2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> >> Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup is >> made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it (heating >> resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be sure there isn't >> a mundane source of heat such as a some radioisotope hidden in the cell >> itself, unless Rossi lets them take it apart which is unlikely. > > You need not worry about that sort of thing. > I have been in contact with > both parties, > and they have already taken apart the cells.
Which parties? > These people are > not fools, and Rossi is clearly not trying to scam anyone. If he was, would it be so obvious? > Also, as cousin > Peter points out, you would need ~7 kg of plutonium-238 > to do this without > killing the observers, and I do not think Uncle Sam would lend it to you. 6 or 7 kg would be the weight of a complete 1kW device, and the US is not the only source of radioisotopes. But anyway as I said it's easy to discriminate between a constant heat source and one that can be turned off. It can be turned off, right? > As I said about Mills, the only thing that is absolutely foolproof is a > fully independent replication. Yes. The next best thing is an independent measurement of the excess heat, which can't be very difficult to do at this magnitude, just drop the cylinder in a bucket of water and use a thermometer like you did with the Paterson cell. > But an independent evaluation is pretty darn > good, and better than what we have now. Rossi knows that. > You may get a bad impression of Rossi because of the patent and paper. I > certainly did. Ed Storms said -- with considerable justification -- that the > paper proves nothing. Okay, so please suspend judgement and wait for a paper > from people who write in English better than he does. If it never appears, > draw your own conclusions. I agree with your cousin Peter that it can't be a problem of bad English. Where exactly do you think there might be a translation error in the paper (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf ), in "1-1.5 hours", or in "165 kWh" ? (line 2 of table 1) Michel
