resolve this ambiguity without redundant temperature measurement.
In the absence of relevant calibration data at least, and (better) a finite element model of the complex heat flow from the system as well, one can use only experience and intuition to predict what the reactor thermocouple sensor should register as a consequence of changing input power. The input power to the helical heater has a known (distributed) location. The excess power, however, while (presumably) volumetrically constrained has no defined or necessarily stationary position within the fuel volume. Even the first step of heat flow is therefore complex but an argument has been made qualitatively that, all else being equal, if you add a heat source the temperature should go up. Does it?
Let’s look first at a plot of percent excess power (left vertical axis) and temperature (right vertical axis, °C) as a function of input power (W). Three different colored curves are plotted for three different postulated values of the conductive heat leak from the calorimeter: red (155 W) the heat leak power calibrated by Parkhomov and assumed to be constant throughout the active run; blue (102 W) the value that makes the excess power for the first data point zero, as a conservative internal calibration; green (0 W) no heat leak, the most conservative estimate possible for this term. There is nothing at all surprising about this set of curves, and something quite encouraging. The observed excess power cannot be explained by an error in the conductive heat leak or any changing value of that parameter. The temperature of the reactor rises monotonically and smoothly with increasing excess and total power.
Now let’s look at the same data plotted against the measured reactor temperature below. Here we see some indication of the first concern enumerated above. Although slight, the curvature of this family of curves is up suggesting that as the excess (and total) power measured calorimetrically by the released steam increases, so also does the rate of heat (or temperature) loss from the thermocouple sensor. Although this might indicate a measurement problem (unknowable without calibration data) note that the deviation cause by this curvature is well within the variation bounded by the assumed heat leak to the ambient and might easily be caused by a relatively small change in this calibrated “constant.”
At least two unincluded heat loss term are known that must cause the heat leak constant to change in the direction to cause upward curvature: radiant heat loss from the reactor to the enclosing metal box at higher temperature; increased convective transport from the enclosing metal box to the inner wall of the “steamer” at higher rates of steam bubble evolution. I do not know whether the shape of the curve is a problem or is not. The point that I would like to re-reinforce is that we can only answer such questions definitively and thus gain confidence in the data and therefore knowledge if we have direct access to calibration data in the relevant temperature regime. I would also like to see a good thermal model as the reactor/calorimeter system is nowhere near as simple as it seems having several parallel and series heat transport paths. I realize that such model would be labor intensive and/or expensive to develop so lets start with the calibration. How does the system behave with no possibility of excess power?
As a comment in conclusion, there are gaps and unexplained effects in the data set, notably in the missing calibration data, and the foreground data record is slight. Nevertheless the experiment is clearly specified, easily performed, elegant and sufficiently accurate (with relevant calibration). I would recommend that the experiment be attempted by anyone curious and with the facilities to do so safely, exactly as described. Anything else or more runs the risk of teaching us nothing. I await further word from Parkhomov and reports from further replication teams.
 Parkhomov has stated that the NI used to charge his reactor had an initial grain size of ~10µ and specific area ~1000 cm2/g.
 SRI DTRA report and ICCF17 proceedings.
 Note that the lack of need for stimulation is very good for demonstration but undesirable for control and thus technology.
 The first two points were elaborated initially by Ed Storms, who may make them more strongly than I do here.
About the Author: Dr. Michael McKubre is Director of the Energy Research Center of the Materials Research Laboratory at SRI International. He received B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. in chemistry and physics at Victoria University (Wellington, New Zealand). He was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Southampton University, England. Dr. McKubre joined SRI as an electrochemist in 1978. He is an internationally recognized expert in the study of electrochemical kinetics and was one of the original pioneers in the use of ac impedance methods for the evaluation of electrode kinetic processes. Dr. McKubre has been studying various aspects of hydrogen and deuterium in metals since he joined SRI in 1978, the last 25 years with a close focus on heat measurements. He was recognized by Wired magazine as one of the 25 most innovative people in the world. Dr. McKubre has conducted research in CMNS since 1989.
The Universal LENR Reactor was designed by Dale Basgall and Jack Cole and they have been posting updates since September 2012.
Nikita Alexandrov, President, Permanetix Corporation has contacted the lab and generated these details about the experiment.
