Where does he claim anything extraordinary? I looked and could not see it under results.
Anomalous excess of temperature and power input vs time (two reactors are currently in operation; the one shown in the figure is operational from 2 years and 4 months)
Fig. A shows the calibration curves (Temperature vs. Power input) and displays subsequent activations
Fig. B shows the step-by-step reduction of the input power following a series of activations until the total elimination of power. The reactor (sealed) has been remaining at a T above 280°C for over 6 months without adding H2 and without interior H accumulations. Finally it was deliberately turned off.
Now, Thomas: You may find many ways to dispute these claims, but NO way to dispute that they are extraordinary! If you are this blind, perhaps all of your negative conclusions are, in like manner, not very perceptive. Come on, man, 6 months of 280 C. with essentially no input energy?
QuoteSpectra A & B show the gamma annihilation peak of beta+ decays (detected 40 cm far from one reactor with Ge). The peak of 511 keV...
What does this mean? What's a gamma annihilation peak, and is 511keV unusual or somehow unexpected? Does a beta decay emit gamma rays?
Energy annihilation in our universe is a ridiculous statement. Energy is never annihilated, but fast electron decay does utilize uv gamma radiation. The statement should be a gamma radiation peak. Otherwise I agree it's certainly extraordinary and disputes the energy mass relationship.
So apparently it means electrons are colliding with positrons, which then annihilate,to produce a gamma ray. Although that doesn't really leave me any the wiser...
Also I find this claim very interesting:
"Photo (done by Sem Edax) of a sample extracted from the cell after shutdown and left about 6 months in operation, with diagrams showing the non-uniform distribution of Zn and Cu (within the 1mm resolution). A control after a fortnight showed strong reduction of Cu. Zn is practically almost disappeared after about two months from the extraction"
Although maybe it can be explained as a diffusion into the substrate rather than anything stranger.
Anomalous excess of temperature and power input vs time (two reactors are currently in operation; the one shown in the figure is operational from 2 years and 4 months)
Fig. A shows the calibration curves (Temperature vs. Power input) and displays…
Gomp. The devil is in the detail. ALWAYS. Nothing that isnposted is extraordinary without favourable details. For example a well insulated device with small electrical or chemical input can happily keep its temperature, so the details here are:
check electrical input
check chemical input
Seems most here don't do that sort of thing.
QuoteBut I will say that from a laypersons perspective, they make some pretty strong claims.
Right. And the difference between skeptics and believers here is that skeptics do not see such strong claims as evidence for anything extraordinary whereas believers assume that it is.
As I say, partly it is because once you think extraordinary things happen in this area, then you believe all the ordinary claims because tehy are no longer extraordinary, which convinces you that you were right in the original thought...
Calorimetry is the key to this, and there's even a lame excuse for why none is included... It's really just a collection of teases, no doubt aimed at attracting potential investors.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to offer your thoughts on the implications of the supposed 511 keV gamma peak?
Calorimetry is the key to this, and there's even a lame excuse for why none is included... It's really just a collection of teases, no doubt aimed at attracting potential investors.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to offer your thoughts on the…
Well unfortunately I don't count myself an expert on anomalies in high energy spectra. It is easy, with such things, to jump to wrong conclusions so from my POV (wanting extraordinary evidence) they really don't help.
One of the things here is that the anomalies tend to present at very low level, where all sorts of background stuff can generate them. So to evaluate all that you need a lot of information and to be an expert in what are the likely artifacts.
One thing I know - experimental stuff seldom gives you perfect signals. You get all sorts of rubbish. It is all theoretically explicable, but only with a lot of care and most of it you would never have thought of in advance.
Regarding the low levels of anomalies; fig. 8a periodically shows neutron counts near to the reactor at 10 to 15x the background.
