Arnaud Kodeck <[email protected]> wrote: As said before by Jed, this is a full list of theoretical speculations put > one after another one. There no experiments that confirm their speculations. >
This list is an informal discussion. There is no harm in saying anything here. I am referring to a paper published by Defkalion in a physics conference proceedings. That is a very different thing. The standards of rigor should be higher for that. **** > > Did they make any measurements about Rydberg hydrogen? The EM field that > they are claiming should have been measured with precision. Or are they > hiding the proof? > I sure hope they did. Otherwise they should not mention it. But it isn't enough to just measure things. You have to list the sources in parenthesis and footnotes. For example, when Defkalion claimed that they used a variety of nickel isotopes, they should have listed the mass and the source of the isotopes. Isotopically pure samples are rare so you should list where you got them and how pure they are, so that other people can judge your results. This rule of thumb only applies to exotic materials. If it was some material that you can get from any supply house, such as nickel wire, there is no need to list the source. In the case of palladium you should always list the source, such as Johnson Matthey. The source makes a big difference. > > The Defkalion theory might be right to explain the excess heat of the > hyperion. But it might be as well something else that produces the extra > energy. > Perhaps. They claim they know the source of the heat. They should make a careful, rigorous case in a paper to back this up. > I hope the realtime spectrometer they are building with R6 reactor will > open our eyes to what’s going on inside. > I hope so. (Question: Will it work for elements other than hydrogen and helium? I have seen some light-element-only on-line spectrometers.) I don’t blame Defkalion. They have made tremendous steps in the right > direction, and given a lot of hints to the public. > I think the presentation at ICCF17 and 18 were a little slack by the standards of academic physics. There are many slack presentations at these conferences. I think we should cut back on them, and relegate more of them to the poster sessions. I cannot judge Kim's presentation. I gather (now) that it was supposed to be the proof for Defkalion's claims. Perhaps it was. It is over my head. It seems mostly theoretical rather than being based on experimental evidence. - Jed
