Dear Peter, If I was the inventor, I would take my cold fusion cell, *as a black box to preserve my secrets*, to whatever authority accepts to test it (Earthtech is willing, if NIST is willing let it be NIST, good idea), to get the excess heat certified.
Why, you ask? To make it considerably easier and faster for me to get funding to do the important things you mentioned, scale up etc. And to take the field out of the ghetto it's been sitting in for 21 years, which accessorily would save the planet from boiling itself to death. Michel 2010/3/23 Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>: > Dear Michel, > I am, modesty apart, quite good in empathy. I can put myself in the place of > the inventor. > Why, for God's sake should he take his device to Earthtech's lab and make > measurments > to demonstrate that they get excess heat? Is Earthtech legally such a great > authority > in calorimetry recognized worldwide? Based on what achievemnts? Cui > prodest?" > For such measurements perhaps you can go to NIST or some famous University > lab. > Do you think they are NOT certain about excess heat? > As for Cold fusion/LENR excess heat is the aim, up to levels where you get > certainty even with primitive calorimetry. At 21 years you are "major > citizen" even in the most conservative countries. > But it is more important for them to work on development, scale-up, > intensification, safety, cost and price, quality, control, fast methods to > stop heat release, increase of the active life of a generator and many other > things from the realm of engineering. > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Michel Jullian <michelj...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> 2010/3/23 Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>: >> > Dear Michel, >> > Yes it is based on trust, I could not visit these labs- but I will try >> > to, >> > this summer. >> > But this trust is based on knowing the history of the system and its >> > father. >> > I have not missed any point re Scott Little. I don't believe he or >> > anybody >> > else will be >> > able to reproduce the working system of this process without knowing how >> > to >> > make it work. >> >> The know-how, good point. Then how about, if you were the inventor, >> taking the device to Earthtech, making it work there yourself, and >> leaving just the energy balance measurement to them? Wouldn't this be >> a good compromise? >> >> > Why does he (Scott) not try based on everything we know- Piantelli et al >> > papers, an old patent, now not more valid, the new Focardi Rossi patent >> > and >> > paper? Will he be able to find out the treatments and/or additives >> > and/or >> > procedures that make the system work? >> >> Probably not, hence my suggestion above. >> >> > This is reseach, needs creativity, >> > inspiration, patience and luck. He will need the help of a theorist who >> > will >> > try to find out what the main and the secondary reactions. And will be >> > exposed to risks. >> > Have you asked Jean Louis Naudin's opinion? He is an ace in such >> > things. >> >> I have stopped looking at JLN's CF work when I realized he didn't know >> how to measure electrical power, not to mention serious defects in his >> calorimetry. But he is indeniably very good at other things. >> >> > By the way, the saying is not dirty, it says persuasively that the >> > professional principles and rules have to be respected strictly. Dura >> > lex, >> > sed lex in technology too >> >> Oh, I get it now! Quite true! >> >> Michel >> >> > Peter. >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Michel Jullian <michelj...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Peter, >> >> >> >> Let me see if I understand, you believe the Rossi Focardi claims >> >> because you believe Piantelli when he _says_ he too has 100% >> >> reproducible intense excess heat with Ni-H. It's all based on trust, >> >> right? >> >> >> >> You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have >> >> a more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I >> >> agree), but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the >> >> device. NOT of a replicated device which would imply divulgating all >> >> known details, and even so it might not work, but of the working >> >> device itself. >> >> >> >> Would you yourself, if you had an excess heat device in your lab, >> >> whatever the power level, not take advantage of an offer of free >> >> independent measurement by nice competent people? >> >> >> >> Michel >> >> >> >> PS There are all sorts of dirty sayings in French too, but none that I >> >> know about technology! >> >> >> >> 2010/3/23 Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>: >> >> > Dear Michel, >> >> > I believe the claims because I know the history of the system >> >> > invented >> >> > by >> >> > Piantelli, I admire Piantelli and trust him. And he says the system >> >> > is >> >> > 100% >> >> > reproducible and the heat release is intense. And you have to take >> >> > great >> >> > care with scale-up. I have no idea how Focardi who was a collaborator >> >> > of >> >> > Piantelli and Andrea Rossi who is an inventor, came to