Edmund Storms wrote:
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.
Very true! I do not understand why he has done such primitive calorimetry, and why he does not provide calibration data.
If he prefers this calorimetry because it is simple, direct or convenient, fair enough: he could have done this plus one other type, such as Seebeck calorimetry. They can afford another cell. Or, since this cell runs hot for 100 hours, perhaps they undo it and move it into another calorimeter at hour 20.
He could have, without much extra effort, made the demonstration professional and convincing.
Exactly. He has Zhang and 4 grand students working on this. They have plenty of resources and they had time to do it right.
Instead, we are forced to speculate and base conclusions on very small effects.
I do not think that a 1°C temperature difference is a small effect. Most CF researchers would be thrilled to have such a large temperature difference. Also, the ambient room temperature is very stable.
But I hate to have to speculate and guess. He should describe calibration and he should also supply the exact dimensions of the cell, and many other details such as the type of insulation. These things are important. Details matter. Arata has been unwilling to supply them in the past, and he hasn't been much help in the last couple of weeks.
I sincerely hope this can be replicated soon.
Amen.
Otherwise, I fear we are looking at 1989 all over again.
I doubt it could that bad! I hope not. - Jed
