There are actually some technical difficulties with a "blank run" in the
Rossi E-cat.
Wet cold fusion researchers sometimes have used H2O in a "blank" run,
and compared evolved heat using D2O with the blank output. If the D2O
produces a heat measurement value higher than the H2O then they can
conclude, with good certainty, that something interesting happened.
That sort of yes/no blank comparison run is harder to arrange for the E-Cat.
The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the
hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel. This means that a blank run
using, say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to produce
*less* *measured* *heat* than the H2 run, even if there's no new
chemistry or physics taking place in the "loaded" E-Cat. And that
leaves you right back where you started, trying to do precise
calorimetry on the "loaded" run to determine exactly how much "excess
heat" was produced, and comparing it with a theoretical value for heat
of adsorption.
Alternatives which could give a more useful blank might include using D2
for the blank rather than N2, or using "live" H2 and Ni but leaving out
the secret catalyst. But just how "blank" these "blanks" might be
depends on details of the E-Cat's operation which are currently unknown
to the general public, so it's not entirely clear how well they'd work.
On 11-11-16 02:01 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
I need to add that a calibration run with an electrical heater
supplying all the heat also provides very valuable information about
the heat capacity and time constant of the system. And finally, if
hydrogen (but nothing else) is omitted for the blank run, any chemical
reaction or other subterfuge which is activated by heating would be
revealed.
Of course other ways of cheating are not totally excluded but proper
blank and calibration runs would go a long ways to inconveniencing a
potential scammer to the extreme if astute observers were standing by.
