Short of growing spinnarets on a tissue sheet from cultured spider cells, (which would give the exact organs needed), there is no way to fully replicate the features of a spider's spinnaret at this time.

According to , the processes that transform the spinning dope from an disordered liquid crystal solution to insoluble fibers involves mechanical compression coupled with saline ion removal, and that the rate of draw from the spinning duct has a profound correlation with the tensility of the resulting fibers.

This suggests that a "tapered silicon nanoneedle array" that has been doped to wick away saline ions from the needle's interior through the walls of the shaft, coupled with a controlled rate of draw, and a carefully selected for mechanical pore size, tube length, and taper, could result in a passable approximation of spider silk.

It does not need to absolutely perfect; it just needs to approximate the features of spider silk. Perfect replication is likely not possible with current nano-technology.

One solution might be to re-purpose other tech from the bio-tech industry.

Specifically, hollow silicon nanoneedle arrays.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Grown with the correct length, diameter, and taper, they would function as mechanical analogues to spider spinnarettes. Wet one side, then "brush" the other to get the thread started-- then just gently tug on the resulting fibers.

They would be very fragile things though. Would take very specialized equipment to handle, install, and prime them for service. They would also be far more fragile then ones made from insect chitin, so the drawing speed and pitch angle of the pull would have to be very carefully controlled to avoid breaking off the needles.

Maybe pores in a sheet would work better?

Just read the article myself;

This is still about the protein itself, not the mechanical processing done by the spider to create the unique fibers they produce.

Basically, the spider's silk protein is a bit like a "hook and latch", much like a zipper's teeth. Mass producing the protein produces "Zipper teeth", but that does not result in the unique conformation of a zipped up zipper.

For that, you need the zipper pull.

That's what a spider's spinnarets do. As the liquid crystal solution of spider protein gets pulled into the spinnaret, it gets compressed mechanically in a special fashion, which causes spontaneous self-assembly of these "zipper teeth", into a fully assembled, fully interlocking "zipper" of interlocked protein molecules. It is this fully interlocked assemblage that gives spider silk its unique mechanical properties.

The shape and length of these structures in the spider's abdomen are crucial to correct assembly.

As the linked Nature paper I linked to points out, this process is NOT incorporated in any currently used textile processing system.

Getting bulk, high quality protein is only PART of getting mass produced spider silk. The other part is the mechanical processing.

Silkworms do not have the structures that spiders do for processing their silk. Instead, silkworms produce a kind of salivary secretion through a much larger orifice. This orifice is much larger than a spider's spinnaret, and is not the same shape. This is why silk worms producing spider proteins will not produce silk of the same quality.

Now, we have some pretty kick ass micro-pipette technology these days (and surface morphology control on silicon substrates from PV solar research) that could probably be used to create synthetic spinnarettes--- Just wet one side with the silk solution, then draw silk fibers from the other side.

I just have never heard of any serious research into creating such synthetic spinnaret technologies.

I thought the magic in spider silk was 2-part.

First, is the molecule-- but the second is how it gets "zipped" into a silk filament by the spider's spinnarets.

http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

Just putting the genes into a silkworm WILL NOT PRODUCE SILK LIKE A SPIDERS!

Producing the proteins in goats wont fix the mechanical processing that spiders do.

This is why these things keeps failing. The protein is only part of the package. They need nano-structure spinnaret simulants to spin the solution with as well.

Here's all that needs to happen:

Rossi needs to produce approximately 20 test devices, with easily eject-able fuel systems. This separates the fuel system from the catalyzing system.

He needs to provide these loaded devices to independent testing labs, observed by a lawyer to assure that the independent labs dont disassemble the catalyzer, and only examine the fuel canister.

Independent verification, free from the "Rossi was there" objection, can then be performed on the device.

This is because the claims-- "My catalyzer is able to turn this stuff into this stuff, releasing energy!" does NOT require disassembly of the catalyzer. Only analysis of the fuel. Making the two easily separated solves the issue nicely. It is quite easy to falsify that claim if rossi provides such a device and fuel sample for independent testing.

That alone can make or break rossi.

Are you people asking him to compromise this way? No. You are not. Are you thus being sensible in your approach? No, no you are not.

No, that would be Jumping to conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

Not Occam's Razor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

Since it is based on total number of assumptions made, let's count, shall we?

Yours, that this guy and his team are frauds, requires these assumptions:

This guy manipulated all samples himself, so he must have tampered with them to get these results.

The samples before and after the experiment are not the same sample.

His team must be complicit in his fraud

his measurements for his samples are specifically designed to misrepresent a non-working device as a working one.

his device does not work.

That's 5 assumptions.

Now, let's look at mine-- 'the device could be real' scenario.

The device may work

The inventor does not release his secret because he does not have good legal protection from intellectual theft

the research team he used is the same team because it is the only one who will do it for him.

the sample before and after the experiment is the same sample.

That's 4 assumptions.

