Jed, I totally agree with your assessment of the review and the quibble over the seemingly anomalous heat gain when power is first removed - the anomaly supports the claim of an ongoing LENR reaction in the reactor where control has suddenly been handed over to a secondary agitator / signal generator to keep the reaction goint. It would be interesting to see which way the reaction would go without the signal generator to maintain control ... off or runaway. Fran From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 8:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Horace Heffner <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: An extended review of the Rossi 6 Oct 2011 test, with a better format graph, is located at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf This is an excellent report. I agree with the analysis, conclusions and most of the details. I reserve the right to quibble with a few points. Especially: "In any case, it is nonsensical that when power is cut that output power quickly momentarily rises." The electric heating power is apparently used to suppress the reaction, not to enhance it. Others have observed that in some cases when heater power is cut, anomalous heat rises rapidly. I think there is no doubt that anomalous heat can rise quite quickly and uncontrollably with this device, as it did during the 18-hour liquid flow test in February. There is no doubt that heat burst was real, and not an instrument artifact. So this is not nonsense, and it is not an instrument artifact. It is a characteristic of the reaction. - Jed
