Re: [Vo]:Definition of heat after death
Again thermal inertia is a fact- not an if. Thermail inertia does not run out after one minute as I have shown. A large thermal mass of over 1MJ will not run out in a minute if there's only a kilowatt of cooling. Its you who are confused- cold fusion jargon? There is no cold fusion that can be ascertained. Thermal inertia is the anomalous power that was detected after power off. You said the reaction continues undiminished. 1) There is no known reaction, there is the heater power being cut. The explanation is thermal inertia. 2) I don't call Levi's statement that steam was produced for 15 minutes an endorsement of an undiminished reaction. Why should it continue unabated for 15 minutes and then suddenly decide to cease. Again, the power dimishes in a continuous fashion and is explained by thermal inertia. Your posts are becoming arcane and are ignoring basic physics. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 11:01 AM Subject: [Vo]:Definition of heat after death Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: When the power is cut the steam will still be produced according to thermal inertia. Thermal inertia isn't heater input and it isn't fusion. If it was thermal inertia the power would decline rapidly and total stored up energy would run out in a minute or so. You cannot store that much energy in this mass of metal. Anyway, let's drop that subject and go on to: How can it be heat after death when you say there's no death. I don't misunderstand, Rossi misspeaks. This is pointless if you're saying we must assume there is fusion. You are confused by the term heat after death. It is cold fusion jargon, admittedly confusing. It means anomalous power that continues without input electricity. It does not mean the entire reaction dies, that is, stops or slows down. On the contrary, most people do not cut the input power unless output is robust and stable, as it was in this case. Putting the cell into heat after death is a deliberate act. I don't recall the power level in this event. Pretty sure it was 12 kW like the others for this device. For some reason I cannot access the video showing the graph, which is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Vyjlj8PLM Anyway, the reaction was stable in this instance. I have never heard of anyone putting a cell into heat after death when the heat is declining. That would be like taking you foot off the gas when the engine is stalling. (I mean with a manual shift!) We do not assume there is fusion. The fact that the reaction continues undiminished proves there is an anomalous source of heat other than the input electric power. No stored up energy can last as long as 15 minutes with a cell of this size at this power level. Heat storage and release is ruled out because there is not enough metal, the metal is not hot enough, and power does not decline following Newton's law of cooling. Chemical storage is ruled out because the reaction is exothermic the whole time. There is no endothermic storage phase. Since chemical and heat storage are ruled out, that leaves only nuclear energy, and fusion is the most likely candidate. This heat after death was only 15 minutes but some other events have continued far longer. I think it is ~50 days for a similar system, Arata's gas loaded cells. Granted that was a much lower power level with a far smaller sample of powder. The presence or absence of fusion does not affect thermal inertia which is sufficient to explain 15 minutes. No, it isn't, but even it were, thermal inertia would produce a rapid decline in power, not a steady state. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Definition of heat after death
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: ** Again thermal inertia is a fact- not an if. Thermail inertia does not run out after one minute as I have shown. You have asserted that, but in order to show it you would have to demonstrate that the specific heat of metal is much higher than the textbooks list. You said the reaction continues undiminished. 1) There is no known reaction, there is the heater power being cut. The output heat is much higher than input power, so there is a reaction. The explanation is thermal inertia. 2) I don't call Levi's statement that steam was produced for 15 minutes an endorsement of an undiminished reaction. We know it was undiminished because that is what the graphs showed; and because Focardi said the reaction is stable; this is what they told me, and finally, they would not put the cell into heat after death otherwise. Why should it continue unabated for 15 minutes and then suddenly decide to cease. It did not cease. They turned the power on again, but it would have continued without that. Heat after death in such systems sometimes goes for days. It sometimes increases in power. It usually ebbs away after some time, but the decay curve is nothing like thermal inertia. Again, the power dimishes in a continuous fashion and is explained by thermal inertia. No it does not diminish. If it did, you might be right, but in this and most other incidents of heat after death it is either stable or actually increasing for a while, and when it does diminish the curve is never continuous. That is why we can be sure there is an anomalous source of heat. Heat decay from thermal inertia can never increase the temperature. The very first reported incident of heat after death, from Fleischmann and Pons, clearly showed an increase and later a curve that did not fall continuously. Your posts are becoming arcane and are ignoring basic physics. Your responses show that you do not understand what is meant by heat after death in the context of cold fusion. You have been guessing that it means the reaction dies off. That is a reasonable guess, but it is wrong. I suggest you do your homework before commenting on cold fusion. I have uploaded more than 1000 papers on cold fusion including many describing heat after death, so I suggest you read them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Definition of heat after death
