Again thermal inertia is a fact- not an if. Thermail inertia does not "run out"
after one minute as I have shown. A large thermal mass of over 1MJ will not run
out in a minute if there's only a kilowatt of cooling.
Its you who are confused- cold fusion jargon? There is no cold fusion that can
be ascertained. Thermal inertia is the anomalous power that was detected after
power off. You said "the reaction continues undiminished." 1) There is no known
reaction, there is the heater power being cut. The explanation is thermal
inertia. 2) I don't call Levi's statement that steam was produced for 15
minutes an endorsement of an undiminished reaction. Why should it continue
unabated for 15 minutes and then suddenly decide to cease. Again, the power
dimishes in a continuous fashion and is explained by thermal inertia. Your
posts are becoming arcane and are ignoring basic physics.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 11:01 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Definition of "heat after death"
Joe Catania <zrosumg...@aol.com> wrote:
When the power is cut the steam will still be produced according to thermal
inertia. Thermal inertia isn't heater input and it isn't fusion.
If it was thermal inertia the power would decline rapidly and total stored up
energy would run out in a minute or so. You cannot store that much energy in
this mass of metal. Anyway, let's drop that subject and go on to:
How can it be heat after death when you say there's no death. I don't
misunderstand, Rossi misspeaks. This is pointless if you're saying we must
assume there is fusion.
You are confused by the term "heat after death." It is cold fusion jargon,
admittedly confusing. It means anomalous power that continues without input
electricity. It does not mean the entire reaction "dies," that is, stops or
slows down. On the contrary, most people do not cut the input power unless
output is robust and stable, as it was in this case. Putting the cell into heat
after death is a deliberate act.
I don't recall the power level in this event. Pretty sure it was 12 kW like
the others for this device. For some reason I cannot access the video showing
the graph, which is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Vyjlj8PLM
Anyway, the reaction was stable in this instance. I have never heard of
anyone putting a cell into heat after death when the heat is declining. That
would be like taking you foot off the gas when the engine is stalling. (I mean
with a manual shift!)
We do not assume there is fusion. The fact that the reaction continues
undiminished proves there is an anomalous source of heat other than the input
electric power. No stored up energy can last as long as 15 minutes with a cell
of this size at this power level. Heat storage and release is ruled out because
there is not enough metal, the metal is not hot enough, and power does not
decline following Newton's law of cooling. Chemical storage is ruled out
because the reaction is exothermic the whole time. There is no endothermic
storage phase. Since chemical and heat storage are ruled out, that leaves only
nuclear energy, and fusion is the most likely candidate. This heat after death
was only 15 minutes but some other events have continued far longer. I think it
is ~50 days for a similar system, Arata's gas loaded cells. Granted that was a
much lower power level with a far smaller sample of powder.
The presence or absence of fusion does not affect thermal inertia which is
sufficient to explain 15 minutes.
No, it isn't, but even it were, thermal inertia would produce a rapid decline
in power, not a steady state.
- Jed
