There’s a very clear and thorough slideshow that has been posted on the LENR Forum by Jeff Morris which he presented at a meeting in the Bay Area recently. He seems to have performed a very professional experiment, but without finding the excess heat that Parkhomov and some others have reported. The presentation can be viewed here:
On slide 15 he writes:
“Lack of excess energy, despite close adherence to Parkhomov protocol indicates that key information is missing
Assume that both Rossi, and Parkhomov did generate COP >>1
Morphology of the Ni and its interaction with H + catalyst are not well understood.
Option 1: Continue the Edisonian approach and hope we get lucky: or
Option 2: Develop a theory (many have been proposed), but I believe we have sufficient experimental evidence on which to propose a theory that is testable and consistent with the known laws of physics.”
Jeff is making comments and responding to questions on this thread on the LENR Forum: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1982-jeff-E-Cat-Replication-Attempt/?pageNo=4&s=3a3e974dcf94f9361ef2bcaad61dd8fad995c3c5
So the mystery continues as to why some replication efforts, which seem to closely match what Parkhomov reported show no evidence of excess heat, while others do. Without providing any details, Andrea Rossi has commented in the past that generating the Rossi Effect is much more complex than it appears, and it seems that even his closest associates don’t know what some of his key secrets are.
This may be discouraging to other would-be replicators, but I expect efforts by those who are convinced of the reality of the Rossi Effect will continue, especially when there have been successes as well as failures reported. It’s not dissimilar to the period of time following the Pons and Fleischmann announcement when some who couldn’t replicate the effect concluded it was all bunk, while others were able to see the effect and continued work in the field.