Photo: Reaction chamber in operation. Note that the true light color was orange. Courtesy Jack Cole.
Q&A with Jack Cole and Nikita Alexandrov
Q A replication of the Rossi type Ni-H LENR system was posted to your website. Were you the one who performed this experiment or was it someone else?
A Yes, I was the one who performed the experiment.
Q Can you go into detail regarding the nickel powder ie: grain size, composition, purity, source, batch number, etc?
A INCO Type 255 Nickel Powder (2.2 to 2.8 um particle size). Purchased on Ebay. I also use Fe2O3 added to the nickel.
Q Can you explain which type thermocouple/DAQ system you were using?
A I’m using a type K thermocouple of the type frequently used in kilns. I use a USB thermocouple adapter that has it’s own software (http://www.pcsensor.com/index.php?_a=product&product_id=49). The power data is acquired directly from the programmable DC power supply using a Visual Basic .NET program that I wrote. The VB program samples and adjusts power levels every 5 seconds to compensate for changing resistance to maintain a constant power output.
Q Can you explain which sources you ordered your alumina materials from?
A I purchased a 12″ alumina tube from Amazon and cut it into 3″ sections. It is 3/8″ OD and 1/4″ ID. The experiment was conducted with a 3″ tube.
Q Can you explain the geometry of your reactor and heating coils as well as method of sealing?
A The heating element is simply coiled Kanthal. The seal is not hermetic (it leaks hydrogen). I tested with a dangerous gas detector and it was leaking up to the last power step. After that point, I detected no more hydrogen. It was either sealed at that point or no more hydrogen was being produced. Based on the description of how Rossi sealed his reactor in the Lugano report, I find it unlikely his seal was hermetic (unless he found a very clever method of sealing the tube).
Q Can you explain which hydrogen carrier you used? In the report it was implied it was not LiAlH4, was it magnesium based – if you do not want to go into detail can you just confirm it was not a gas or which elements were present?
A I used lithium hydroxide and aluminum powder. The advantage with this method is that it does not start producing significant amounts of hydrogen until the LiOH melts at 480C. Earlier experiments were performed with KOH and aluminum powder. It starts producing hydrogen after 100C (presumably when the water absorbed in the KOH is liberated as steam). I haven’t seen any research discussing these facts as most research looks at combining water with these elements at room temperature to produce hydrogen. I don’t add any water (not really needed since these compounds absorb water from the air). The hydrogen production can be quite vigorous as I found out in an earlier copper tube experiment where the end cap was shot across the room into the basement wall.
Q Can you tell me if you made a blank, sealed reactor for the calibration?
A The calibration (control run) was performed with the same cell with one end sealed. The lack of seal on one end is a potential limitation. What bolsters the results is that the apparent excess heat has been decreasing (makes it less likely that the lack of seal on one end gave a bad calibration). Additionally, the Delta T at the first two power steps was almost identical between the control and experimental run. Hydrogen production started at the third power step.
Q Can you tell me how many trials you performed with this system before you saw xP?
A I performed many experiments with different types of tubes before this (brass, copper, and stainless steel). The trouble with all those is the melting temperatures and difficulty sealing. Copper is easy to seal, but you have to keep it below 150C to keep the solder from melting. You can get hydrogen with KOH and aluminum at that level (which produces chemical heat). I had promising results with alumina on my first run (but I used it as it’s own calibration comparing the lower temperature curve to the higher temperature curve–certainly not ideal). Part of the difficulty has been finding the right heating element diameter to match with my DC supply to be able to produced the needed heating levels. I have done probably 15 experiments with alumina tubes, but I had the best configuration for making measurements on the last one that I reported on.
Q Would you be interested in having a sample of your spent nickel material analyzed for elemental transmutations?
A I’ll keep it after I’m done with it in case this could be done in the future. Right now, I need to work on calorimetry to verify this in a more rigorous way.
Q Would you feel comfortable having me post your answers publicly, online and not just to the private mailing list?
A You can use it in whatever way you like. Keep in mind that I am not yet convinced by these results and there is more work to be done. I might yet discover that there is a simple conventional explanation that is not LENR. The results have to convince me, and I’m not to that point yet.
Q Thanks so much, this will really help educate the general community.