Never mind. If the cell is storing energy then the temperature has to fall since there is less energy that can be dissipated as heat. Also the input power would have to increase to prevent the temperature from falling but it was constant so this another reason to reject the storage hypothesis.
Harry On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:01 PM, H LV <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm confused. The third paragraph on page 2 says the cell is intended to > operate with constant input power. Wouldn't that tend prevent the > temperature from spontaneously falling (due to energy storage) and only > permit a spontaneous rise in temperature? > > Harry > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:23 PM, H LV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ok, the numbers in this paper rule out the possibility of energy storage >> during the experiment. >> . >> However, as I recall there is a story floating around that a certain >> batch of Pd from the supplier seemed to work best. >> If that is true then the energy storage might have happened prior to the >> experiment when the Pd was processed >> by the supplier. >> >> >> Harry >> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Please review the numbers in the paper, which is here: >>> >>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf >>> >>> For experiment 4, the excess heat lasted 70 days. The total experiment >>> duration was 123 days. If there was a storage phase, it lasted 53 days. >>> This would show up as an endothermic reaction, which would reduce power >>> output by much more than the exothermic reaction that followed, because it >>> would be shorter. Any calorimeter that can measure a positive exothermic >>> reaction of X watts can measure an endothermic reaction of -X watts equally >>> well. >>> >>> Energy storage is ruled out. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
