On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Did you read what I wrote about this? What I wrote SEVERAL DOZEN TIMES?!? > Unfortunately repetition does not make it true. Although some experts question these results, most believe that the reactor > must have produced large amounts of anomalous heat, for the following > reasons: > I don't like your sampling methods, but it's a shame we have to rely on beliefs. > . . . When a poorly insulated metal vessel is filled with 30 L of boiling > water, it begins to cool immediately. > What kind of description is "poorly insulated metal vessel"? How poorly. What's its mass? Its thermal mass? > It can only grow cooler; it cannot remain hot or grow hotter; that would > violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. . . . > On average yes. But if the inside starts hotter, the outside can certainly become warmer. You can prove this with a space heater. Pull the plug while the surface is still warming up, and it will continue to warm up for a while. It's especially possible if you have a vapor - liquid equilibrium, where the temperature will be determined by the pressure. For example, if a closed container, the bulk of which is at a few hundred degrees, contains boiling water, and you close the exit so the pressure increases. The temperature of the water goes up. And the 2nd law remains intact. > Unfortunately, this test was marred by problems that made it impossible to > accurately determine how much energy was produced. Peak power was nominally > 8 kW but the instruments were so imprecise it might have been lower or much > higher, perhaps 10 kW. > 1 kW is consistent with the data. However, these problems -- bad as they are -- do not negate the findings. > They introduce enough uncertainty so the evidence does not prove Rossi's claims.
