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
