The local production of energy does not necessarily have to result in a local production of heat.
For example see this article posted by pagnucco a few days ago. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/apr/22/spin-waves-carry-energy-from-cold-to-hot On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > This could be absurdly false - and could kill any remaining credibility > that Rossi has. **** > > ** ** > > I will defer to anyone who does this kind heat transfer calculation on a > regular basis but it looks absurd to me now based on the one basic simple > issue – heat transfer limitations.**** > > ** ** > > With only 20 grams of active material, I’m pretty sure that it can be > shown that it is physically impossible to transfer that much heat to the > rest of the reactor before the nickel or any other known metal turns into a > gas. **** > > ** ** > > The boiling point of nickel is 2,900+ … think about the implications ! > what this all “boils down to” is can 20 grams of nickel transfer that much > heat – roughly 14+ kWhr for several hundred hours? > > **** > > Forget the energy implications – as a straight-up heat transfer issue, > this looks to be beyond physical reality… Of course – Rossi could say that > the nickel boils inside the reactor at 10,000 degrees, but is that logical? > **** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jed Rothwell **** > > ** ** > > I wrote:**** > > **** > > That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much > smaller than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it.**** > > ** ** > > Here is Rossi's description of the incandescent gadget:**** > > ** ** > > > http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/final-update-corrected-again-pordenone-hot-cat-report/ > **** > > ** ** > > - Jed**** > > ** ** >
