Or if it is refutable, let's see someone make a serious effort to refute it.
Stop quibbling about details. Get the heart of the matter, and tell us how a
box of this size with no input power can boil water for 3 hours and remain
at the same high temperature while you cool it with 1.8 tons of water.

I wrote to some friends complaining about the test. My conclusion:

Despite these problems . . . I think this test produced irrefutable proof of
anomalous heat. Here is why I think so --

Look at the graph here:


Nothing happens until 13:22 when the steam begins to flow through the heat

At 15:13 output is a little higher than input, even though there is a great
deal of heat unaccounted for, especially the water from the condensed steam,
which they poured down the drain.

At 15:50 the power is cut off. If there had been no source of anomalous
heat, the power would have fallen off rapidly and monotonically, at the same
rate it did after 19:55. It would have approached the zero line by 17:25.
Actually, it would have approached zero before that, based on Newton's law
of cooling. In other words, it would have been stone cold after 3 hours.
During that time, 1.8 tons of water went through the cooling loop. It
is inconceivable that an object of this size with no power input could have
remained at the *same high temperature* the whole time. Yet Lewan reports
that the surface of the reactor was still hot, and boiling could still be
heard inside it.

As you see, the temperature did not fall. It went up at 16:26. The cooling
water flow rate was unchanged, so only a source of heat could have caused

You can ignore the thermocouple data, and look only at the fact that it
continued to boil for more than 3 hours after the power was turned off, and
the reactor surface remained hot. That alone is rock solid proof.

It is possible that the placement of the outlet thermocouple was flawed, and
it recorded a value midway between the outlet cooling water temperature and
the steam in the pipe next to that. I do not think much heat can cross from
the steam pipe to the water pipe next to it. Alan Fletcher did a rigorous
analysis to demonstrate this. The thermal mass of the cooling water was much
larger than the steam, so the average temperature was closer to the water
than the steam. However, for sake of argument let us assume the temperature
was too high. In that case, we can ignore the actual temperature and look
only at the temperature trends. We can look at relative temperatures.
Whatever the temperature was, it goes *up* after the power turns off. It
stays up. It stays at a higher level than it was when the power was on! Even
if the actual temperature was half this value, it still should have fallen
monotonically, as I said.

This behavior is simply impossible without some source of heat, at some
power level. I think that very little wicking from the hot water
pipe occurred, so I expect the peak anomalous power was ~8 kW as shown in
this graph.

(I also ran this analysis and my complaints past Rossi himself.)

- Jed

Reply via email to