Several people have called this to my attention in the last week:

<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf>http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf

Jones Beene pointed out the patent for this here:

<http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444&IA=IT2008000532&DISPLAY=DESC>http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444&IA=IT2008000532&DISPLAY=DESC

Apparently this has been a source of lively discussion at CMNS. Sources tell me there is more to it than meets the eye, and not to dismiss it. The claimed energy gains in Table 1 are extraordinary. The output/input ratio for 6 runs was:

415, 205, 80, 197, 203, 179

Table 1 is confusing. I gather the first row shows total energy for one day, May 5, 2008. Input was 0.2 kWh, and output was 83 kWh. That would be average power of 3.4 kW (83 kWh / 24 hours). Row 4 appears to be for Feb. 17, 2009 through March 3, 2009. That's 14 days, or 336 hours. Output power is 1006.5 kWh, which is average energy of 3.0 kW.

I have had some doubts about previous reports from Focardi, because they have not been independently replicated as far as I know. However, it is difficult to imagine that such large ratios could be an error in calorimetry.

They use 3 kinds of calorimetry, including flow calorimetry, which is described on p. 3. They don't call it "flow calorimetry" and they do not report critical parameters such as the flow rate and Delta-T, which is a little annoying.

- Jed

Reply via email to