DAILY SHARED LENR DISCOVERIES,DEC 5, 2014

DAILY QUOTATIONS

Give, give, give -- what is the point of having experience, knowledge or talent if I don't give it away?
Of having stories if I don't tell them to others?
Of having wealth if I don't share it?
I don't intend to be cremated with any of it!
It is in giving that I connect with others, with the world and with the divine. 

(Isabel Allende) today’s Gurteen Knowledge Quote at: http://www.gurteen.com 

I have a good relationship with Dave Gurteen, I like how and what he writes and he does not like what I create (e.g. my 100 Septoes)

Can anything be sadder than work left unfinished? Yes, work never begun.  (Christina Rossetti)

A paper by Russ George, about LENR and compact fluorescent bulbs                                 http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2014/12/04/compact-fluorescent-fusion/
Also presented at E-CatWorld

A paper of interest to see the context in which LENR + will conquer the US energy market:
The fracking fallacy:                                                                   http://www.nature.com/news/natural-gas-the-fracking-fallacy-1.16430?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email

Something good for LENR's relatively happy cousin, HTSC:

Rattled atoms mimic high-temperature superconductivity

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141204160329.htm 

A message -indirect- to the LENR+ deniers.

PdD electrolytic cells typically give 1w excess heat per 1 cubic,,cm Pd
Density of Pd is 12 g/cu.cm.

Not very encouraging for technology ~0.1W per g palladium and 

maximum 200 tons of this precious metals used  for

generation of energy means a total power worldwide of 20MW

Now suppose - just for the sake of comparison that the results

of the Lugano experiment are real, we have:

- power density in PdD Cell:~ 0.1W/g.metal

- power density in NiH Hot Cat: 2100W/g.metal (really high)

Quite a difference showing that;

a) different processes are at play, yes LENR and LENR+!

b) the very locus where the huge energy appears in the second case

must be ON the metal not IN it because it would instantly evaporate

c) can this difference be correlated with the number of nanocracks?

As regarding the source of energy I would call your attention to a

possibly, prophetic wording in Russ George's essay on the Pd cube: 

the energy that caused the destruction: "it was surely nuclear if not 

beyond so." 

Peter