The reaction of 1.7g of hydrogen with nickel cannot generate more than a few 10s of KJs of heat under the conditions of the test. It is impossible to account for the excess heat by chemical means unless fraud is involved.tomclarke wrote:I don't think so.Crawdaddy wrote:Because Rossi controls the data collection apparatus as well as the reactor itself, if the device is a fraud, then there is no need to actually generate output from a chemical reaction. Speculation of this kind is not useful or informative. Just faking the input and output data is much easier.Giorgio wrote: TallDave was not referring to Ni-H reactions, but to the highest-energy possible reaction that could be realized inside the reactor volume.
Mind you, we do not have any idea what is inside the reactor till now.
We discuss about Ni and H only because Rossi is stating it, but it could as well be that the reactor chamber is full of Iron Beads and Coca Cola for what we "really" know.
The point of my comment was that there is no possibility of honest error arising from an unknown chemical effect.
There is only the possibility of fraud or of legitimacy.
Most of the experiments suffer from potential temoerature effects due to conduction from metal reactor to thermometer. These effects are always difficult to quantify, and easy for somone optimistic to dismiss as insignificant. But they could in princoiple produce an arbitrarily high misreading of energy out.
Rossi would have to be pretty ignorant not to be a fraud. But so he appears to be.
There is no way that a reactor of the observed geometry could put out the reported heat without fraud because the decay rate of the heat output does not follow the known decay rates for a metal liquid interface.
Honest error is therefore not possible for these two reasons.
Of course one need not even mention the 18 hour test where honest error is also obviously impossible.