Merci beaucoup, Michel... My interest is in technology and this resurrection or rejuvenation of the Piantelli system is the first really interesting event after many years. It is a great mystery what has happened between 1994 and 2008, it is crucial to know when (and how) was total reproducibility achieved. Piantelli who is the Father of this system advices for a careful, stepwise scale up- due to serious risks as sudden uncontrolable heat release and radiation. The system is in a pre-commercial phase and has a very promising future. Patents are interesting bu their reliabilty is low (to quote myself "*the study of patents give you the mythology NOT the history of a process" *For products it is better. The value of a patent without a critical know-how feature is low. I would not bother much with good English papers either, I think the setup is already described in the very first Piantelli- Focardi- Habel paper. In the Focardi Rossi paperthe results- if true are esential. Without the secret ingredient, recipe, surface treatment or magic spell it will be quite difficult to perform any independent validation. With or without Scott's Wundercalorimeter. Metrologomania- obsession with very sensitive measurement has disfocussed the research in the field. A means became an aim.
There is only one proof- a commercial heater and a firts factory of such heaters leading to a new branch of industry. We have waited 21 years for this, and as our Italian friends would say: Basta! I hope you will agree too cousin Jed, and this will be our line of thinking and action. On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Michel Jullian <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Peter, nice to see you here! > > 2010/3/21 Peter Gluck <[email protected]>: > > A quantitative evaluation- see please the claims in the Focardi Rossi > paper- > > is foolproof > > I think. Heat from radioactive stuff at ths magnitudes is very dangerous, > I > > think. > > Not really, there are "off the shelf" radioisotope heat sources of > this kind of power magnitude which are quite safe even though they are > quite compact (~6 Kg per kW) see: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Purpose_Heat_Source > > <<The General Purpose Heat Source is a stackable, compact unit > (module) designed to deliver over 600 degrees Celsius to a > Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) or an Advanced Stirling > Radioisotope Generator (SRG), generating 250 watts per module at the > beginning of a mission when used with an RTG or ASRG. These units are > designed to supply heat consistently and safely over a wide range of > extreme conditions. They measure 9.948 cm wide x 9.32 cm deep x 5.82 > cm high and weigh no more than 1.44 kg each. > GPHS of this, or very similar, design were used in the GPHS-RTGs of > the following missions : Cassini-Huygens, New Horizons, Galileo probe, > Ulysses probe. > Safety: > GPHSs are designed with safety in mind and employ plutonium-238 > pellets encased in iridium to generate alpha particles which are > completely absorbed in the heat source to produce heat; thus, no > special radiation shielding is necessary to absorb these particles. > The resulting iridium-clad plutonium pellets are encased within nested > layers of carbon-based material and placed within an aeroshell housing > to comprise the complete GPHS-module.>> > > But it occurs to me that there would be an easy way to discriminate > between such a constant heat source and a controllable one, which > presumably a genuine LENR cell would be: turn the heat off. If this > can be done, and full access is granted to the cell's environment to > check for an external hidden power source (AC current in the cell's > heater resistor monitored by a DC ammeter, hidden heater in the water > cooling circuit, microwaves, IR beam, witricity, whatever), then yes > such an evaluation can be foolproof. If the experts are good at > detecting trickery that is, i.e. they can never be fooled by a > magician. > > A much more foolproof evaluation, for this or any other device > claiming excess heat, would be to take it to Earthtech's lab. They > will test it for free(*), and a positive evaluation from them would be > worth billions for the device's inventor, and zillions for the entire > field. > > Why people like Ed Storms or Mike McKubre don't take up Earthtech's > offer, which I am told is still open, is beyond me. Any idea why > Peter? > > Michel > > (*) http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2005/NET12.shtml#earthtech > > <<Earthtech hereby offers to test promising cells in MOAC free. We > believe that the opportunity of observing a genuine excess heat effect > in an accurate calorimeter is well worth the time, energy, and money > we will expend in the process.>> > > > Next week we will celebrate the 21st anniversary of our field- and only > the > > Patterson > > system in its day of glory was comparable to these claims- if I remember > > correctly. > > Is some other breakthrough of this type hidden somewhere? > > > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Michel Jullian <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> 2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>: > >> > Someone asked me what I mean by "independent evaluations of the > claims." > >> > I > >> > mean that outside experts plan to go into the lab and observe the > >> > experiments, the way Rob Duncan looked at Energetics Technologies. > >> > >> Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup > >> is made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it > >> (heating resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be > >> sure there isn't a mundane source of heat such as a some radioisotope > >> hidden in the cell itself, unless Rossi lets them take it apart which > >> is unlikely. > >> > >> Michel > >> > > > > > >
