>Mills should have spent 5 or 10 minutes introducing the experiment and listing all of the materials and the potential chemical energy from various ways of reacting them. That is what McKubre did in his first book about cold >fusion, as I described here on p. 12:
He does have validators saying that the searched and did not find the alternate explanation of the heat. And say so himself. I agree that for scientific purposes it is not well done validation not writing down the pathes they searched. But I'm sure anyone who like to verify the claims can talk with them and get the list. Indeed we should ask for Mills to supply this information. On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration. >> >> Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP. In >> this case, it appears to be >100. >> >> I am not sure where the controversy is. COP appears to be clearly >> overunity. >> > > Most explosions are over-unity, including most chemical explosions. So is > an ordinary fire. The question is: How much potential chemical energy is > there in the starting materials? To answer that clearly, Mills should have > spent 5 or 10 minutes introducing the experiment and listing all of the > materials and the potential chemical energy from various ways of reacting > them. That is what McKubre did in his first book about cold fusion, as I > described here on p. 12: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofmc.pdf > > - Jed > >
