Mitchell Swartz: I think your problem is that you think Jed's report on the Patterson cell was presented by Jed as a scientific assesment of the exact heat generated. If that had been so then all of your frequently repeated "objections" would have some validity.
Instead, what Jed saw and reported on was a "ballpark" measurement that very significant quantities of heat were being generated in a short space of time. Hyper accurate calorimetry was absolutely not needed to show that a lot of heat was being generated. There is a type of scientist who delights in finding and measuring tiny signals, often analysed from such a mountain of noise that a casual observer would not notice anything happening out of the usual. What Jed, and many others here are interested in, is any new physical phenomenon that is large enough to generate power to run our civilisation. Messing about with tiny "optimal operating point" signals is academically interesting but doesn't cut the mustard if the goal is to replace fossil fuels or conventional nukes. Knowledge is valuable but engineering solutions is what we need. That is what Jed was trying to ascertain and, to any reasonable person, he succeeded. Patterson's beads looked promising for further development. So, once and for all, stop ranting on about Bernard instability in vertical flow calorimetry. Such small fractional watt distorting effects can, as you say, magnify a tiny signal mixed in with the environmental noise but are insignificant if you are looking to verify a kickass kilowatt. Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com
