I am not sure evaporation can be predicted as surely as you suggest,
plus it is not the only way water can leave the cell and thus mask a
possible recombination. Horace rightfully mentioned electrolyte
droplet entrainment, I have witnessed the reality of this phenomenon
myself (visible traces of salt remained after letting dry a spoon
exposed to the outgoing vapor). Also, recombined water can simply
leave the cell in vapor form, leaving no other trace of the
recombination than heat.

For all these reasons, I think open cell heat measurements cannot be
conclusive. Closed cell rules in this domain, as you know of course.

Michel

2009/1/4 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>:
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> Evaporation could conceivably have been 5.5cc instead of the 0.5cc
>> assumed by Melvin (7.7cc - 7.2cc) . . .
>
> No, it could not. The physics of evaporation are well understood and can be
> modeled and tested in detail. Evaporation is governed by temperature, and
> the electrolyte temperature is measured precisely. Experiments producing no
> excess heat sometimes have more overall power output (from higher powered
> electrolysis) than the experiments that produced excess heat, but the water
> level change was exactly as predicted by conventional electrolysis.
>
> Conventional evaporation and electrolysis are well understood. They do not
> suddenly and inexplicably produce 5 cc changes instead of 0.5 cc. Open cell
> electrochemistry has been done for well over 100 year. Also, Miles uses
> other reliable methods to confirm the flow of gas is as expected, for
> example capturing the gas in an inverted, water filled test tube.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Reply via email to