Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

Daniel Rocha wrote: So, if the heat is very small, smaller than the precision, this radiation > could be a way to measure that. > I do not think this would work with electrolysis. The background heat from electrolysis is so large, a tiny amount of excess heat measured in

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

I did not deny that. Photons beteen 10

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

Daniel Rocha wrote: This is why I am suggesting other methods to measure cold fusion, like > finding what is the frequency of the photon emission, if this is the case. > Not measuring excess heat by calorimetry is not the same of not having cold > fusion. > I disagree. I

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

This is why I am suggesting other methods to measure cold fusion, like finding what is the frequency of the photon emission, if this is the case. Not measuring excess heat by calorimetry is not the same of not having cold fusion. 2016-06-03 22:55 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : >

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

Daniel Rocha wrote: Any process has waste. So, for example, if the input is 1W and the output > is 0.9W it doesn't mean there wasn't CF. The yield could be like 1mW and > the remaining 0.099 wasted in other means. > With a laboratory calorimeter, you calibrate extensively

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

It seems that loading and deloading several times do increase the reproducibility. But maybe both cases are OK. My idea is that some metals come with irregularity in structure. For example, the lattice is not perfect, it has domains where the layers have different orientation. The zone may play

RE: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

Asymmetrical loading of deuterium into metals does indeed produce ‘cold fusion’ as evidenced by prodigious heat and commensurate 4He. It is most certainly NOT loading into cracks it is rather a super loading method for bulk material. Cracks do form but they are a defect not a desired condition.

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

I think sonofusion and cold fusion are the same. The bubble effect on H/D is essentially like cracks, like what Ed says. And even the same case bellow. (Cold fusion and even heat after death, for me, is caused after submitting H/D to pressures of 10^11Pa and submitted to thermal energy than

RE: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

Decades ago I was invited to give a seminar on my evidence of making heat and helium via sonofusion at the General Atomics Tokamak project in San Diego. The tokamak had run a few days before my arrival and it had been a very good test, everyone was happy with the results. My ‘fee’ for giving my

[Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

Any process has waste. So, for example, if the input is 1W and the output is 0.9W it doesn't mean there wasn't CF. The yield could be like 1mW and the remaining 0.099 wasted in other means. 1mW is a big deal. For example, if it were hot fusion, it would give a lethal dose, being close to the