Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
I agree with Jed, the data show some extra heat. However, I find this approach to be very sad. Arata had a chance to design the experiment so that the doubts and speculation could have been significantly reduced. He could have, without much extra effort, made the demonstration professional and convincing. Instead, we are forced to speculate and base conclusions on very small effects. I sincerely hope this can be replicated soon. Otherwise, I fear we are looking at 1989 all over again. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: I have had some complaints about Arata's paper and presentation. The paper lacks details such as the method of calibration. However, we should not overlook the fact that this is an astounding accomplishment, and even without a calibration it is obviously producing stable heat far beyond the limits of chemistry. I just sent a note to Arata in Japanese expressing these sentiments. As everyone knows, there have been scattered reports of heat after death, which is essentially output without input. This is like a vastly improved version of heat after death. Arata said it is reproducible. I do not know the success rate but there are several graphs of successful runs. Here is the critical fact about this experiment. Look at figure 3 in the News section: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Two things jump out at you: 1. The cell core temperature is hotter than the cell wall. This proves that the heat originates in the cell. (Skeptics unfamiliar with the second law will probably dispute that, but it's proof.) The cell core is not warmer with hydrogen, so there is no heat source in the cell. 2. The sample with hydrogen returns to room temperature after 200 minutes. The two samples with deuterium remain about 1°C above ambient four 3000 minutes (50 hours), and according to Dr. Wang, for another 3000 hours after that (100 hours total). The reaction shows no sign of petering out at the end of this graph. Think about this: the cell should be stone cold by minute 600, but it is still warm at minute 6000! Obviously, this is a stable, on-demand, self-sustaining reaction. It is the holy grail of cold fusion! Not to mention plasma fusion. The temperature difference of 1°C above ambient is large. It can be measured with absolute confidence with modern instruments, and it is probably palpable. Even without a calibration, and whether this 1°C temperature difference represents 1.1 W (as Arata claims) or whether it is only a fraction of a watt, I am sure it is beyond the limits of chemistry. The control run with hydrogen proves that. Plus, Mike Melich says he can do a first principle analysis based on heat loss and the approximate heat capacity of the steel cell to confirm this. I do not know how big or heavy the cell is. As I said, it is stainless steel maybe 20 cm tall maybe 3 cm in diameter. He says you convert everything into the specific heat of water to do this conveniently. The specific heat of iron is 0.45 J/g * k, and water is 4.18 J/g * k so it is about a factor of ten less. (By the way, I hope to have this figure and the others in an English version of this paper soon. However, I have found that it is better to first understand a paper and then translate it.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
Edmund Storms wrote: I agree with Jed, the data show some extra heat. However, I find this approach to be very sad. Arata had a chance to design the experiment so that the doubts and speculation could have been significantly reduced. Very true! I do not understand why he has done such primitive calorimetry, and why he does not provide calibration data. If he prefers this calorimetry because it is simple, direct or convenient, fair enough: he could have done this plus one other type, such as Seebeck calorimetry. They can afford another cell. Or, since this cell runs hot for 100 hours, perhaps they undo it and move it into another calorimeter at hour 20. He could have, without much extra effort, made the demonstration professional and convincing. Exactly. He has Zhang and 4 grand students working on this. They have plenty of resources and they had time to do it right. Instead, we are forced to speculate and base conclusions on very small effects. I do not think that a 1°C temperature difference is a small effect. Most CF researchers would be thrilled to have such a large temperature difference. Also, the ambient room temperature is very stable. But I hate to have to speculate and guess. He should describe calibration and he should also supply the exact dimensions of the cell, and many other details such as the type of insulation. These things are important. Details matter. Arata has been unwilling to supply them in the past, and he hasn't been much help in the last couple of weeks. I sincerely hope this can be replicated soon. Amen. Otherwise, I fear we are looking at 1989 all over again. I doubt it could that bad! I hope not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
Jed Rothwell said: I do not think that a 1°C temperature difference is a small effect. Most CF researchers would be thrilled to have such a large temperature difference. Also, the ambient room temperature is very stable. I must ask a question that exposes my ignorance: I suspect many who aren't technically gifted are not going to perceive Arata's 1 C temperature increase, where deuterons were used instead of hydrogen, as all that impressive. So what if the 1 degree temperature increase above ambient temperature persisted for at least 6000 hours. I realize other CF researchers are likely to consider the 1 C temp increase to be a resounding breakthrough, particularly if it can be independently replicated. Nevertheless, I suspect it's difficult for the uneducated lay person to see what the fuss over a 1 degree increase is all about. Granted, I fully realize the fact that we are dealing with what I presume is a tiny experimental setup, where the reaction chamber is small to begin with. Can CF researchers perceive a way to scale up Arata's process in a practical way to eventually produce the amount of excess heat necessary for household and industrial applications? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
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. All we know is that some extra energy appears to be generated within the cell. It's amount and source are unknown. Ed OrionWorks wrote: Jed Rothwell said: I do not think that a 1°C temperature difference is a small effect. Most CF researchers would be thrilled to have such a large temperature difference. Also, the ambient room temperature is very stable. I must ask a question that exposes my ignorance: I suspect many who aren't technically gifted are not going to perceive Arata's 1 C temperature increase, where deuterons were used instead of hydrogen, as all that impressive. So what if the 1 degree temperature increase above ambient temperature persisted for at least 6000 hours. I realize other CF researchers are likely to consider the 1 C temp increase to be a resounding breakthrough, particularly if it can be independently replicated. Nevertheless, I suspect it's difficult for the uneducated lay person to see what the fuss over a 1 degree increase is all about. Granted, I fully realize the fact that we are dealing with what I presume is a tiny experimental setup, where the reaction chamber is small to begin with. Can CF researchers perceive a way to scale up Arata's process in a practical way to eventually produce the amount of excess heat necessary for household and industrial applications? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
[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
