Even if I am wrong and Focardi's results are not
as "iffy" as I suspect, we still need to see a
solid independent replication, because these
results are very different from other claims.
Compare them to the original Mills claims that
were published about the time Focardi et al. got to work:
Mills -- electrolysis; gigantic Ni surface area;
very low power density; a claim that potassium in
the electrolyte is essential to the reaction
Focardi -- gas loading; very small Ni surface
area; some of the highest power density ever reported; no potassium
The surface area is puzzling to me. The rod used
by Focardi would seem to absorb very little gas.
If gas loading with Ni works, I suppose it would
call for something similar to Arata's
nanoparticle Pd designed for gas loading.
Something like Raney nickel (porous catalyst).
When a claim is similar to previous claims, with
only an incremental different, it is supported by
previous claims. Suppose someone reports more
heat because the cell temperature is 80°C instead
of 20°C. That seems plausible. But someone who
makes many radical changes, and goes from liquid
to gas, high surface area to low surface area,
and so on, is effectively making a radically new
claim. Such claims must be independently
replicated before we can believe them. We can
take them seriously. We should take them
seriously, because otherwise no one will bother to try and replicate.
- Jed
- [Vo]:Focardi claims very different from Mills and others Jed Rothwell
-
