A few spikes in power from a 230 V source, due to a few brief shorts,
can not explain a half hour's production of heat. Also, resistors
typically fail to an open circuit. Hydrogen burning is not a good
explanation either, because the hydrogen use was monitored. The
experiment is said to be capable of "heat after death". This to me
means either it is nuclear, or there is a means of chemical energy
storage. I provided a plausible means to reproduce the experiment by
chemical means:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg42287.html
The fact that the energy actually produced could be as low as a kW
should be no surprise. See my calorimetry notes and related table at
the end of the above post.
I would also note that the above scenario is somewhat consistent with
Stephan A Lawrence's premise that the output is controlled by the
water pump, at least until the zeolite becomes saturated (not that
zeolite is the only way the results can be obtained) and the heat
generated tails off. Such a tail-off was also observed. It does
require that the container of zeolite have eventual thermal contact
with a pool of water in the device, which has 30-45 minutes to
accumulate.
It is unfortunate we are left here in the peanut gallery with nothing
to do but throw peanuts. We are left to make guesses about what
remains intentionally hidden. This doesn't seem very worthwhile,
given we supposedly will have the truth this year.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
On Feb 7, 2011, at 6:12 AM, Rich Murray wrote:
Well, Horace, there were a series of spikes on the input electric
power record in Test 1 on Dec. 16.
And in Test 2 on Jan. 14, a "catastrophic" "welding failure" on a
heating resister...
In science, experimenters largely find only what they make an
effort to find.
Leaks and resulting shorts could be small and transient, and still
unleash complex effects in H2 at 80 bar and 100's of degrees C.
We need to know the exact voltages and currents used for heating, and
also for any thermocouples and pressure transducers inside the cell,
and the quality of the power production and measuring devices.
Note that data recording failed for Test 2...
And today, feedback that the output power may be only 1.6 kw, not
over 10 kw...
Rossi has mentioned "explosions" several times, without giving
details, contributing to the risk run by independent experimenters who
attempt replications.
I want to be wrong, but all doubts have to be candidly explored in
this very important scientific debate, in which Rossi at least could
share critical details with some independent scientists of repute who
can be trusted with secrets.
I respect your urbane good sense and experience.
Rich
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Horace Heffner
<[email protected]> wrote:
.....
This kind of irrational debunking is laughable. The one thing done
well in
the experiment was measuring the input. You don't think a short
would show
up on a power meter, or even just a current meter, or even blow a
fuse?
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
