This paper needs to have another paper written pointing out how it poorly describes the original data. One look at the temperature output versus time curve reveals the serious errors they made. Note that the simulated power input turn around points are far away from the point where the temperature output of the cylinder peaks or dips. This offset in simulated power input as compared to temperature output stands out to anyone who understands the system. I would be ashamed to point out the similarity if I were the author since the comparison is amateurish. It would be better for all concerned if these guys had the proper knowledge to accurately reproduce Rossi's device with their simulation.
And they even admit that they had to use more input power than Rossi to reach their relatively poor shot at temperature matching. Whether they realize it or not, they actually enhanced Rossi's standing by this poor attempt. Of course, as usual, the authors do not have a clue as to how heat can be used to control a heat generating device exhibiting positive feedback. Skeptics appear to have a mental block about this issue which was so very obvious in the case of Cude and his lack of knowledge. I can not count the number of times I attempted to explain this to him without his understanding the principle. I suppose a closed mind is difficult to crack open. This paper should be directed straight to the trash where it belongs. Jed is correct, this is not a scientific paper by any stretch of the imagination. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Jun 28, 2013 9:51 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:arXiv:1306.6364 Comments on the report "Indications of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder" This paper says: We note first of all that the circumstances and people involved in the test make if far from being an independent one. This is in a physics paper!?! What an outrageous thing to say. Where are they trying to publish, in the National Enquirer? That's incredible. Outlandish. And completely false. You lose all credibility when you publish this kind of garbage in the guise of a physics paper. What is the claim here, that scientists are not supposed to know one another? Or maybe it is that people with relevant experience and some expertise in a field should not publish papers. That's the Wikipedia standard: anyone who knows what he or she is talking about is booted out. The paper itself is also garbage. Look at this: "Estimating the heat output by a combination of IR camera measurements and convection calculations represents a new situation compared to previous tests,seemingly imposed by the circumstances(i.e. Rossi) rather than by choice." It was "imposed" by the operating temperature and power of the cell, which have been improved. Hotter temperatures and higher power density are a good thing. This is a technical advantage. The authors are saying we should only test second-rate and third-rate devices which are impractical, commercially useless, because the authors -- for no apparent reason -- do not trust IR cameras. - Jed
