Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: No, your conclusion is both wrong and short-sighted - and apparently you > forgot to actually look at the data and go on memory. > > The data in the last Table shows that in run 2, 5.5 MJ of input was > unaccounted for and could have been stored. You clearly missed that, but it > is the tip of the iceberg. > I did not miss it. It is in the margin of error. More to the point, a 5.5 MJ deficit in one experiment cannot explain a 294 MJ excess in one experiment, and a 102 MJ excess in another. 5.5 is much smaller than 294+102. This is also impossible because they used a different cathode in each test. Even if 5.5 MJ were stored in one cathode, it would not transfer to the other two.
The data says nothing about ongoing nuclear changes which could have > reduced the apparent gain in those runs with apparent gain . . . > Any nuclear or chemical change must result in a heat deficit. There is no significant heat deficit. - therefore in all seven runs, there could have been both exotherm and > endotherm taking place in the same electrode . . . > Different electrodes. In any case the total unaccounted-for negative energy is far less than the excess, as I said. - Jed
