Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: I'm still having trouble reconciling the reported numbers for the Feb test > http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm and > http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece >
The numbers are somewhat different. I do not know which is correct. I thought it would be best for me to stick to the numbers sent to me by a participant. The differences are minor and have no significant impact on the conclusions. I did not describe the 130 kW heat excursion because I did not know about it when I wrote that description. I have not added anything about it because the details are sketchy, and it is not good form to change the content of a report after you publish. Mats Lewan's account says: "Initially, the temperature of the inflowing water was seven degrees Celsius and for a while the outlet temperature was 40 degrees Celsius. A flow rate of about one liter per second, equates to a peak power of 130 kilowatts. The power output was later stabilized at 15 to 20 kilowatts." I was told the inlet water temperature was 15°C. They told Lewan it was 7°C. I do not know which is right, but it does not matter. The Delta T temperature is what counts, and that was too large to be an error. I have no problem with that report. I prefer to describe things a little more quantitatively. Lewan said "about one liter per second" and I said: "Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s" because that's how they measured it. They measured it for an hour and then divided by 3,600 seconds. However, whether it is actually 833 ml, 933 ml or 1,088 ml is immaterial. There is something that readers here may not appreciate. Especially, people born after 1970 may not get this. Levi, Kullander and I are old-school. I am an amateur and they are professionals, but anyway I learned physics back in the 1960s and 70s at Cornell before there were any computers or digital instruments. As Mizuno says, we are analog people in a digital world. We do not see any benefit to extra digits of precision. We prefer first-principal proof, and simple techniques. There is a huge difference in what I consider definitive proof compared to what some younger people do. Imagine you say to young Hotshot scientist at a national lab: "prove to me that Rossi's gadget is not heated by electricity." Dr. Hotshot will bring in a $16,000 power meter like the one Mizuno uses, and top it off with an oscilloscope. She will demonstrate beyond question that input is 79.04682 W average. That is a perfectly valid way to do it! I have no problem with high tech, high precision instruments. If you ask me to prove that, I will show you the Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas and I will say: "You can't conduct that many amps with such a small wire. Plus the PCLs would fry." That's all the proof I need. I don't really care if the electric power input is 80 W or ~3 kW (the limit for this kind of wire). I have no use for all those wonderful digits of precision that Dr. Hotshot gathers. When Fleischmann wanted to prove his cells produce a massive burst of excess heat, he forced them to boil off and made a video recording. He did this hundreds of times. The time stamp on the bottom lets you estimate the enthalpy over time. You can estimate it more or less, to the nearest 10 seconds and maybe 5 ml. You cannot see exactly when the boil-off concludes because there is steam blocking the view. But you don't need to see exactly. That's the beauty of it. This is crude method, but Martin considers it indisputable, because it is first-principle. I could not agree more. I cannot imagine more persuasive proof. But younger people (and some older scientists too) prefer something like precision, high tech, high-temperature calorimetry that measures power to the nearest 10 mW, a thousand times a second. I have been working with hundreds of people such as Levi, Rossi and Fleischmann. I know how they think, and what they like to see in an experiment. What they like -- and I like -- seems amateur and excessively imprecise to other people. - Jed
