At 11:27 AM 8/17/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
On 2012-08-17 18:03, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Beware that the extra heat/g. And that's the up limit. Generally, it's
around 40W/g and 50/g. You'd have to use some complicated scheme to get
an electrical feedback and self sustain.
True, actual average values for Celani are smaller at the moment. My
point still holds however. Cheaply scaling up excess heat and gain
would not be hard.
Gain, maybe hard. Depends on details I have not studied. Simple
scaling is easy. Just make the experiment bigger; since it may be
sensitive to wire size (almost certainly is), then just more wires.
However, the very easy makes this scientifically almost useless,
unless the heat is marginal as to what can be measured. Then scaling
up to get enough heat would make sense.
Rather, the cheaper approach would be to nail down the calorimetry.
Do more control experiments, as well.
And measure the ash. With PdD, it's helium, almost certainly, so
certainly that at this point it's pretty much a waste of time to look
for any other major ash. However, to be sure, more careful and more
precise studies of helium and other transmutations would be generally useful.
With NiH, the ash is unknown, and this is a crucial missing piece of
knowledge. Scientifically, that should be the major problem to be
addressed. It isn't necessary to have perfect calorimetry to
determine the ash, it's done through correlation.
Calorimetry, alone, is almost inherently subject to skepticism,
particularly when experiments are unconfirmed, and the famous
ureliability of cold fusion made clear confirmation difficult to
assess, when it was heat alone being confirmed.
When it was heat/helium, however, the situation radically changed.
It's not supportable to deny cold fusion, once heat/helium is known.
Krivit challenges the work, but none of the criticisms I've seen from
him cut deeply enough to change the default conclusion, as reported
by Storms (2010). An unknown process is converting deuterium to
helium. In a word, fusion. Not necessarily "d-d fusion." It's been
obvious from the beginning that cold fusion isn't hot fusion, the
mechanism is different.
W-L theory, as far as I've been able to find, doesn't negate this
result. Larsen has attempted to impeach some of the work, though
confirming the substance of it, but doesn't actually supply an
independent *quantitative* explanation with experimental evidence to
back it. And W-L theory has hosts of unobserved implications, Larsen
only talks about observations that seem to confirm his theory.