Nope, 5 is not less than 4. Sorry.

I admit to not reading their paper.

Rather, I was pointing out that the blanket accusations of fraud were not science.

If they indeed did not properly document their test protocol, then their test is indeed useless, and their paper should rightfully be torpedoed into oblivion during peer review.

BUT-- that is again not an accusation of fraud per se-- It is a reprimand for not properly documenting their experimental test protocol for independent verification via the scientific method, which is the actual purpose of the peer review process.

"Hey bitches, your paper sucks balls, because I cant fucking replicate your experiment, let alone your results! If you have that documentation on hand, and just neglected to put it in your paper, then put it in your fucking paper-- If you were too dumb to collect the needed data to replicate your experiment, your experiment is worthless because we cant verify it!"

That is NOT "Bitches be lying." It is "Bitches be incompetent." or "Bitches be negligent." :D

That too is one of the uncontrolled variables I cited that applied--

"Was the sample tampered with?"

AGAIN, catch-able with proper independent experimental replication, which is the prescribed methodology.

The below criticism-- that their methodology is fundamentally flawed due to not actually collecting valid data using wholly faulted practices, and that they did not properly document their experiment, preventing third party replication-- Is a real and valid criticism.

Which is exactly what I called for-- It is the ONLY LEGITIMATE WAY to either verify or refute this data.

Either the data is good, or the data is bad. The only way to tell is to conduct the experimental protocol as described in the literature in a fully independent test laboratory setting with completely different researchers.

I did not once say otherwise.

If you want an example of occam's razor giving a seemingly implausible explanation as the most likely-- just look at the double slit experiment data. :D

In this case, I was pointing out that having to resort to wild conjectures like "He totally fudged with the sample, and did shit to it behind people's backs" without any data to this effect, while the researchers published their data for review, places the burden of evidence on the nay-sayers. There are perfectly plausible scenarios where room temperature fusion events can occur, which would perfectly explain the isotope data, and would be necessary to get the energy flux reported.

Currently, you and others are saying "It's more likely that this guy and his so called team just shat out some numbers on a device that does not actually work, after initially being ball busted with their first paper."

What I am saying, is that this may be an actual device, that does actually work, getting a revised experiment published after properly following up with peer review feedback where they refined their experiment.

The only way to be sure, is to fucking run the experiment in an independent setting, and qualify the findings.

Casting aspersions without providing data is not science.

which I acknowledged-- Hell, the samples collected from the reactive sample for isotope spectroscopy would throw it off! Then you have skin oil contaminant from picking the thing up, noise from dust in the room settling on the thing-- all kinds of noise you would have to account for with such a large sample.

That's why I said that very tiny samples undergoing the same process with more sensitive thresholds are required as additional experiments. (Say, putting a nanoscopic sample on the end of an AFM, or a nanostructure electronic force meter, and evaluating the force exerted as it undergoes the process)

With properly controlled experimental gear, the change in mass of such small samples *IS* fully measurable with good confidence. (They can measure samples in AMU using those things!)

However, that would require for this process to be fully scalable. It may well be that such small samples are incapable of undergoing the process because they lack critical mass potential-- but that information is itself useful in understanding such mystery processes, and therefor the experiment would still be valid to conduct.

No matter how you slice it, these finding all point at further experiment.

Also, if the power delivery curve is nice and smooth, indicating a progressive reaction is producing the signal.

Intermittent chargings, as the GP suggested, would produce a very spiky power delivery curve over the observation period.

In the case of a fusion based reaction producing heavier, and more unstable isotopes, this curve should resemble a bell curve, where initial fusion events are few, but their presence catalyzes additional fusion events, until the costs of further catalysis exceeds the energy liberated and the power curve falls off as useful fuel is depleted.

And again, there's the isotope population data that needs to be addressed. Neutrons are perniciously difficult to focus into a coherent beam, because they are 1) massed particles, and 2) have no charge. This means making a sufficiently powerful neutron source to accomplish the slow population shift from one isotope to another, heavier one over the month long observation window would require a very conspicuous neutron generator, which would probably have irradiated the researchers quite profoundly--- since it would have to be strong enough to literally cause the constituent atoms in the sample to have appreciable neutron capture. (The researchers themselves, being in close proximity to the sample being bombarded by the neutron source, would likewise also be subjected to this bombardment, due to the nature of focused neutron sources --- And again, external sources of such neutrons would be quite conspicuous. I somehow strongly suspect that the researchers would ask what the giant assed neutron collimator is doing in the lab, especially with the focal point of the collimator directly where the sample is.)

So, again-- that would be a pretty damned awesome thing. A focused neutron beam would have fantastic applications, especially one that is compact enough to be inconspicuous, yet powerful enough to cause substantive neutron capture in a large sample, --OR-- One that focuses neutrons into a tight and coherent enough beam to deliver the neutrons over a sufficient distance that the neutron source is not immediately apparent to the researchers.

No matter how you slice it, the data presented is showing something very enticing for further study.

