On your following list, it appears that item #3 may not have been satisfied.
Unless the steam was collected, condensed, and weighed, one significant "matter stream" was not properly accounted for. The device itself should also be weighed, before and after, in order to further assure that all streams are being accounted for (but that, by itself, still won't guarantee all the "missing" water came out as steam). On 01/17/2011 02:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Check List for LENR Validation Experiments > > David J. Nagel > The George Washington University > 17 January 2011 > > Focardi and Rossi demonstrated a boiler device on 14 January 2011, > which converted water at about 13 C to steam at 101 C. It was said to > involve nuclear reactions between nickel built into the device and > input hydrogen gas. An electrical heater in the device consumed about > 1000W at startup. Later, once the reactions started and provided > heat, the input power was reduced to about 400 W. Consumption of > hydrogen gas was essentially negligible. Given (a) the input water > flow of about 150 grams each half minute and (b) the measurements of > the input and output temperatures, plus (c) a measurement that the > steam was dry, the device delivered about 10 kW of thermal energy to > the water. That would indicate power and energy gains of more than 10. > > Although the Focardi-Rossi test has not been thoroughly documented > yet, it is already clear how such performance validation tests should > be done. The following is a list of needed actions for validation tests: > > 1. The tests should be designed, conducted and analyzed so rigorously > that they will withstand all anticipated questions and criticisms. > 2. Persons experienced in the types of measurements and > instrumentation employed should participate in all three phases of the > tests. > 3. Redundant, well-calibrated sensors and systems will be employed to > measure all streams of energy and matter entering into and coming > from the device being tested. > 4. Signal-to-noise ratios of ten or more are required for all > measurements to exclude the possibility of cumulative errors leading > to a wrong conclusions. > 5. The test should be repeated at least three times, with each > conducted for a continuous period of sufficient duration to strongly > exclude the possibility of the measured exit energy being from > chemicals stored within the device and then releasing energy. > 6. A thorough statistical data analysis should be conducted in order > to take the error bars associated with each measurement and compute an > overall uncertainty in the energy gain. > 7. The tests should be fully documented in a report containing all > the key aspects of tests, including full calibration data and all raw > data, and the report should be publicly available soon after the tests. > 8. A red team of persons experienced in related laboratory > measurements should be used to critique the design and execution of > the tests, and the analysis of the measured results. > > Once Focardi and Rossi report the details of what they did and found > during the demonstration, their report should be compared with this > list of desirable actions above to identify any shortfalls. It is > likely, but uncertain, that item #5 was not satisfied. Whatever the > result of the comparison, additional complete tests should be planned, > executed and reported. This assertion is not to imply that the tests > on 14 January 2011 were entirely unsatisfactory, or conclusions based > on them were wrong. >
