On 02/08/2011 07:10 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > 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,
I didn't actually intend that as a premise! It was a sort of black joke -- the only obvious way for the system to work as specified would be if the output were controlled by the water pump. But your scenario makes it into a plausible assumption ... hmmm.... > 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. But it's irresistible, none the less. > > 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/ >> > > > > >
