2009/5/8 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> The results look too good to be true > > These people do excellent work. Melich and I have a high opinion of them.
So did one of the 2004 DOE reviewers I see ( http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf ), here is a quote of reviewer #4 commenting the paper in question: "The GM experiments of 1998 (five years later than FP) clarifies in 13 pages many of the shortcomings in the FP article. (Of course other articles by Fleischmann and Pons may have also addressed these concerns.) The GM article contains both a summary of previous work and substantially more details of the experimental cell, the electrodes, and the experimental method. For example, the use of both strips of Pd metal foil as well as rod/wire material was reported. Foil strips from a Russian source and rod/wire from Johnson Matthey were each obtained through an intermediate supplier. The preparation of each Pd cathode was described as well as the electrical connection and electrolyte isolation technique. The heater wire, thermometers, and anode were described. A method to mix the electrolyte by gas bubbling was carefully calibrated by the tedious method of bubble counting. Operation at a controlled temperature of 95 oC was accomplished using a temperature controlled oil bath. Two different thicknesses of foil, 0.02 cm and 0.05 cm, and a variation of total weight of Pd cathodes between about 0.34 and 1.9 g were used in five experiments plus a sixth with the 0.4 cm diameter rod/wire or 2.2 g weight. And one experiment with H2O was performed with a foil similar to a foil used for a D2O experiment. Some excess heat was observed and considered to be enthalpy release from PdHx formation. Similar enthalpy output would occur for PdDx but in each case is much less (~0.3 W) than the reported anomalous values of ~0.6-1.36 W that extended over much longer times. Additional variations of experiments were made, some by bubbling H2 or D2 instead of N2 into the system. And the continued production of enthalpy when an open circuit of the electrolyzing current was established provided the most convincing proof of a non chemical process that was generating enthalpy." > These results are not "too good" at all; they are in line with Roulette, > Fleischmann and Pons' high heat results. Has anyone tried to replicate them BTW? >> . . . if excess heat of this magnitude >> had been reproducible since 1998 the fight for recognition of CF >> would have been won ten yrs ago obviously. > > Not at all. For one thing, these results are buried. As I said, you can't > get to them. I cannot upload them, For all such papers for which you don't get permission to upload, maybe your site could suggest emailing you for a copy, or more discreetly "for more information". > and they are not available elsewhere on > the web as far as I know. So no one outside of the field knows they exist. Same thing for most scientific papers I am afraid. Clearly, the world would be a better place if all published information could be accessed freely on the web. This could be achieved legally with a flat global license fee transparently included in the Internet access provider's fee, as has been proposed for music and movies, which IMHO it would make sense to extend to all copyrighted material. ... > I am a programmer. We do things by strict rules. There is a huge different > between parenthesis and a forward slash mark. Indeed, a computer program asked to evaluate both expressions will evaluate them differently. The slash mark notation may fare better in this respect BTW, Google for example can't evaluate "(0.123 ampere) (milliampere)", while "(0.123 ampere) /milliampere" is understood and returns 123. Michel
