If Celani wanted to demonstrate an easily detectable LENR reaction, he would only need to multiply the number of wires he uses in his device by 10 or 100. A 150 or 1500 watt excess output would be hard to misinterpret. Cheers: Axil
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Akira Shirakawa <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> It's true that the calorimetry shown is currently not conclusive, but >> will this matter anymore once he manages to run it in self-sustaining or >> mostly self-sustained mode? >> > > 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. > > 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. > > 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 > > These 1992 experiments did not convince any prominent skeptics, because > those people are pathological skeptics who have abandoned the scientific > method. Or because they are scientific illiterates such as Taubes, the > Wikipedia editors, or your typical mass media "science writer." They do not > understand middle-school level science. They have no idea what "the limits > of chemistry" or "4 eV per atom" means. > > A self-sustaining gas loaded experiment by Celani will not convince these > people. They will: > > 1. Ignore the results OR, > > 2. Misunderstand the results. > > 2. Come up with absurd reasons to dismiss the results. > > 3. Accuse Celani of lying. > > You must ignore such people to preserve your sanity. Dealing with them is > a no-win proposition. Never try to address their concerns. They will only > invent one crazy objections after another. Like the people who claimed that > thousands of thirsty rats invaded Mizuno's laboratory every night to drink > the hot water in the bucket during his heat-after-death event. Or this > nutcase Rep. Akin -- a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and > Technology committee no less! -- who imagines that women's bodies have a > magical ability to avoid pregnancy after rape. > > 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. > > 2. Present the results in a properly written paper with lots of details > and data. > > 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. > > 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." > > > 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. > > People such as Patterson and Rossi failed deliberately. They went out of > their way to avoid convincing the public, because that is their market > strategy. Patterson told me so. Rossi has not told me that, but it is the > only explanation I can imagine for his "no tests!" policy. I mean the fact > that he refused to let me and many others spend a few minutes confirming > his claims with proper instruments. We offered; he said no. Emphatically > no. There has to be a reason. Since he *did* allow other highly qualified > to people to verify the effect independently, but only under NDAs, I assume > he doe not want people to know for sure his claims are true. That is not an > unusual business strategy. > > - Jed > >