For the umpteenth time it is not an assertion. The thermal mass of the reactor is about 1MJ (based on specific heat), the energy outflow is a mere fraction (~1kW). OK? There has been no demonstration that output is higher than inout. Steam quality is not measured, therma; inertia not accounted for. and there is Rizzi's determination that flow is over estimated. I hope I don't have to repeat these facts again. The source of heat in the 15 minutes is thermal inertia since it would account for all steam produced. Cold fusion is not indicated by what Levi has said. I have not seen the graphs you speak of and I'm not sure they are coincident with cutting the power but thermal inertia needs to be accounted for. So show me the data. And all I can say is one does not assume cold fusion to prove cold fusion. CF proof is totally elusive by the means exploited. Its more likely a flaw in technique of measurement. But if there is proof of anomalous heat it has eluded my detection so far. The properway to do the calorimetry is not with flow as I've detailed before. Levi said steam stopped after 15 minutes so it seems you need to get on the same page. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 1:35 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Definition of heat after death Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: Again thermal inertia is a fact- not an if. Thermail inertia does not run out after one minute as I have shown. You have asserted that, but in order to show it you would have to demonstrate that the specific heat of metal is much higher than the textbooks list. You said the reaction continues undiminished. 1) There is no known reaction, there is the heater power being cut. The output heat is much higher than input power, so there is a reaction. The explanation is thermal inertia. 2) I don't call Levi's statement that steam was produced for 15 minutes an endorsement of an undiminished reaction. We know it was undiminished because that is what the graphs showed; and because Focardi said the reaction is stable; this is what they told me, and finally, they would not put the cell into heat after death otherwise. Why should it continue unabated for 15 minutes and then suddenly decide to cease. It did not cease. They turned the power on again, but it would have continued without that. Heat after death in such systems sometimes goes for days. It sometimes increases in power. It usually ebbs away after some time, but the decay curve is nothing like thermal inertia. Again, the power dimishes in a continuous fashion and is explained by thermal inertia. No it does not diminish. If it did, you might be right, but in this and most other incidents of heat after death it is either stable or actually increasing for a while, and when it does diminish the curve is never continuous. That is why we can be sure there is an anomalous source of heat. Heat decay from thermal inertia can never increase the temperature. The very first reported incident of heat after death, from Fleischmann and Pons, clearly showed an increase and later a curve that did not fall continuously. Your posts are becoming arcane and are ignoring basic physics. Your responses show that you do not understand what is meant by heat after death in the context of cold fusion. You have been guessing that it means the reaction dies off. That is a reasonable guess, but it is wrong. I suggest you do your homework before commenting on cold fusion. I have uploaded more than 1000 papers on cold fusion including many describing heat after death, so I suggest you read them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Definition of heat after death
On Aug 27, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Joe Catania wrote: For the umpteenth time it is not an assertion. The thermal mass of the reactor is about 1MJ (based on specific heat), the energy outflow is a mere fraction (~1kW). OK? There has been no demonstration that output is higher than inout. Steam quality is not measured, therma; inertia not accounted for. and there is Rizzi's determination that flow is over estimated. I hope I don't have to repeat these facts again. The source of heat in the 15 minutes is thermal inertia since it would account for all steam produced. Cold fusion is not indicated by what Levi has said. I have not seen the graphs you speak of and I'm not sure they are coincident with cutting the power but thermal inertia needs to be accounted for. So show me the data. And all I can say is one does not assume cold fusion to prove cold fusion. CF proof is totally elusive by the means exploited. Its more likely a flaw in technique of measurement. But if there is proof of anomalous heat it has eluded my detection so far. The properway to do the calorimetry is not with flow as I've detailed before. Levi said steam stopped after 15 minutes so it seems you need to get on the same page. My two cents on this is it is a typical one of a kind anecdote - with no solid measurements to back it up. We don't really know if the device was initially outputting 5000 W or just the input wattage, for example. For the sake of discussion, let's just assume the story is correct and the device was outputting 5 kW as advertised. Let's also be generous with regard to mass, and assume it was equivalent to 20 kg of copper, and stored 1 MJ of energy as specified above. Using a heat capacity of copper, 0.385 J/(gm K), a 20 kg mass requires delta T = (10^6 J)/(0.385 J/(gm °C)*(2*10^4 gm)) = 130 °C to store the 1 MJ thermal energy. The thermal mass, Cth, is given by: Cth = (0.385 J/(gm °C)*(2*10^4 gm) = 7700 J/°C Assume the device transfers 5 kW of output heat when the internal temperature is 230°C. This gives a thermal resistance of R = (230°C)/(5.10^3 W) = 0.046 °C/W. The decay time constant, tau, for the 1 MJ thermal mass, C, is is given by: tau = R*Cth = (0.046 °C/W)*(7700 J/°C) = 354 s We now have the thermal decline curve: T(t) = T0 * e^-(t/tau) = (230 °C) * 1/e^(t/tau) If we want steam to disappear at time t, then T(t) = 100°C. So: (100°C) = (230 °C) * 1/e^(t/tau) (t/tau) = ln((230°C) /(100 °C) t = ln((230°C) /(100 °C)) * (354 s) t = 294 s ~= 5 min So, if all is as assumed above (very unlikely!) the device should not be able to output steam for 15 minutes, or even more than 5 minutes, unless a source of heat was present after the power was cut off. The problem is we just do not have enough data to make the above calculation credibly. This is not a new kind of problem with regard to the E-Cat. Hopefully in any case the above example is useful to others for theorizing. We just have to wait until October to see what happens. I hope for the best. I hope we don't see non-credible delays and moving target objectives as we have seen before in similar situations. I wish Rossi great success. Even the most minor technical success for Rossi would be one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs ever, and have great importance for all mankind. Rossi is not a young man. I hope he considers how limited his time on earth is and makes the right decisions. BTW, most anyone in the LENR field knows well what heat after death means. It was used much in discussions on sci.physics.fusion over 15 years go, and is still in use in the present literature. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
