On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> But it was inferior calorimetry, and it used boiling water. Rossi is a >> master at the boiling water fake, getting a factor of 7 out of it. Pons >> only managed a factor of 2 or so. >> > > As anyone can see from the paper, the method is completely different from > Rossi's. It is not "inferior." > > Yes, it's different from Rossi's. I was just saying that whenever boiling water is used, there are opportunities for error. Quoting from Morrison (1997): "With the IMRA(Japan) calorimeter, the water jacket surrounding the cell is kept at constant temperature so that any heat exchange with the outside is constant. With the IMRA(Europe) calorimeter, as the temperature changes up to boiling point, the heat flow to the outside must vary substantially and the calibration becomes critical. Instead of employing calculations and some doubtful controls, it is good standard experimental technique to use an external water bath at constant temperature, as IMRA(Japan) has done, but IMRA(France) has not." Japan got no excess heat in 26 cells; France got excess heat in 3 out of 7 cells. > The "factor of 2" is incorrect. They sometimes ran it in heat after death, > meaning the factor was infinite. > > > I did not see any reference to heat after death in the paper. The summary table showed COPs of 2.5, 1.5, and variable.
