The results look too good to be true, if excess heat of this magnitude had been reproducible since 1998 the fight for recognition of CF would have been won ten yrs ago obviously.
Regarding notation, with all the papers you've been editing I just can't believe you can be so unit-challenged! In any case there is no European vs US notation. Writing "I /mA" rather than "I(mA)" as a column header makes no difference. As for current density both mA/cm2 and mA cm-2 are correct, whereas your "mA/cm-2" and "mA cm2" are not. I suspect you were tired when you wrote this, surely you know about negative powers? Michel 2009/5/7, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>: > I wrote: > >>Important results: >> >>Table 3, describing run 3: > > There are many other important results. I am > working on understanding run #3, or what they call "Exp. 3" now. > > Their comments: > > "3.2.3. Exp. 3 > > Pd strip cathode characteristics: dimensions, > (1.27 x 4.16 × 0.02) cm3; weight, 1.226 g. > Electrolysis was always carried out at 0.023 A cm > 2 (I= 0.243 A); since other current densities > were not used, maximum heat generation was > promoted by alternating electrolysis periods (two > or more days) with long o.c. interruptions. This > procedure also gave better knowledge of the > 'after-effect', i.e. the heat output from > the deuteride electrode in the absence of electrolysis. . . . > > Points to be noted are: (1) heat generation > (excess power output) under current flow > initially increased and then reached stable > values in about 4 days; (2) in contrast, the > 'after-effect' steadily increased after each > electrolysis period; (3) power oscillations in > o.c. were mainly due to deuterium immissions into > the cell (see Section 3.5); (4) the time decay of > the 'after-effect' was very slow, as predicted. > The operating conditions and the excess power > actually measured in the several stages of the > experiments are reported in Table 3. A > quantitative energy balance could easily be > obtained from the power input and the output > integrated over 21 days, as shown in Table 3. Any > comment seems to be superfluous." > > > Table 3 shows 0.42 MJ, output 1.8 +/- 0.16 MJ, as I noted previously. > > This is rather frustrating to me. Here we have a > spectacular paper buried in the literature, and > unavailable on the net. Add to this the set of > papers edited and published in a hardback book by > Marwan and Krivit at last year's ACS, and > probably this year's ACS as well. The book is > great. The editing is good. The presentation is > good. And the cost is $179. So you might as well > drop it down a well, because practically no one > is going to pay that kind of money for information on cold fusion. > > If people were clamoring for information on cold > fusion then this book would be selling like > hotcakes. But they are not. By and large they are > still ignoring the subject. In the age of the > Internet, putting the information behind a price > barrier and a copyright barrier is tantamount to throwing it away. > > - Jed > >
