The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments). Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people > think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement > coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a > single thing I wish they had checked but did not. > > In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any > chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for > output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even > though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in > every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase > output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they > know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees > away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but > rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if > all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first > set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, > casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into > account. > > Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and > others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature > of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments > for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically > heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off > in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and > the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below > the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be > sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do > to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a > video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no > hanky-panky. They wrote: > > "The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure > the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a > nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements > themselves." > > They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry > by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first test, > they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting point, rather > than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the reactant. In the > second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g but they round > that up to 1 g. > > They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay > curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does > not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat > producing reaction in addition to the electric heater. > > I like it! > > - Jed > >
