Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Both, yes. I've argued Smaller is Better, but only for exploratory research. Once you have something that you can reproduce, then making it bigger and stronger becomes the new goal. You *start* with the small system and explore the hell out of it, you don't just leap to bigger until you have something solid.
That has been the guiding principle. As I wrote in one of my papers, it can be more accurate and more convenient to measure a small reaction -- under 10 W -- compared to, say, 1 kW. Although most researchers would consider 10 W fairly large, and would be pleased to see that. Some of the Storms papers have a histogram of many experiments from the literature, showing that most of them are clustered in the low power region. See Fig. 1, p. 18:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedc.pdf
I don't know what Rossi did, but, my guess, he wasn't continuously building 12 kW reactors. If so, he probably slowed himself down and simply got lucky.
I do not get that impression, but I know little about what he did. I think his reactors were physically small which means they are not too difficult to test. The first Ni-H reactors were from Mills. They were gigantic, and I imagine there were a pain in the butt to test. They were built out of large trash cans. (I mean it.) The calorimetry was kind or rudimentary. They produced about 40 W as I recall, but that wasn't easy to detect from such large cells.
- Jed
