At 10:53 AM 9/13/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
See http://QuantumHeat.org for updates on the Celani cold fusion
replication kit project Nicolas is spearheading.
One of the reasons that this whole affair has dragged out so long is
that both sides are crazy.
The physics community is crazy because they should know what the
scientific method is, and they abandoned it in 1989-1990, and firmly
adhered, most of them, to that abandonment, becoming impervious to
evidence, based on poorly-understood and poorly-applied theory.
The pro-cold-fusion community is crazy because too many people jump
to conclusions, going way beyond what is actually known and confirmed.
This is from http://www.quantumheat.org/
There are a bunch of various recipes now that can produce massive
amounts of energy without using anything nasty or expensive and
without producing harmful residue or emissions. There have been many
pet names given, but we think this discovery represents humankind's
greatest invention and since it essentially replaces fire, we call
it the New Fire.
Problem is, the "massive amounts of energy" haven't been confirmed,
if by "massive" we mean "commercial level," which is the implication.
This student is enthusiastic, but I would hope that he'd understand
the difference between hope and knowledge.
We can hope that Rossi is not as fraudulent as he looks. But it's
very clear that there is still only the shadowiest of independent
confirmations of Rossi's claims. For example, a writer, active on
this list, has claimed that the "certification" established power
levels for the 1 MW E-cat. He claimed that this was clear proof.
However, those levels would almost certainly be simply what the
inventor claimed, they were not the result of tests. The device was
being certified to be able to handle "up to" 200 KW input, and 1 MW
output. That was in no way a confirmation of a COP of 5.
But once people believe something, they tend to continue with that
belief, and every new piece of evidence is fit into that picture, it
"confirms" it.
The student has:
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/replicate
With appropriate funding, we will show you the whole story, show you
the tests being carried out and the results published live, we want
to leave no shadow of doubt in peoples mind that they are right to
get behind this revolution and clamour for it to deliver its benefits.
I.e., give us some money and we will prove cold fusion to the world.
I would not recommending giving anything to people who don't know how
to distinguish what is known from what is not known, and what is
confirmed and solidly established, from what is rumor and report.
This "student" has no doubt that there are real, almost-ready
technologies, he gives us a list:
* <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN4VK82Mngc>Celani's Wire
Reactor, Can clearly show that the active component produces way
more energy than can be explained by conventional means, it is
economical to reproduce the equipment and has scaleability and wide
areas for improvement and further study, things that
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHpYuUykWw0>Celani himself welcomes.
* <http://world.std.com/%7Emica/jet.html>Jet Energy NANOR, Using
different technology, this can show large energy gains in a small
package, is easy to transport and to run long term standardised tests.
* <http://www.brillouinenergy.com/>Brillouin Energy Boiler, They
could provide a number of small test configurations for replication.
* <http://www.ecat.com/>Leonardo Corporations' E-Cat, A number
of these could be distributed to qualified testing bodies.
There are other potential candidates such as
<http://www.defkalion-energy.com/>Defkalion Green Technologies,
however the experiments need to be supplied easily and reliably run
for over two weeks.
None of these have been confirmed. Jet's NANOR is the most open
product mentioned. Commercial feasibility for the NANOR has not been
established. It's a research tool, using the well-known PdD approach.
The others are all NiH, which has not been adequately confirmed.
Celani is conducting experiments openly, but there are still
undisclosed details, if I'm correct.
If we could raise enough money, and had not achieved our primary aim
by using another candidate, we would be keen to purchase a Leonardo
Corporation 1MW gas initiated unit as these are ready for purchase
and place it in say a war veterans hydrotherapy based rehabilitation centre.
If E-Cats are available commercially, it's all over. They will either
work or not work. If they work, there is no need for some additional
demonstration. If they don't work, what then? This student assumes
that the product works and is reliable. Reliability, especially, is
precisely what has not been demonstrated.
However, the other side:
We have 3 aims
* Show to the world there is a new practical primary energy
source we call the New Fire
* Once shown, help develop peoples understanding of what the New Fire is
* Help promote the development and uptake of the New Fire in all
its various guises
We must first facilitate a series of standardised tests of one or
more of the <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwwPYKBsswY>exact same
configuration of the New Fire so that once and for all the world can
see we have a bright, clean, safe and secure future.
Great. It's been done, but not with any of the technologies
identified. It was done with the SuperWave approach of Energetics
Technologies, replicated at ENEA and by SRI. *The effect is real,*
though the SuperWave approach was not necessarily verified through
controlled experiment. Most cells showed heat, some quite significant
heat. But that's the whole banana for commercial application!
Reliability is necessary for commercial application.
Until we have reliability, what we need is real scientific research.
We do need confirmation of reported results. But how about one,
before we do a whole series? There is a *ton* of work out there,
reported, interesting, and with no reported attempts to replicate.
Sometimes there have been replication attempts that are never
published because nothing was seen. That does not mean that the
original report was wrong, it is simply, from this example, not confirmed.
I've argued that it would greatly benefit the field if *all*
experimental work was reported. Notice: the plan above is not
"scientific." It's political. It's an attempt to prove an already
believed idea. That's the opposite of science, which attempts to
discover reality, not to prove that reality is something already known.
