Posts by F. Maillard

I have a lapsed background in EE and am not a scientist.

However, to be prudent, I would not choose Mizuno's R20 experiment as the first candidate for the Google team for at least 3 reasons :

1) R20 needs to be successfuly replicated to be sure it is a real candidate for replication !

Even if I believe it works, this has no bearing on the choice to advise.

The situation would be totally different if, after say a few successful replications, the LENR community was still desperate to publicize these results in the mainstream media and/or academia.

2) As some have already said in this thread, it is better to start with basics.

R20 is definitively not one (see #1).

Ascoli65 proposes the 1992 F&P experiment says it has already been replicated : maybe it is a good candidate ?

Whatever the experiment, if Google helps publicize a replication, the impact will be absolutely huge.

3) Everybody on this forum seems to believe that Google will succeed in replicating the best choice made by this forum members.

However, Google team track record is not really good in this matter as they failed to replicate some known to be replicable experiments.

Do you really want a second article in Nature describing another failed CF experiment ?

Can you imagine the impact ?

Would that mean the end of all further attempts in the LENR field, namely in terms of investment ?

If Google fails again to replicate a known to be replicable experiment, that would probably mean they are not good at that ...

Update from JONP :

1. John Marenco April 30, 2019 at 5:53 AM

   Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:

   As far as I can see on http://www.ecatskdemo.com your plasma seems to be a gas plasma, am I correct? In this case its temperature is well known to be 2eV = 23 400 K

   In your calculations of the paper published on Researchgate you have been very, very conservative, considering that you have taken in consideration only the surface of a cylinder with l=1 cm and d=0.3

   Godspeed,

   John Marenco

2. Andrea Rossi
   April 30, 2019 at 7:34 AM John Marenco:
   Correct, but I wanted to be very conservative, considering that we do not coincide with the ideal Maxwellian graph
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.

Jean Paul Renoir, are you a Rossi sock puppet ?

Frédéric

Paris, France

So who is right ?

JPR April 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM

Dr Rossi,

Probably you did not see the comment made by Jacques Ruer, president of the SFSNMC.

He substantially says that the Wien equation can only be used on Maxwellian plasma and that the graph shown on the video http://www.ecatskdemo.com is not Maxwellian.

What do you answer?

Jean Paul Renoir

1. Andrea Rossi April 27, 2019 at 11:34 AM

   JPR:

   I am perfectly aware of the fact that the equation of Wien can be considered precise only in presence of a Maxwellian plasma, a theoretical entity. The use of the Wien equation, though, is normally adopted also for plasma of the kind we have, as I learnt from the engineer, specialist of the field, that works in our Team. The result cannot be considered precise, but acceptable in good approximation, that we compensate as well explained in the video http://www.ecatskdemo.com. In the same video-presentation we also gave a comparative analysis between the results we obtained by means of the Wien/Boltzmann measuring system and the calorimetric measurements: as clearly shown in the video of the presentation, the results are not equal, but they are relatively close.

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.