As far as I can see, no independent evidence has been presented to the public to indicate that the Rossi reactor represents a new source of energy. I would be interested to hear Dr. Josephson's response to some of the following obvious, unanswered objections to Rossi's claims.
1. Trust. The main objection to Rossi's claims is that they require trust. Ordinarily a scientific discovery is published, so that others, skilled in the art, can test it independently. Since Rossi wants to keep his recipe secret, this option is not available to him. Instead, he chose a public demonstration, which would be fine, except that the event in January was neither public nor a demonstration.
It wasn't public because it was by invitation only, and the central figure, Levi, is an associate of Rossi's, who is receiving substantial research funding from him. That sort of funding can be useful in applications for promotion, and Levi appears to have a lot of room for promotion.
It wasn't a demonstration because observers -- even those present -- could not actually observe what Rossi was claiming. All we can see from the video of the event is a large device wrapped in tin foil, and some people milling around. How does that demonstrate power from NiH, let alone more than would be available chemically? Only Levi made measurements necessary to evaluate the claims of excess heat, and regardless of Levi's credentials, integrity, or motivations, a discovery of this magnitude will not be taken seriously if it relies on trust, rather than independent verification.
And it's not difficult to imagine independent verification without disclosing the recipe. For example, to demonstrate heat from an alcohol burner, one can simply pass around a beaker of cold water, place it above the burner until it is visibly boiling. All observers will agree that the burner is producing heat. Rossi claims far more power than an alcohol burner provides, and it should be much easier to demonstrate convincingly (without relying on trust) as the following objections will emphasize.
2. Input electricity. Most energy sources can be demonstrated, without ambiguity, to any lay person, because they do not need input energy at all. In cold fusion experiments that use electrolysis, the excuse is always that conversion of output heat to input electricity is too inefficient, or the output is too erratic, or both. Those excuses don't apply here. The input is heat, the output is heat, and it is obviously stable. Why can't the output heat be used to maintain the necessary temperature once the reaction has started? Rossi claims it's about safety, but ducks behind confidentiality instead of explaining why turning the input power *off* is dangerous.
3. Chemical fuel. Why was the device connected to a 13 kg hydrogen bottle? If it were a nuclear reaction, the amount of H2 consumed would be less than one mg. They could have pressurized the cell, and then disconnected the bottle. Removing the large reservoir of *fuel* would remove the need to measure the input hydrogen, which in any case was foiled by a piece of tape.
4. Wet and dry steam. The claim of 12 kW relies on the claim that all the water is converted to steam; i.e. that the steam is dry. However, no data is reported to support this claim; it is simply made on the basis of an undisclosed measurement with an "air quality monitor". However, the fact that the temperature of the output fluid is pinned to the boiling point indicates that there is at least some liquid present (as a mist, presumably). Moreover the temperature profile makes it highly implausible that more than a small fraction of the water is converted to vapour: It takes 30 minutes to bring the system up to the point where about 1.8 kW is transferred to the water (just before boiling); it seems unlikely that during the following 40-minute temperature plateau, the power transfer is suddenly 12 kW, particularly since the temperature actually dips below the boiling point in mid-plateau. Finally, no photograph or description of the output fluid is provided that might offer plausibility of the very high velocity output fluid consistent with the claim of dry steam.
5. Flow rate and volume. For a public demonstration, a single large reservoir of water (like a common 20L drinking water container) could be used for a simple, visible, and obvious indication of how much water has been consumed, rather than relying on someone's measurement of the flow rate. The measurement has raised some suspicion because the pump that appears in the video, according to the manufacturer, has a maximum flow rate of 7.6 L / hour, far less than is claimed.
6. How much excess heat? Even if the temperatures and flow rate presented by Levi are accepted, they provide clear evidence of only about 1.8 kW power out, with 1 kW electrical power in (the average reported by Levi). That leaves only about 800 W for 40 minutes to be accounted for, which is certainly not enough to rule out chemical sources, given the size and weight of the device, not to mention the connection to a 13 kg bottle of hydrogen.
7. A real independent check. If Rossi wanted instant credibility, he could provide his device to real independent skeptics for objective testing, in his absence. He could insist on a few burly guards (in his employ) and video surveillance to ensure there would be no peaking under the hood.
These questions leave aside the equally troubling questions of nuclear byproducts, including radiation, but are sufficient to maintain serious skepticism.
Rossi's February experiment answers some of the above objections (particularly the question of wet and dry steam), but it is not even claimed to be a public demonstration. And there are many reasons to question the plausibility of those claims as well, which I will leave unvoiced for the moment.
