On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]>wrote:
> ** > I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a problem. The > error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to accept it if (and only > if) he runs so long that it's accounted for... > > Oh get real. You just made my point -- the blank and non-blank runs must > run "long enough" so the excess due to adsorption "is accounted for" -- as > I said, we're right back to square 1, arguing over the calorimetry. > > As I said, it's not a yes/no test -- yes, the signature is higher than the > blank, or no, it's not. > No. "The signature in the blank is higher?" What does that mean? That the blank will run hotter than should be expected? Why would that be? A blank would be run without hydrogen. Nothing else would be different except for some electrical heat put in. And for calibrating the system, it need not be a whole lot of heat. For the run, hydrogen would be added. If that's exothermic, fine. You get more signal temporarily from adding the hydrogen. You can measure that also very easily. Rossi *always* starts the reaction with heat. Just hold off the heat, put in the hydrogen. See if there's heat. If so it's a reaction between hydrogen and the powder but not nuclear. Subtract it. Actually, I've never seen or heard discussion of any rise in temperature in a Rossi device until he heats it electrically (one of the things that makes me suspicious!). So any heat contribution from just adding hydrogen is probably no issue -- if it is, just add the hydrogen, measure the heat from that operation and then when it's over, cook the darn thing to a start. What did I miss here? What are we arguing about again?
