Reading that paper, after following bad science and pseudo-science, remind me many of those desperate papers by activists. (by the way some LENR papers smell the same crackpot taste, so we should be careful)
Here is a moderate article by ecatnews http://ecatnews.com/?p=2601 it raises some points against that paper, while I would rather point the very few point to to trash immediately. 2013/6/28 David Roberson <[email protected]> > 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 > >