work >> >> > seemimgly >> >> > separately from Piantelli.. It is possible the two groups have >> >> > discovered >> >> > separate means to get reproducibility and go on the way to scale-up. >> >> > Buut I >> >> > don't know. >> >> > Piantelli has his lab for scale-up, Rossi has one in Italy and one in >> >> > the >> >> > US. >> >> > Re Scott Little_ I believe he has a good calorimeter, but so has Ed >> >> > Storms >> >> > (I had the honor to see it in Ed's house in Santa Fe). They Ed, Jed >> >> > et >> >> > al. >> >> > say they have good calorimeters >> >> > for the simple reason they really have good calorimeters. But if you >> >> > need a >> >> > very sensitive >> >> > and precise calorimeter to demonstrate heat excess, than you are in a >> >> > bad >> >> > situation. After 21 years of history, this is not more interesting. >> >> > Piantelli and Focardi Rossi say they are in the 100-1000 W and more >> >> > zone >> >> > excess heat, what use of a say 0.001 W sensivity? >> >> > Science is wonderful, but technology - in this case too is useful. >> >> > Say you get such a device, but you don't know what makes it >> >> > reproducible, >> >> > then any validation test will be a disappointment and sophisticated >> >> > measurement just can make the situation worse. An indecent Hungarian >> >> > proverb >> >> > say "you cannot XXX out with technology!" that means you need the >> >> > know >> >> > how >> >> > elements, you have to respect the rules.. Is there a French >> >> > ~equivalent >> >> > for >> >> > that? >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Michel Jullian >> >> > <michelj...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> 2010/3/21 Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> > Merci beaucoup, Michel... >> >> >> > My interest is in technology and this resurrection or rejuvenation >> >> >> > of >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > Piantelli system >> >> >> > is the first really interesting event after many years. It is a >> >> >> > great >> >> >> > mystery what has happened between 1994 and 2008, it is crucial to >> >> >> > know >> >> >> > when >> >> >> > (and how) was total reproducibility achieved. Piantelli who is >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > Father >> >> >> > of this system advices for a careful, stepwise scale up- due to >> >> >> > serious >> >> >> > risks as sudden uncontrolable heat release and radiation. The >> >> >> > system >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > in a >> >> >> > pre-commercial phase and has a very promising future. >> >> >> >> >> >> So you believe the claims? On what grounds? And why isn't Piantelli >> >> >> involved? >> >> >> >> >> >> > Patents are interesting bu their reliabilty is low (to quote >> >> >> > myself >> >> >> > "the >> >> >> > study of patents give you the mythology NOT the history of a >> >> >> > process" >> >> >> > For >> >> >> > products it is better. The value of a patent without a critical >> >> >> > know-how >> >> >> > feature is low. >> >> >> > I would not bother much with good English papers either, I think >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > setup >> >> >> > is already described in the very first Piantelli- Focardi- Habel >> >> >> > paper. >> >> >> > In >> >> >> > the Focardi Rossi paperthe results- if true are esential. >> >> >> > Without the secret ingredient, recipe, surface treatment or magic >> >> >> > spell >> >> >> > it >> >> >> > will be quite difficult to perform any independent validation. >> >> >> > With >> >> >> > or >> >> >> > without Scott's Wundercalorimeter. >> >> >> > Metrologomania- obsession with very sensitive measurement has >> >> >> > disfocussed >> >> >> > the research in the field. A means became an aim. >> >> >> >> >> >> It's nice to have cool headed persons like Scott Little in the >> >> >> field. >> >> >> Again, I don't understand the rationale for not having one's claims >> >> >> confirmed by them for free, the MOAC offer has been open for 5 years >> >> >> now! The "my calorimeter is as good as theirs" reason invoked by Ed >> >> >> and Jed is of course not receivable, it simply amounts to saying "I >> >> >> don't want to have my excess heat claim to be independently >> >> >> confirmed". Proprietary secrets one doesn't want to divulge? Simply >> >> >> make the cell a black box which can produce controllable or at least >> >> >> non constant excess heat. Anyone can think of a good reason not to >> >> >> take up the Earthtech offer? >> >> >> >> >> >> > There is only one proof- a commercial heater and a firts factory >> >> >> > of >> >> >> > such >> >> >> > heaters leading to a new branch of industry. We have waited 21 >> >> >> > years >> >> >> > for >> >> >> > this, and as our Italian friends would say: Basta! I hope you will >> >> >> > agree >> >> >> > too >> >> >> > cousin Jed, and this will be our line of thinking and action. >> >> >> >> >> >> I agree a commercial heater would be an indisputable proof, even a >> >> >> prototype would do, but in what way is this a line of action? Is >> >> >> anyone on the verge of producing one? >> >> >> >> >> >> Michel >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
