Credible third party tests using something that looked like precision colorimetry gear would be a start. I can't see any journal accepting that paper apart from possibly "The Journal of Irreproducible Results".
Walks like a duck quacks like a duck. Nature is the final arbiter.
Before I started, I went and read the Wikipedia entry on the device under test, but I didn't read any of the other criticism or alternate explanations for what it may be doing.
The numbers are page numbers in the PDF. I have also given the section titles from the PDF.
--
"Introduction"
3: I guess the researchers had to infer how many resistors there were
Over the very long history of free-or-excess-energy inventions, the success rate so far has been exactly zero. Which is why we keep drilling oil and gas wells.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Note "hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some _additives_" sounds similar to test by Pons etc and others after the announcement. Seems that good production correlated with "additives" and/or contamination.
formatting link
A heater is a heater is a heater, "secret" waveforms total bullshit. Use adjustable DC. Better yet, if it is so damn good,toss the F-ing heaters and let it power itself!
DC would not allow you to cheat energy supply past whatever goofy way of trying to measure it these well meaning cowboys cooked up. Their attempts to measure energy in and energy out are risible. The whole thing looks like a bad example of a high school science fair project!
If you think about it even for a moment if the peak power generation and energy density of this thing was anything like what they claim from the moment the "nuclear" reaction initiated it would require active cooling to prevent meltdown. Instead it continues to consume power using the magic waveform that defeats simple measuring instruments.
See the Ragone diagram on Forbes. Incidentally why are Forbes pushing this? Do they have shares in this operation they want to pump and dump?
formatting link
A humble wood burning stove is two orders of magnitude lower down the peak power pecking order and they put out a lot of heat. The obvious thing to do was insulate the test rig to the point where any additional internally generated energy becomes obvious and then look for *nuclear* reactions. I would probably have palmed one of the "tube reactors", substituted a fake then subjected the original contents to ICPMS analysis so that we could see what the thing *actually* contained.
Basically it still looks exactly like an experimental setup by a well practiced conman who has duped a bunch of scientists/engineers.
Fleischmann and Pons did at least generate enough peak power to actually damage their equipment even if it was not cold fusion. Their problem was that they were electrochemists and their practice of calorimetry (which was much better than this crap) was not up to snuff.
If you look at the report close enough you'll find the mathematical and measurement errors for sure. The standard way to test these kind of systems is measuring the caloric value of the energy produced. Any other test can be tampered with.
--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
Ughh.. you must really want to believe this stuff.
OK let me ask one question... (I didn't read the whole thing), but they guesstimate the heat produced by measuring the surface temperature. And they claim not to be able to measure the emissivity of the surface.. but "conservatively" assume it's 1. Now correct me if I'm wrong but that is *not* a conservative estimate. If the emmisivity was (say) 1/2 then the thing would have to come to a higher temperature to get rid of the same amount of heat!
I can't imagine why. Amusing sci-fi plot but useless engineering.
Fleischmann & Pons were at least credible scientists who rushed into premature publication based on slightly iffy calorimetry and had everybody and their dog trying to replicate their cold fusion experiment.
This lot aren't even remotely credible except in the eyes of the terminally gullible who fall for every other "free energy" scam.
And six orders of magnitude more bullshit than actual reality.
Take with one very large pinch of salt. About 1 tonne ought to do it.
Hmm... well I didn't read the whole thing. But if you measure the temperature and then from that you want to get the energy that is radiated. Then higher emissivity means more radiated energy.
formatting link
If the 'conservative' estimate of emissivity is just to get the calibration of their pyrometer... then I just throw up my hands. Measure the surface temperature some other way (a thermal couple).
So if the calibration of the pyrometer is a bit 'flaky', giving an uncertainty in the temperature... and the energy radiated goes as T^4, then that's an even bigger error.
As others have said, there are lots of ways it could have been done better.
Why do you want so much for this to be true? I tend to be skeptical about science claims... even in a peer reviewed journal.
I was perhaps a bit quick to accept this as legitimate and convincing, but I still think it may have some validity. I did some searching of the Cornell University papers and found some more theoretical and probably more realistic analyses of "cold" fusion and low energy nuclear reactions of heavy nuclei such as Nickel. The probability of such reactions according to classical physics is in the order of 10e-2682, but quantum mechanical effects may have a more realistic probability. I posted a large number of links in a discussion in the DIYelectricCar forum:
formatting link
on-device-86033.html
But the paper that seemed most relevant was:
formatting link
I am not a physicist by any means but it does seem that nuclear fusion as observed in Rossi's tests is at least possible. I doubt that the simple apparatus he has built can actually produce the results he claims, and I
agree that many of the experimental methods are highly suspect, but I try to avoid knee-jerk rejection of such presentations and keep an open mind.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.