OK. So no one has looked closely at the goofy temperature curve in the Levi report of the December 16, 2010 demonstration which he claimed was evidence of an exothermic reaction (and cold fusion).
Here's an analysis I wrote a few weeks ago: In his report Levi claimed the temperature curve of the output as evidence of an exothermic reaction. This bold and bewildering deduction lead many of us to believe he possessed inside information he was not at the time sharing. At the same he did not share information, if he had it, as to how the input heat may have been varied over time. A pot of water placed on the stove undergoes three phases: warming, simmering and boiling. The temperature curve reported could be described by more common physics in the following scenario. We can identify at least 4 different modes of heating in the Rossi device with different effects on a thermometer measuring liquid in the chimney. 1) The device is divided into two zones; vertical and horizontal. The internal chamber within the horizontal zone restricts water flow between these two zones. An internal heater within the “reaction” chamber and an external band heater supply heat to the horizontal zone. 2) As heat is initially supplied, there is a relatively small rate of temperature increase in the vertical zone through convection of water, and conduction through the metal parts. 3) During a second phase, in which the average water temperature is below the boiling point, the water simmers on the heated surfaces. The agitation provided by simmering increases the rate of convective heat transfer from the horizontal to the vertical zone. dT/dt increase. 4) During a third phase, after the water temperature in the horizontal member reaches its boiling point, a steam bubble collects in the bulb of the horizontal member. Hot water is forced into the vertical member, and dT/dt of the vertical zone increases once again. The steam bubble quickly overflows and steam enters into the vertical column. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 03:27 AM 7/17/2011, Damon Craig wrote: > >> Uhhh. I give up. How is a kink in a thermal curve evidence of exothermic >> activity? >> > > It's unclear what Damon is responding to. However, a change in the slope of > a heating curve will generally indicate some variation in condition, such as > changed input power or locally generated power. It's a rough calorimetric > technique, to determine what slope corresponds to what immediate power. > > If it were known that input power was constant, a sudden change in slope > could indicate additional power being applied. It is thus "evidence." But it > is certainly not proof, because that shift could be a result of something > else, such as a suddenly decreased coolant flow rate. > > Remarkably, the Kullander and Essen data shows this phenomenon, with > apparent power doubling or tripling as the coolant temperature passed sixty > degrees. This apparent power is much lower than what was asserted from > overall heating on the assumption of full vaporization, but no clear > evidence for full vaporization was shown. > > The Lewan demo shows no such clear increased heating phenomenon, so that > data is even more puzzling. > >
