Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > http://lenr-canr.org/?page_id=187#PhotosAccidents > > If you're making knallgas with platinum group metals, > then this is how it would look like, yes. > The cells shown in these photos were open. There was no concentrated gas in them. No gaseous fuel at 1 atm in this volume can produce this much energy. > The comments there are hilarious. 120 ml of knallgas in a dewar or > glass container, "which does not seem like enough to cause > a chemical explosion of this magnitude", oh really. > Knallgas is a stoichiometric mixture of H2 and O2. It is what I describe on p. 12. It cannot explain the reactions, or the explosions shown in the photos. > What I meant is that a hydrogenated platinum group metal under > inert gas blanket producing anomalous heat for weeks. > If I did see that in person I would be indeed convinced. > The limits of hydrogenated platinum group energy storage is also described on p. 12. Are you suggesting that you have to see these things in person before you believe them? I should think that papers published by hundreds of mainstream laboratories such as BARC and Los Alamos would be convincing enough. I presume you believe data from the Mars unmanned robot explorers even though you are not on Mars to see them yourself. > The only advantage to high power density from experimental point of view > is > > that you can be sure it is real. There is no possibility of calorimetric > > Exactly. Which is why I keep saying "giant effect". > Anything over a watt or two is gigantic to the calorimeters made by Fleischmann, McKubre, Miles or Bockris. The signal to noise ratio is high. > If I have a hydrogen loaded electrode (there's more hydrogen > in hydrogenated palladium than in liquid hydrogen) and I have > potential chimps as experimentators (no offense, but that's > the kind of investigators CF tends to draw these days) I > would rather be sure to rule out it's something spurious. > You seem to be missing the point. This is easily ruled out. All you have to do is confirm that total energy far exceeds the limits of hydride storage. Just let the reaction go for a few hours. > > Cude and others have claimed that the calorimetry is questionable. This > is > > nonsense. > > I'm not sure it's nonsense. I would insist that the experimental > setup and experiment would be reviewed by a calorimetry expert. > Many of the people doing cold fusion ARE experts in calorimetry, as you see from their papers. Also, Bockris and others consulted with experts. Bockris described to me what happened when the top guy in Texas came to his lab: "He came, looked at the apparatus and the data, and then he laughed and said: ‘You don't need me; anyone can measure that much heat!’" > Indeed, and since people here claim thousands of experiments > which were presumably also witnessed by visiting researchers > I don't understand how these visiting researchers could come > away from it unconvinced. > I have never met or heard of a visiting researcher who was not convinced. On "60 Minutes" Richard Garwin says he was not convinced by SRI, but the report he wrote makes me think he was convinced, and he is faking it. > This is not the say I consider most CF investigators charlatans > like Rossi, far from it. But I do think there's a problem with > the quality of evidence. > If you think that, I think you have not examine the evidence carefully. Of course there is a problem with some of the evidence, especially the false negative at CalTech, as I pointed out previously. I would not be so sure Rossi is a charlatan if I were you. > It is surprising how many professional scientists do not understand the > > fact that a chemical reaction cannot produce megajoules per gram of fuel. > > I can quite assure you I get that part fine. I'm just not seeing any > evidence for it so far. > Have you read the papers by McKubre, Miles, Fleischmann, Storms, Bockris or Kunimatsu? Are you not seeing, or have you not looked? - Jed
