Jones Beene wrote: >But because of the lack of universal standards and other vagaries >in calorimetry . . .
As Storms noted, calorimetry is the basis of a large part of modern science & technology. It is, in fact, the universal standard in a wide range of such chemistry, nuclear reactions and in many industries. It is not at all vague; it has been a science since the 1840s. Some skeptics have raised objections to the high quality calorimetry in cold fusion, but their objections have no merit. For the low quality work, I could point to lot more real problems than they do. They know so little about CF, they do not even know what is wrong with it. >even when combined with evidence of nuclear transmutation. Only a >self-powered device will do that convincingly - at least for that >highly entrenched level of skepticism - the Randi's of the world. I do not think anyone knows how to produce a CF reliably enough for a self-powered device. No conversion method would work, because cells produce only a fraction of a watt. Larger cells have been made but they are very dangerous because the reaction cannot be controlled. Higher temperatures are also effective but dangerous. To make a reaction self-sustain, you would have to control the reaction enough to produce several watts consistently. Probably 10 or 20 W I suppose. Anyone who could do that could easily find ways to convince thousands of people without a self-sustaining gadget. The self-sustaining part would be a superfluous waste of time. As noted, you could not convice Randi, Park, or the DoE with this, but they do not matter. They would not bother to look even if you had a self-sustaining gadget. You could, however, convince people with millions of dollars to invest, and that is all you need. - Jed
