Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was impressed with Swartz's presentation on the 5th day of the MIT > lectures series. He seems like a real enthusiastic researcher and inventor > with a very significant invention, although small, based on a LENR > process, whatever it turns out to be, The fact that he and Hagelstein talk > with each other is also significant. > He is impressive. However, both the device and the calorimetry are unique, so we need third party verification and/or replication to be sure of his results. This is not another "me too" result with an ordinary calorimeter at conventional power levels. It is actually better than most results in some ways, so it is more promising, but less believable until it is confirmed. Any results significantly different from others needs to be confirmed independently. This is not something I would impose on Swartz and not on others. I personally do not like Swartz, and he despises me, but my feelings have nothing to do with it. I like Mizuno a great deal and we have worked together for years, but I will not accept his latest results until they are independently replicated. I am trying to arrange a replication. There are many things about Swartz's techniques that I do not understand. My biggest question is: Why doesn't he gang up a number of these Nanor devices? If one puts out 100 mW, why not gang up 20 of them to put out 2 W? That is much easier to measure with confidence than 100 mW. The input power would be 80 mW, which should be easy to measure and should not be confused with the 2 W of cold fusion heat. I do not understand why he goes to all this trouble to measure such small amounts of heat. The Nanor devices are physically small, so you could fit 20 of them into an ordinary calorimeter. You could fit many more than that into a typical Seebeck calorimeter. Perhaps there is a reason he has not ganged them up. Maybe he does not have 20, and it is difficult to fabricate them? I don't know, but it mystifies me. - Jed
