David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Your plan seems reasonable to me Jed. Are you convinced that the > scientific community will accept it as valid?
Anyone who does not accept that is hopeless, and will never accept anything. What I described about kettles has been common knowledge for 5,000 years. Kettles were made in that shape in ancient Mesopotamia. I doubt any scientist would argue that droplets might be formed when heating with cold fusion that are not formed with a resistance electric heater in the same vessel. That makes no sense. Heat is heat. A kettle does not allow unboiled water to leave the pot. The droplets fall back in. You might say it is a kind of filter. This test is also a meta-filter. If you find someone who claims that a vessel produces droplets with one source of heat, but no droplets with another source of heat of the same magnitude, you can filter that person out. Ignore him. Don't bother trying to persuade him. If the anomalous heat source is much more powerful than your resistance heater, or much less powerful, the losses to droplets might be significantly different. In other words, you have to calibrate in the same range of power you intend to test. For example, if you expect ~500 W of anomalous power, calibrate at 200, 400 and 600 W. Boil water at each of those power levels for an hour or so, if the vessel holds enough water to do that. It better hold that much. You need to boil water for a while before you can measure the change in weight with confidence. 2260 J/g is a heck of a lot of energy. That's why steam engines are so good even without condensers. If you expect 500 W but you get ~1000 W . . . calibrate again! That's what they should have done at Lugano. - Jed
