Steven Krivit wrote:
Based on what I read in your book, you generally accept that LENR works with nickel but you have "lingering doubts" because of the low sampling rate.
Correct. As far as I know there have been only a few replications. Also, I do not know of any high heat, or high output to input ratios. I have never heard of heat after death with Ni or Ti either. Such events are dramatic, first principle proof of heat.
Based on what I read of you in the Piantelli-Focardi thread on Vortex, you seem to broadly and vociferously reject the Piantelli-Focardi work.
I would not say "vociferously." I am not satisfied with the calorimetry, based on my experience with gas calorimetry.
Has your perspective about nickel LENR changed since writing your book?
Nope. I have not heard about any significant progress, unfortunately. Maybe I overlooked something.
If not, how do you explain the development of your strong skepticism for the Piantelli-Focardi work?
I did already: just try making sense of gas calorimeter calibrations and you will see.
Naturally the work has improved with the additional thermocouples and I hope it is okay now. We won't know unless it is independently replicated. But the fact that they did it in a half-assed way for so long does not inspire confidence. That's what Cerron-Zeballos showed, and that's what Mizuno or I could have told them, but reportedly it wouldn't do much good. I have heard from various people in Italy and elsewhere that Focardi et al. are not good at listening to advice and they do not answer questions or reveal much about their experiment. Such behavior is common in this field, unfortunately.
To summarize the problem with the first round of tests, one thermocouple in the middle of a liquid filled cell is adequate but not good. (Barely adequate; an array is better.) One thermocouple in the middle of a gas cell is a joke. You change the gas content or pressure and the gas conductivity changes. Or you just look at the thing cross-eyed and it goes haywire for some other inexplicable reason. As for the second round . . . Why not do it the right way with an envelope?
I have not examined the other claims because frankly, I only care about heat. If they have not nailed down heat who cares what else they have? I don't give a fig about tritium or neutrons or shrinking Mills hydrinos for that matter, and especially I don't care about theory.
It is also common, and unfortunate, that people charge off inventing new and unlikely methods of calorimeter instead of reading Himminger and Hohne or consulting with an expert. Or even reading Storms' papers on calorimetry at LENR-CANR.org. Bockris is no slouch at calorimetry, and needless to say he is a world-class expert on electrochemistry, but when he began these experiments, he took the trouble to hunt up the best calorimetry expert in Texas. The guy came to the lab, looked at the equipment and asked some questions, the way Rob Duncan did at Energetics Technology. Then he asked: "How much heat are we talking about? What is the power level input and output?" Bockris told him and the guy laughed and said, "you don't need me. Any calorimeter can measure that." He was right, but he meant any calorimeter constructed by a professional chemist using proper instruments. Not the many peculiar instruments that have enlivened the history of cold fusion much like the multi-wing airplane designs in the photos here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf
What was the basis on which you had derived/developed your "feelings" about the Piantelli-Focardi work?
Please note the use of "feelings" in my writing is academic jargon. It means I am trying not to be too insistent. It doesn't mean I have only vague or initiative "feelings" in the normal sense of the word.
- Jed
