For the umpteenth time it is not an assertion. The thermal mass of the reactor
is about 1MJ (based on specific heat), the energy outflow is a mere fraction
(~1kW). OK?
There has been no demonstration that output is higher than inout. Steam quality
is not measured, therma; inertia not accounted for. and there is Rizzi's
determination that flow is over estimated. I hope I don't have to repeat these
facts again. The source of heat in the 15 minutes is thermal inertia since it
would account for all steam produced. Cold fusion is not indicated by what Levi
has said. I have not seen the graphs you speak of and I'm not sure they are
coincident with cutting the power but thermal inertia needs to be accounted
for. So show me the data. And all I can say is one does not assume cold fusion
to prove cold fusion. CF proof is totally elusive by the means exploited. Its
more likely a flaw in technique of measurement. But if there is proof of
anomalous heat it has eluded my detection so far. The properway to do the
calorimetry is not with flow as I've detailed before.
Levi said steam stopped after 15 minutes so it seems you need to get on the
same page.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Definition of "heat after death"
Joe Catania <zrosumg...@aol.com> wrote:
Again thermal inertia is a fact- not an if. Thermail inertia does not "run
out" after one minute as I have shown.
You have asserted that, but in order to show it you would have to demonstrate
that the specific heat of metal is much higher than the textbooks list.
You said "the reaction continues undiminished." 1) There is no known
reaction, there is the heater power being cut.
The output heat is much higher than input power, so there is a reaction.
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.
We know it was undiminished because that is what the graphs showed; and
because Focardi said the reaction is stable; this is what they told me, and
finally, they would not put the cell into heat after death otherwise.
Why should it continue unabated for 15 minutes and then suddenly decide to
cease.
It did not cease. They turned the power on again, but it would have continued
without that. Heat after death in such systems sometimes goes for days. It
sometimes increases in power. It usually ebbs away after some time, but the
decay curve is nothing like thermal inertia.
Again, the power dimishes in a continuous fashion and is explained by
thermal inertia.
No it does not diminish. If it did, you might be right, but in this and most
other incidents of heat after death it is either stable or actually increasing
for a while, and when it does diminish the curve is never continuous. That is
why we can be sure there is an anomalous source of heat. Heat decay from
thermal inertia can never increase the temperature. The very first reported
incident of heat after death, from Fleischmann and Pons, clearly showed an
increase and later a curve that did not fall continuously.
Your posts are becoming arcane and are ignoring basic physics.
Your responses show that you do not understand what is meant by "heat after
death" in the context of cold fusion. You have been guessing that it means the
reaction dies off. That is a reasonable guess, but it is wrong. I suggest you
do your homework before commenting on cold fusion. I have uploaded more than
1000 papers on cold fusion including many describing heat after death, so I
suggest you read them.
- Jed
