Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Well, I would not call 10% a few, but okay. McKubre observed 300% in other cases, which I would definitely not call "a few." What is the percent when there is no input, in heat after death or gas loading? > >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. > This cell is not in heat after death. Other cells have been. When I tell there are red birds, do not point to black ones and say that proves red ones do not exist. > the red excess power data points overlap the green current density line as > they both fall to zero. Am I reading that graph wrong? > No, you are looking at the wrong graph. Look at one that shows heat after death. > > 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 > Yes, I suggested that, and as I just said, that describes a cell in heat after death, or a gas loaded cell. > If that had been shown already, and given that scientists are in general > not convinced of CF, you could not have made that statement. > Most of the scientists I have encountered who are not convinced have never heard of heat after death. They have no knowledge of this field at all, because they have not read about it. Robert Park is a good example. Such people have no right to any opinion, positive or negative. Their opinions count for nothing, and must be ignored. > 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. > It is quite easy to be sure of this. In an electrochemical cell after boil-off, there is no connection between the anode and cathode, so it is physically impossible for current to flow. Also, all cells are equipped with sensitive, modern voltmeters and ammeters, which show with absolute certainty that there is no input power. Few phenomena in nature can be measured with as much precision or certainty as electricity, so it is strange that you claim "it is impossible to be sure" of electric power measurements. This is bit like saying that in clear weather it is impossible to know whether it is midday or midnight. > 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? > I know, and Robert Duncan knows. When the power is off, the ultrasound cannot continue. It requires electric power. > 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. > What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion. But what makes you think that wires, tubes and meter are "complications"? This is rather like saying that the spark plugs and pistons in an automobile engine are frivolous add-ons we can easily dispense with. > 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. > What would make a good demonstration, and whether "60 Minutes" mentioned something or not has no bearing on the discussion. Dardik published it. "60 Minutes" is not a journal or conference proceedings. In a scientific discussion, what the mass media says, shows, or does is not admissible evidence. > 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 . . . > Yes, it was. It was not recorded by the computer in the first experiment, but it was monitored. In subsequent experiments and replications, it was monitored and recorded. > , and the thing was still connected to pressure pumps etc. > What bearing does that have on the calorimetry? - Jed
