Dear Abd, perhaps we will discuss this in a separate thread, here the main subject is the success of one of my best friends Francesco Celani and he has surely the vision of how to go further and his strategy of doing the next steps and so on. Very probably such confirmations of increasing reliability will come from many places.
I am writing now an essay entitled "Is Cold Fusion natural?" and this will be an opportunity to establish if it is a better way to invest creativity in more sensitive and precise measurements or trying, even empirically to enhance and and stabilize the heat effect. Peter On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > At 02:54 AM 12/6/2012, you wrote: > >> Push noise down or raise the signal a high up- this is the basic option. >> The first choice is passive, the second active. >> Which one will one lead to useful Cold Fusion? >> > > Cart before the horse, Peter. The first issues are scientific, and > exploring the parameter space is *more difficult* if, at the same time, > high "signal" is required. "Pushing noise down" by careful experimental > design can save a lot of money and time. > > This is the reality, Peter: we know that the FPHE (Fleischmann-Pons Heat > Effect) is real. We don't need massive results for that, the best work and > most conclusive work has been with modest heat, but then correlated with > helium production. We can definitely use more accuracy in this, but the > limits have been on helium capture/collection/**measurement, not on heat > measurement, the accuracy with heat is generally already adequate. > > Sure, some people are going to work on increasing heat production, but > increasing *absolute heat production*, we know, can easily be done with a > reaction with known characteristics, simply by scaling up. However, there > is a serious problem here. > > If the exact conditions for heat production are not known, if they depend > on very difficult-to-control conditions, such as the exact size and number > of cracks in palladium deuteride, as appears to be the case with the FPHE, > then your scaled-up experiment might unexpectedly produce a lot more heat > than you expected. It's dangerous. Pons and Fleischmann scaled *down* for > exactly this reason. > > And running experiments by remote control behind blast barriers raises > costs even further. > > No, first things first. We need much more exploration of the parameter > space. Once we know what conditions are effective for setting up the > reactions, we can then start to scale up, but that's really the last step. > > > The main trend today is silent implicit desperation. >> > > No. It's realism: until we know the *mechanism* for the FPHE, we need > basic research, and that can be -- and should be -- small-scale. If it's > small scale, it makes it possible to run many more variations on an > experiment, simultaneously, making the discovery of optimal operating > conditions come sooner, most likely. Rossi allegedly ran a thousand > experiments before he found his "secret sauce." While I have no idea if he > really found a secret sauce, that part of his story is plausible, at least. > > As far as I can tell, we don't know and have very little clue as to what > the ash might be from NiH reactions. > > What we need for heat is enough heat to be satisfied that the reaction is > real and the heat is not artifact. Sure, eventually, we will want much more > than that. We want enough heat that the reaction leaves behind enough ash > to be detected. If the ash is deuterium, this isn't going to be easy, but > running experiments longer is about as useful as running them hotter. > > First things first. > > In a similar way, "reliability" is certainly desirable. However, if we > don't have "reliability," if, say, half our experiments shown nothing while > the other half, seemingly the same, show significant heat, we are not > stopped and we need not -- and should not -- demand reliability before > proceeding. Heat/helium was conclusively demonstrated with not-reliable > experiments, that is the power of correlation. The "dead cells" serve as > controls, such that the hidden variable is all that is varying, plus, of > course, the output. > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
