Michel Jullian wrote:

If they have equal shares in this work, why isn't Focardi on the patent?

I did not say they have equal shares. I have no idea how much each
contributed. I said I am sure Focardi knows about this paper.

Anyway, that patent seems worthless, for the reasons already discussed here.

I mentioned "elementary cross checking." Calibration, in other words. The
paper has no details about the experiment so I do not know if they did this,
but I have never heard of an experiment without calibration. Focardi is not
a fool or an amateur, although this paper seems amateur.

The other thing I should mention is that a good power meter is immune to the
high frequency AC problem. Expensive meters will catch all input power, no
matter how high or irregular the frequency. They typically use three methods
of measuring power including our old friend calorimetry. The power flowing
through the system heats up a small element and the temperature is converted
to a power level. This is an an analog method. It is slow and imprecise, but
accurate and immune to sampling errors. It will not detect very low power.

Unfortunately I have no idea what sort of meter Focardi and Rossi use. They
could have eliminated many doubts about this experiment by supplying a few
details, a schematic, and a photo. If they would tell us what sort of power
supply they are using, or include a photo of it, we could see whether it can
supply 3,000 W. If you need only 80 W input, why would you use such a big
power supply? On the other hand, they should calibrate through the entire
range of output power before declaring this is 3,000 W and not 2,800 W or
3,500 W.

The Patterson light water cell demonstration that I saw years ago in
California had many problems. Really, it was one of the worst experimental
setups I have ever seen. I was deeply disappointed and mad as a hornet --
especially after they told me I could not describe it in detail or do some
cross-checking with my own instruments. I told them I would take the next
plane home if those are the rules. They rescinded. Anyway, it was made of
ridiculously low-budget, unreliable parts, and it failed drastically in the
middle of the demo, as I described in the report. But the fact that it was
so cheap, and rudimentary, also conferred a few advantages. For example, the
power supply was a Radio Shack battery eliminator. That was the only source
of input power to the system. I had a Radio Shack power supply just like
that, and I know for a fact it could not have produced more than a few
watts, whereas the cell was definitely producing ~1,000 W. The other
advantage was the very simplicity of the thing meant I could confirm it with
equally simplistic, crude, 18th century instruments: a mercury thermometer,
a stop-watch, and a graduated 1-liter cylinder. I measured the temperature
of the water in the tank and stirred it to confirm the inlet temperature.
Then I collected the flowing electrolyte for a fixed period of time in the
cylinder. I stirred it up with the thermometer, and thereby confirmed the
flow rate and the outlet temperature. I also used a Radio Shack thermistor
good to 0.1 deg C. Half-way through the test the setup began to fail. As I
recall, their flow rate measurement was off. The flow was plugged up and the
temperature climbing rapidly. But anyway, with my crude cross-checking this
was obvious. I am sure the test before and after that was valid. Plus I am
sure the cell was producing *far* more heat than that Radio Shack power
supply could supply, because it was palpably hot, and the power supply would
have melted or burst into flames if it was producing that much electricity.
So, to this day, I do not know of any reason to doubt Patterson's results .
. . except for the obvious reason that it cannot be replicated.

- Jed

Reply via email to