Are you for real?
This is what happens when you quickly scan a document instead of taking your time reading it properly.
The section you are quoting from is entitled 'NOTES'. It's the very last page.
You damn fool. Pretty fortunate you withheld your invective, eh?
Might have looked a bit silly.
You want slide 27, which can be found hiding directly underneath slide 26.
Also, as I mentioned before, slide 21 too ...This can be found 21 pages from the start of the document, if you don't count the title page.
EDIT: this disturbing insight into Mary's modus operandi will be continued in The Playground, as it is not even close to being a pastiche of the "insightful and well-reasoned" scientific comments I had originally thought Mary would be providing us with.
Celani shows gains of 2 in the scale of tens of watts. 70W anomalous excess power is not nothing. But do you understand what the anomaly is? when integrated over time does it result in an energy gain? If so is the mass of the materials involved sufficiently small to say that this cannot simply be a chemical effect, in which case the excess heat is there but not the anomaly?
Celani shows gains of 2 in the scale of tens of watts. 70W anomalous excess power is not nothing. But do you understand what the anomaly is?
I would say that the supposed excess heat (or power, depending on the graph) is the anomaly - I don't understand the cause of it, and Celani doesn't really try to explain it, just presenting it as 'something odd'. Which it is... What conventional explanation would explain the increase in heat, given the alteration of parameters as described on slides 21 & 27?
Another anomaly is shown on slides 23-26... The wire's resistance appears to behave opposite to expected, which I also find interesting.
when integrated over time does it result in an energy gain? If so is the mass of the materials involved sufficiently small to say that this cannot simply be a chemical effect, in which case the excess heat is there but not the anomaly?
He seems to be presenting an overview of his work, there's not enough information presented in the slides to say what length of time the experiment was over.
So ultimately, I say 'interesting but unproven'.
The problem is, if he doesn't bother to write a couple lines of summary, like:
then it is hard to decide if it is interesting, all the more if it is a summary of years of work.
Edit: I haven't followed Celani's work so it may be that he takes it for granted (being Asti a LENR conference) that the energy densities are closer to nuclear than anything chemical, albeit on a smaller scale than Rossi's infamous claims. If you or others know of and could provide a link to a reference where this type of result is claimed I will appreciate it.
He's using about 0.03g constantan in the four wire bundle, so things start getting interesting after a minute or so at 35W excess, ignoring the wire's cladding. But what you say is correct IMO. Note the resistance anomaly isn't so hazy, but again he doesn't describe his set up. Maybe the accompanying talk was more enlightening?
Celani's papers might be on lenr-canr.org, or there's a couple here: https://www.iscmns.org/idxjcmns.htm
From your reference, page 36:
"We note that nearly all of the chemical reactions produce at most 4.5 eV of energy. In our experiment, the effect lasted for several weeks and its integrated value is very much higher than the product of chemical energy times the amount
of material involved. "
Well. I can't deny this is exactly what I was asking for. What is puzzling is that Celani openly said he started investigating these materials because he suspected they were used by Rossi in early collaboration with Ahern. Now if Rossi is simply and plainly a charlatan then something is wrong.
In turn if nothing substantial is wrong in Celani's claim, then one should rethink part of the judgement on Rossi.
I say "part" because the deceptions are there, but could be part of a scheme aiming at a greater good, which could explain some help he received from people one would never suspect to play a scam.
Big IF.
I don't think it's controversial (unless according to the most reactionary of fools) to say Rossi might have been able to demonstrate some kind of small table-top effect. Same as Celani and Piantelli.
