Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding

[Jed Rothwell]

[Do not reply directly]

Edmund Storms wrote:

>Good question. The significance of 1 degree depends on how much 
>insulation is on the cell and how well the thermocouples were 
>calibrated. If the cell is well insulated, 1 degree would represent very 
>little extra power. Since we don't have any information about either, 
>the significance is totally unknown.

It is not unknown; it is unexplained. Arata knows it. He claimed that this 
represents about 1.1 W. How he determined that I do not know. I will grant he 
and the other 5 could be completely wrong, but I wouldn't bet on that.

1.1 W is a lot of power for modern laboratory grade instrument, as is a 1 
degree temperature difference. There is no chance they are mistaking 0 deg C 
for 1 deg C. I am certain that the cell remains significantly hotter than the 
surroundings, and the fact that the control cell does not is proof that a 
tremendous amount of energy was released from the 7 g sample.

Sorry to resort to yet another method of estimating this, but you can also look 
at the amount of Pd in the system, and the heat of formation of Pd-D, which 
occurs in the first 300 minutes. That is a known amount of chemical heat. I 
don't happen to know what it is at the moment, but the new paper from Yamaura 
describing the ZrO2-Pd should tell us. The heat release that follows far 
exceeds this.

Actually, it is good to have several different first principle methods of 
estimating the heat release, because we are then less dependent upon whatever 
mystery calibration Arata performed. Even after he tells us (and I hope he does 
tell us!) it is still nice to have other methods of independently confirming 
his estimate.


  All we know is that some extra 
>energy appears to be generated within the cell. It's amount and source 
>are unknown.

The source has to be inside the cell, based on the second law. What is causing 
it is obviously what causes heat and helium production in any other highly 
loaded Pd-D sample: cold fusion, whatever the heck that is. (Strictly speaking, 
this is a logical fallacy. You can't define something by saying it is what it 
is. However, scientists do that all the time.)

- Jed