DJ Cravens <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jed----A self running machine has to incorporate some design elements that > make it > > obvious the thing is not fake. > OK, you are in the proof mode again...... > OK what are your *specific *requirements? > I started a new thread to untangle the confusion: "You need an electric generator with electrolysis but not gas loading." As a general rule, the simpler you can make it, the better. Assuming we are talking about gas loading where no electrolysis or electric power is needed, then: Below a certain power level and power density, you need some sort of conventional laboratory-scale calorimetry. I guess it is around 10 to 50 W, depending on the operating temperature. Above that you can use the Rossi approach with HVAC style instruments and sense of touch. I think I speak for a broader audience when I say "the simpler the better." I have discussed this with a broad range of people. Do not add an electric generator unless you *must have one* to keep the reaction going. Do not add anything you do not need (such as a Model A Ford!). It will confuse the issue and distract from the point you are trying to prove. That which you *do not need* you *should not have*. You add more ways for the experiment to go wrong, and you make people wonder what you are up to. People are not stupid. They can see that a large chunk of your experiment serves no purpose. When I say "fake" what I really mean is both fake and/or badly designed. The two amount to the same thing. A fake is where the researcher tries to fool other people; a poor design is where the researcher fools himself. Arata's experiments are badly designed. I am sorry to say, I have pretty much concluded that Celani's recent experiments was badly designed -- as McKubre said in Korea. Rossi's experiments are actually pretty good in design, but atrocious in implementation!!! I, or anyone else, could fix his problems in a half-hour, and make his experiments completely believable. I, and many others, have suggested to him various ways to do this, which he has steadfastly ignored. That is what makes me think he is deliberately obfuscating. He isn't stupid! Experiments by F&P, Miles, McKubre or Storms are the epitome of elegance, and transparent understand-ability. Every component is there for a purpose. The purpose is obvious. There is nothing you do not need that distracts from the goal of the experiment, or confuses the viewer. These experiments all use conventional calorimetry as opposed to a self-sustaining machine or HVAC large-scale calorimetry. They had no choice about that. They could not do it on a larger scale. If you can scale it up a little from the 1990s F&P style experiments, you can simplify the calorimetry and make things easier to understand and therefore more believable, which enhances the presentation. As I said, the goal should be prove to the audience: "The implementation of cold fusion I am showing you here is well-controlled and it produces a reasonably high power density and temperature." > What elements do you hope to see? > As I said, the specifics depend on whether it is electrolysis or gas loading, and what the power density, temperature and other operating characteristics are. A Rossi cell a couple of liters in size running at 1 kW would be ideal for any purpose. Better by far than his 1 MW reactor. If I had that, I could bring a billion dollars into this field in a few months. Rossi could too, if he could only put aside his ego and act in his own best interests. Without knowing the specific operating capabilities of a particular device it is difficult to spell out what would make the best demonstration. I can generalize, as I have done here. I could be a lot more specific if I knew the technical details: size, shape, temperature, power. Not only that, but I could ask the people who matter what they want to see, and I could present the experiment to them in a way they will appreciate. I am pretty good at explaining things. Better than most researchers, I daresay. - Jed
