I guess you've probably seen this paper, but I think it is quite well written. There are no surprises in it, from my perspective.
Yes, I have seen this one and some other somewhat similar to this. The lower power is known, albeit in this case it seems way lower than in other cases, but the proper air mix has not been fully researched. The higher NOx is also a factor related to air fuel mix.
Another paper from 2013, not really independent (i.e.author Kaidesvily has been accused of being non existent and thus Santilli in disguise, just for the sake of clarity), it also found a heavier than it should be MagneHydrogen.
There's a truly independent Thai paper I haven't been able to translate, the Thai font is unreadable for Google Translate, it seems. The forum software doesn't let me upload it here but it can be downloaded from this link
View of Small-Scale Plasma Arc Flow Gasifier
In spite of the translation issue, it has some tables and equations in English, and it would appear to agree that there's an energetic anomaly, at least it mentions COPs above 1, the lower being 1,845, comparing the electric energy input to create the gas versus the caloric energy that can be released by burning the gas. This figure is roughly the same that was reported by Blaze Labs (1.7). This doesn't consider the heat released by the process, or the light emitted by the arc.
Another paper from 2013, not really independent (i.e.author Kaidesvily has been accused of being non existent and thus Santilli in disguise, just for the sake of clarity), it also found a heavier than it should be MagneHydrogen.
According to this document on the "i-b-r" website, JV Keidesvili died at the tragically young age of 54. Strangely, the exact date of his death seems to have been predicted the year before it happened. Maybe the telescope he had been using also offers the gift of precognition. J-v-Kadeisvili-CV.pdf
The site below carries an account of somebody trying to track down Kadeisvili - with the suspicion that he was a sockpuppet.
This does call into question the editorial policies and legitimacy of the IJHE. The paper reads like a Santilli puff-piece, in his own style, and only references Santilli sources. What level of peer review, and source verification, does (or did) the IJHE carry out?
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy | ScienceDirect.com by Elsevier
I am now getting slightly concerned over the number of occasions that papers from the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy appear in this forum.
Granted, it is a weekly publication, and seems to publish a large number of papers. But as the author of the website, mentioned above, discovered - the editorship might not be completely independent of influence. His attempts to get clarification from Elsevier over their oversight policies is also interesting.
This is the list of retracted papers from the IJHE since 2010. Quite a number are listed for "fake peer review", with "investigation by journal/publisher" additionally listed for some of those. But if the editors of the journal are in charge of organising the peer review process, who is at fault if a review is later revealed to be fake?
There's a truly independent Thai paper I haven't been able to translate, the Thai font is unreadable for Google Translate, it seems. The forum software doesn't let me upload it here but it can be downloaded from this link
https://ph01.tci-thaijo.org/in…rticle/view/159396/115312
In spite of the translation issue, it has some tables and equations in English, and it would appear to agree that there's an energetic anomaly, at least it mentions COPs above 1, the lower being 1,845, comparing the electric energy input to create the gas versus the caloric energy that can be released by burning the gas. This figure is roughly the same that was reported by Blaze Labs (1.7). This doesn't consider the heat released by the process, or the light emitted by the arc.
Without a full translation, it is not possible to figure out what they have done. Just looking at their formulas, which are in English, is not good enough - as their terminology could be misconstrued. For instance, it isn't clear how they have accounted for the raw calorific value of the graphite itself, which will contribute to the eventual gas calorific value in an overall energy balance. They appear to be only counting the electrical input to the process.
I also see that the references are rather limited in scope (i.e. the usual papers, plus the unpublished "New York Lab" document).
The above article is from 2017.
QuoteSo far, 13 of the papers were retracted this year: 10 in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy and three in Results in Physics. Of the remaining 13 papers, four others were published in Results in Physics, four in Journal of Crystal Growth, three in Journal of Alloys and Compounds, and one each in International Journal of Thermal Sciences and Fusion Engineering and Design.
It goes on to say:
QuoteWe asked the publisher how the fake reviews were missed during peer review, as well as how (and when) the peer review manipulation was discovered. A spokesperson explained that the editors of two of the journals alerted Elsevier “when they could not validate the email addresses of reviewers suggested by the authors upon submission:”
So it seems the editors had simply been accepting suggestions for reviewers from the authors. That is clearly wide open to abuse. And if any of the reviewers were sockpuppets, having their email addresses monitored - with prompt responses - then the fakes would not have been detected...
(note: the retracted papers mentioned above were in the Hot Fusion & Tokomak fields)
That is an often seen problem of the publish or perish system, but none of Santilli’s papers has been retracted, some have received countering papers, and these countering papers have also received countering themselves.’so I don’t see the problem other than Santilli’s ideas are controversial. So are Holmlid’s, Mills’s, etc.
So if a journal (the editor of which has links to S*ntilli) does not retract a paper by fake authors (who also have links to S*ntilli), it means that despite all the fakery, the non-withdrawal shows that there isn't a problem?
I give up.
I give up.
That is what most people do when Santilli is the topic under discussion. We do have a member here (last seen 22/May) NEPS*NewEnergy who may - or may not - have interesting things to say about this technology.
