On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Cude >> So, the best evidence you have for CF is from an experiment in 1994, in which the excess heat is a few per cent . . . Rothwell> A few percent of what? The error margin? Look at the bottom. A few percent of the input (5 to 10), and total of about 1/2 watt. >> One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. >That is incorrect, as are most of your other assertions. That is particularly incorrect. Some cells remain hot for hours or days. In slide 7 of that pdf that Lomax pointed to, the current density is shut off at about 610 (units?) and the excess power immediately goes to zero. the red excess power data points overlap the green current density line as they both fall to zero. Am I reading that graph wrong? >> I have frequently asked for the Rothwell beaker. An obviously isolated device that remains warmer than its environment (or gets hotter) for a long enough period to obviously generate its own weight in chemical energy. > That would be a gas loaded cell, or a cell in heat after death. There are dozens of examples of that in the literature, so you have been given what you want. No. I haven't. And you know it. I call it the Rothwell beaker because you yourself have suggested it as a convincing experiment: "With a small (half liter) insulated cell, the surface area should be small enough that the heat from the outer wall will be palpable (that is, sensible). ... It is utterly impossible to fake palpable heat.... I do not think any scientist will dispute this. ...An object that remains palpably warmer than the surroundings is as convincing as anything can be..." If that had been shown already, and given that scientists are in general not convinced of CF, you could not have made that statement. In the heat after death or gas-loading, the cells or chambers are still connected, and in most of those cases, it is impossible to be sure what the input is and what is being measured. Take Dardik's claim of heat after death. The foil is deep inside his apparatus, the electrodes are still connected, and probably the ultrasound is still singing. Who knows? What I want is, if Dardik's electrode is really generating a half a watt of power for days without input, take that electrode out, keep it inside the liquid if necessary, and put it in a separate beaker or clear thermos with 100 mL of water on a separate table far away from all those wires and tubes and meters and complications. So that all you have is one beaker and one electrode (maybe inside a little test tube). If Dardik claims that the Pd foil is producing 0.5 W without input for 4 days, as he does in experiment US3-5, in a couple of hours the temperature should climb about 10 degrees C. And if the thermos doesn't lose too much heat, it'll be boiling by next morning. This would be an excellent demonstration for the likes of 60 minutes. But instead they showed Duncan doing calculations in a notebook. And they didn't even mention heat after death. Same goes for the gas-loading experiments. In Arata's experiment the device stays at a constant temperature a degree or two above ambient, but ambient wasn't monitored, and the thing was still connected to pressure pumps etc. At the least, try wrapping some fiberglass insulation around the chamber, and see if the temperature climbs a little. But you really want to remove that Pd, isolate it obviously, under pressure, if necessary, and see if it can heat water far away from anything else.
