On 2012-08-22 00:06, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I do not know what a "mostly" self-sustaining mode would be. A fully
self-sustaining run lasting more than 10 minutes with no temperature
decline would be irrefutable proof that the effect is real, and
anomalous. There is less than a gram of wire in the cell plus hydrogen
gas. There is no doubt the heat originates at the wire. There are no
chemical changes to any of the materials in the cell. So once you
eliminate all doubts about the calorimetry, by making it self-sustain,
any measurable amount of heat is anomalous.
By "mostly" I mean that over a relatively long time (for example one
week as proposed) the reaction might for a reason or another (it's yet
unexplained after all) still need some energy input from time to time to
sustain itself at high temperatures. That would be perfectly acceptable
if it's only a fraction of the measured output energy, especially if the
difference is well beyond possible error margins.
He plans to let it run for a week or more. That is thousands of times
longer than you need to make the case. Why not go for thousands? -- good
idea.
A very good idea. Better avoid giving room for skepticism when possible
and especially when it's very easy to do so. By the way, I think
reasonably negative skeptics will accept potentially inaccurate
calorimetry as long as the output/input signal is very clear and can't
be reasonably explained by measurement errors anymore.
If Celani can make it self sustain, this will be as conclusive and
irrefutable as the Fleischmann and Pons boil off experiments of 1992,
which produced massive heat after death. It was easily measured and far
beyond the limits of chemistry. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
I didn't know of this. After quickly skimming over it, surely excess
heat seems to be quite clear. I imagine there could have been criticisms
to the water phase change (as with Rossi) or that since F&P performed
the experiment, this report couldn't possibly be considered independent.
[...]
If Celani takes the right steps he can easily convince a hundred
thousand sane, professional scientists and engineers. The right steps
include:
1. Allow independent observers to confirm the result.
Yes, this is a fundamental step. However I think some will want full
details for replication, including active wire preparation (the core
component of Celani's cell). As far as I understand such information is
not publicly available yet, there might even be patents under
preparation about it (my speculation) preventing that.
2. Present the results in a properly written paper with lots of details
and data.
And also check for English errors / italicisms which might not be clear
to the international readership.
3. Allow me and others to upload the paper, the full dataset from the
instruments, photos, papers from the independent observers, and other
proof of the claim.
I don't think he would refuse.
As I said in presentation at ICCF17, addressing the researchers, "[if
you will only do this] you will be believed, you will be funded, and we
will triumph."
Critical problem: which researchers?
A recurrent criticism by scientists / researchers from other fields is
that LENR papers are most often made for LENR researchers who usually
have a high tolerance for many things that would make those outside this
field feel uncomfortable.
Whether Celani or any of the others will follow my advice or not I
cannot predict. So far, every cold fusion researcher who has had the
opportunity to convince the public has failed to do so.
I think it's in Celani's best interest to follow them. So far he's been
quite transparent with his methods and he doesn't seem to fear scrutiny
or to publicly demonstrate his latest cell in non-optimal environments
in front of scientists and the general audience.
So why not take this one step further with validation by third party
observers and production of good data and reports?
The only thing is doing this properly will probably require much time,
much more than what it would take to set up the high temperature cell
and make it self-sustain for a week. I personally hope as a vortex-l
reader and LENR enthusiast to see preliminary data relatively quickly,
though.
People such as Patterson and Rossi failed deliberately. [...]
They are/were entrepreneurs first, with different priorities than real
scientists. Gotta deal with it, unfortunately.
Cheers,
S.A.
