Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote:My comment was directed at people who do not believe Rossi, or who suspect there may be a complicated waveform at work, which makes it hard to measure input power. Such arguments always arise when people make claims about cold fusion when electric power input is needed. Even the simplest DC power is questioned. What I am saying is that we can short-circuit these objections by pointing out that the power supplies themselves could not draw 10 kW, so the waveform and methods of measuring input power are irrelevant.
- Rossi says the input is 600-700 W. Output at least 14 x input.
I pointed out this same fact about the Patterson experiment. To no avail. People raised that objection again and again, and they probably still do. Heck, for that matter, they claimed the water was not mixed and the temperature may not have been uniform, even after I stated that I mixed it myself, in a 1-liter graduated cylinder, using the mercury thermometer to stir it. The water coming out was many degrees hotter than the reservoir temperature going in. Anyone who thinks you can have a thermal gradient of several degrees when you stir liquid in a cylinder is very stupid, has no grasp of physical reality, and has zero credibility.
As it happens, Taubes raised that objection in his book, and here at Vortex, Mitchel Swartz raised it repeatedly. As far as I am concerned, that erased their credibility.
- Jed
Actually, it is the credibility of Jed Rothwell which
is, and has always been near, zero.
Rothwell has used his nonsense claiming he got a "kilowatt"
when analysis showed it was mostly in his mind.
First, the fact is that flow calorimetry depends upon the
direction of the flow measurement because of Bernard
instability. My friend, Dennis Cravens, who did that very
experiment confirmed it, despite the Rothwell nonsense.
For those seriously interested, two papers explain WHY and HOW
Jed fRothwell erroneously measured his "kilowatt" levels of
pseudoexcess heat with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow
calorimetric system without adequate joule controls -
and how to possibly correct for it:
Swartz, M, 1996, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221.
Swartz, M, 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow
Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130.
Second, Rothwell has always avoided control measurements.
But they ARE needed. Real scientists know that.
The following is from the web page, and one of the two papers which
were developed over several years in response to Rothwell's unscientific
nonsense. No wonder he runs his censored site.
=======================================
POTENTIAL FOR POSITIONAL VARIATION IN FLOW CALORIMETRIC SYSTEMS
Mitchell Swartz http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html
ABSTRACT
Although many aspects of calorimeters have been discussed,
including issues of potential problems with the thermometry
[i.e. thermocouples, thermistors and thermometers,
including electrical grounding and crosstalk,
thermal mixing and sensor positioning problems],
the potential impact of positional effects of the
flow calorimetry has not been
mentioned. The positional orientation refers to the
direction of the flow, and not to the orientation of
any temperature probes therein. Despite the reported
advantages for flow calorimetry in detecting enthalpy
from putative fusion reactions, these studies theoretically
suggest that there may be effects from positional variation
in the calorimetry of such flow
systems. Rather than 'ease of calibration' usually touted
for such systems, it is suggested that calibration may be
more complicated for vertical flow calorimetric systems.
In the absence of additional calibration, it may be critical to
keep semiquantitative calorimeters horizontal under some
conditions.
We now define hB as the ratio of heat transported
by the buoyant forces to the heat transported by
solution convection.
heat transported by buoyant forces
hB = --------------------------------------
heat transferred by solution convection
This Q1D model of heat and mass transfer has indicated
that what is generally correct for horizontal calorimetric
systems, may not be correct for vertical systems, when the
non-dimensional number (=hB) is significantly greater than
zero. Any apparent amplification of the 'excess heat' (if
any, and there does appear to be some) would be greatest
at the low flow levels. Increased flow makes the positional
error less important. As a corollary, any false excess heat,
or excess heat magnification, should also reduce with increased
flow.
SUMMARY
In summary, thermometry may not be the only rate limiting
factor for obtaining high-quality information from flow
calorimeters if the non-dimensional number, hB {defined
as the ratio of heat transfer by bouyancy to the heat
transfer by convection} is greater than zero. hB , in a
real system where viscosity, turbulence, and other parameters
play a role, depends upon other non-dimensional factors
including the Archimides non-dimensional number which
is the ratio of the buoyant force to the viscous force,
and possibly the Rayleigh non-dimensional number, which
is the ratio of gravity to thermal conductivity.
This hypothesis, and Q1D model of heat and mass
transfer, do not imply that such systems do not exhibit
'excess heat'. But rather that any such reported 'excess heat'
parameters may be inflated, if the information was indeed
collected with a vertical flow calorimetric system, in the
absence of confirmatory calibrations under low to moderate
flow conditions where the non-dimensional number (hB) is not
trivial. "
http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html
Happy New Year to all.
Mitchell Swartz
