I'm throwing this out because it has the report of two credible observers** available for download. The detail the process and to some extent the apparatus. For myself, I'll still go with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and for me, this isn't it. YMMV
*Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and member of the board (chairman until April 2) of the Swedish Skeptics Society.
*Professor Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven Kullander, also chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Energy Committee
From their pdf writeup:
Discussion. Since we do not have access to the internal design of the central fuel container and no information on the external lead shielding and the cooling water system we can only make very general comments. The central container is about 50 cm3 in size and it contains 0.11 gram hydrogen and 50 grams nickel. The enthalpy from the chemical formation of
nickel and hydrogen to nickel hydride is 4850 joule/mol <6>. If it had been a chemical process, a maximum of 0.15 watt-hour of energy could have been produced from nickel and 0.11 gram hydrogen, the whole hydrogen content of the container. On the other hand, 0.11 gram hydrogen and 6 grams of nickel (assuming that we use one proton for each nickel atom) are about sufficient to produce 24 MWh through nuclear processes assuming that 8 MeV per reaction can be liberated as free energy. For comparison, 3 liters of oil or 0.6 kg of hydrogen would give 25 kWh through chemical burning. Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.
Which you will find at the link in the text.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.eceAnd from the text of the article:
A phenomenon that Kullander and Essén noted was that the curve for the water temperature at the output showed a steady increase up to about 60 degrees centigrade, after which the increase escalated.
“The curve then became steeper, it clearly had a new derivative. At the same time there was no increase in power consumption, it rather decreased when it got warmer,” said Essén.
In their report they note that it took nine minutes to go from 20 to 60 degrees centigrade, which corresponds to the heating from the input electrical power. Going from 60 to 97.5 degrees centigrade, by contrast, just took four minutes.
Throughout the experiment Kullander and Essén had the opportunity to examine the equipment.
“We checked everything that...