It may also be that if Celani has found a method which is 100% reproducible, then it is because his method creates a more stable reaction. Otherwise it probably wouldn't be 100% reproducible if it was as erratic as other experiments.
Craig On 12/13/2012 10:14 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > On 2012-12-13 16:02, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be >> cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen >> fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes >> stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact. > > Nevertheless, this appears to be the same effect as reported by Celani > and Ubaldo Mastromatteo from STMicro: the higher the input power > applied, the more the glass tube appears to heat compared to > calibration runs with an inert wire and the active wire under inert > conditions. This temperature difference appears to be significant. . > So, in a way, their replication was successful. > > It's been suggested in their blog that they should use a steel tube > (preferably painted in special black paint) instead of borosilicate > glass, in order to make sure that there isn't some artifact happening > with the active wire emissivity changing under loaded conditions and > affecting temperature readings at the external glass thermocouple. > > If that quick and cheap test will be successful too, then the final > answer will come from proper flow calorimetry. > > Cheers, > S.A. >
