I agree with Jed, the data show some extra heat. However, I find this
approach to be very sad. Arata had a chance to design the experiment so
that the doubts and speculation could have been significantly reduced.
He could have, without much extra effort, made the demonstration
professional and convincing. Instead, we are forced to speculate and
base conclusions on very small effects. I sincerely hope this can be
replicated soon. Otherwise, I fear we are looking at 1989 all over again.
Ed
Jed Rothwell wrote:
I have had some complaints about Arata's paper and presentation. The
paper lacks details such as the method of calibration. However, we
should not overlook the fact that this is an astounding accomplishment,
and even without a calibration it is obviously producing stable heat far
beyond the limits of chemistry.
I just sent a note to Arata in Japanese expressing these sentiments.
As everyone knows, there have been scattered reports of heat after
death, which is essentially output without input. This is like a vastly
improved version of heat after death. Arata said it is reproducible. I
do not know the success rate but there are several graphs of successful
runs.
Here is the critical fact about this experiment. Look at figure 3 in the
News section:
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
Two things jump out at you:
1. The cell core temperature is hotter than the cell wall. This proves
that the heat originates in the cell. (Skeptics unfamiliar with the
second law will probably dispute that, but it's proof.) The cell core is
not warmer with hydrogen, so there is no heat source in the cell.
2. The sample with hydrogen returns to room temperature after 200
minutes. The two samples with deuterium remain about 1°C above ambient
four 3000 minutes (50 hours), and according to Dr. Wang, for another
3000 hours after that (100 hours total). The reaction shows no sign of
petering out at the end of this graph. Think about this: the cell should
be stone cold by minute 600, but it is still warm at minute 6000!
Obviously, this is a stable, on-demand, self-sustaining reaction. It is
the holy grail of cold fusion! Not to mention plasma fusion. The
temperature difference of 1°C above ambient is large. It can be measured
with absolute confidence with modern instruments, and it is probably
palpable.
Even without a calibration, and whether this 1°C temperature difference
represents 1.1 W (as Arata claims) or whether it is only a fraction of a
watt, I am sure it is beyond the limits of chemistry. The control run
with hydrogen proves that. Plus, Mike Melich says he can do a first
principle analysis based on heat loss and the approximate heat capacity
of the steel cell to confirm this. I do not know how big or heavy the
cell is. As I said, it is stainless steel maybe 20 cm tall maybe 3 cm in
diameter. He says you convert everything into the specific heat of water
to do this conveniently. The specific heat of iron is 0.45 J/g * k, and
water is 4.18 J/g * k so it is about a factor of ten less.
(By the way, I hope to have this figure and the others in an English
version of this paper soon. However, I have found that it is better to
first understand a paper and then translate it.)
- Jed