Which is one of the uncontrolled variables I specifically cited--

Are the researchers involved in any scam tactics performed by the inventor?

And, again-- the solution is to perform the experiment in complete isolation, with faithful reconstruction of the test protocol, in a completely different test lab, with completely different scientists. AKA-- Verify by independent experiment.

(Which is NOT THE SAME AT ALL as "Dont do the experiment, and immediately cry fraud citing something they 'know'." Real scientists question EVERYTHING, ESPECIALLY what they 'know'. Why else do you think that giant particle accelerators are used to test well grounded theories on particle physics? Just to affirm what they already 'know'? Fuck no-- it's to be the first to show that what everyone knew to be true is really false, and find something new.)

How short sighted.

"That does not immediately benefit me right now, so the pursuit of knowledge as to why that seems to happen is not a wise investment."

Apply that to the value of null-results that have changed the world, but which didnt have immediate financial values. You know, things like finding the limits of thermodynamics, or bells' theorem, the outcome of the michaelson-moorley experiment, and countless others.

Under your misguided tutelage, we would all still be spouting crap about the aether-- If not still living in trees.

Your sensibilities completely preclude the very NOTION of fundamental research.

I am VERY VERY happy that people like you are not in charge.

NONE of those explain the change in isotope species described in the article. Unless you mean he is somehow beaming concentrated neutrons through some unknown means into the device somehow, or that he is able to somehow completely replace the device with progressively more concentrated populations of heavier isotopes miraculously every time the researchers check.

Occam's razor sometimes shows that the seemingly improbable is actually the most likely explanation.

The actual definition of that particular by-rule, is that the explanation with the least complications (read, elaborate conjectures and weasel wording) is the most likely to be correct.

This device appears to produce power with an energy density many times greater than dynamite, and produces a change in isotope species of the test sample.

At this point, the test for fraud is to determine if the calculated energy released is congruent with the change in the mass energy potential of the sample before and after the experiment. Conservation of energy says that if this device used fusion, or any other nuclear power based reaction to achieve its outcome, then that energy came from mass.

They measured the energy released. Measure the difference in the mass of the sample after the 32day observation period, and compare it against the mass of the sample before the observation period. If the calculated mass value for the energy released + current mass == mass of sample before observation, we have a very difficult thing to account for, because it means the device is plausible.

If they dont match, it means the man is a fraud.

This is a testable point of data that would make fraud detection very easy, and would make people that are quick to point the fraud finger very uncomfortable if found to be true.

If the researchers did not collect this measurement, KNOWING that this device was 'supposed' to produce power via a nuclear energy process, then you have a very good grounds to seriously torpedo their published paper, and recommend additional experiment due to improper testing process. Especially since they have the equipment to measure statistical isotope species in the sample, and knew to test for it.

Granted, the difference in weight for a 140mwh value would be in the picograms or less. That just means that smaller samples with the same reaction process need to be studied so that tinier and more sensitive aparatus can measure any changes-- which would also make the "he switched the samples!" argument more convoluted in such latter experiments.

Of course, the NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL approach is to just say "There is no need to conduct that experiment, because it is clearly a fraud!"-- That's the not-science-at-all version of begging the question in a wrapper of appeal to authority fallacy, DRESSED as science.

Science is about observation, and recording data about observation, and making hypotheses that predict future observation. In science, REALITY IS KING. If the experiment has shown that energy was generated, and specific features were measured, but the experiment itself is in question-- the proper course of action is to repeat the experimental protocol in additional laboratories to eliminate the conjectured disqualifying uncontrolled variables cited.

In this case:

Were there any spurrious or anomalous EM readings near the device? (Any "beamed" energy delivered to the device would have to be of this type to interact reliably with electrical energy metering equipment.)

Was the sample ever tampered with? (Repeating the protocol simultaneously in multiple labs around the world to verify the results would exclude this, discounting some brilliantly absurd conspiracy.)

Were the researchers involved in any lucrative scam tactics with the inventor? (again, more independent testing would reveal this.)

So, in all cased, the prescribed course of action to verify definitively that this device is a fraud IS TO DO THE DAMN EXPERIMENT, REPEATEDLY.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT KILLED THE ORIGINAL "COLD FUSION" DEVICE. IT DID NOT WORK WHEN REPRODUCED IN OTHER LABS.

These findings suggest that further experiment is required.
It does not definitively prove the device works as advertised, and it does not constitute proof of fraud. It proves that further experimentation is justified, and necessary.

So, for all those morons who are shouting that this is a fraud straight up without doing the experiment, I want to see your data. No, Not other people's data. I want to see YOURS. SPECIFICALLY.

What's that? No data? Then fuck off. You don't further science by NOT doing experiments. That's the purview of philosophers, politicians, and religious dogmatists. It is PRECISELY WHY SCIENCE IS DIFFERENT.

Ahh, The eponymous doubleshit gum.

The gum EVERYONE gives two shits over.