Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> wrote: You're absolutely right that residual heat would only result in tempearture > loss and not temperature gain (which briefly appeared in the last demo). >
It was not brief. The temperature rose from 22:35 to 22:42, 7 minutes. That's much too long for something like a momentary instrument fluctuation. > But, a momentary increase in the "heat after death" recorded in the last > test cannot reconcile all of the enormous problems I have with that test. > Calling this "momentary" is intellectually dishonest. I don't think the problems you have discovered are "enormous." They are quibbles. > 1) They were taking temperature INSIDE the eCat. - Unacceptable > I do not think it far inside or close to the cell. Someone would have noticed. This is a little like saying that McKubre's inlet and outlet sensors are inside the cell. They are, but they are thermally isolated from the cathode that generates the heat so it is not a problem. Not Unacceptable. I will grant Rossi should have done some calibrations to prove this is not a problem. The October 6 test will address this issue by allowing observers to measure the inlet and outlet water temperatures outside the secondary cooling loop. These measurements cannot be affected by the cell, since they will be done in a graduated cylinder far away from it, and they will be made with independent instruments. 2) They presumed where they were taking the temperature was at 1 ATM of > pressure - Impossible > If the pressure is higher, wouldn't that mean there is more enthalpy? 1 atm is the worst-case estimate. - Jed
