The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a "nuclear" reaction, but it's a bizarre finding. The excess heat is pretty obvious/irrefutable, but these isotopic measurements are very far from a sure-thing. If you're only taking a small % of a rather large sample of ash, and only allowed to do it once (or twice?), and there are questions about whether the measuring devices could properly distinguish certain isotopes from one another, and we don't know the extent of contamination, I don't see how you can declare anything with much confidence. So, I'm sold on heat, but still not sold on "Lithium as the fuel" quite yet without more replication/analysis. If I had to guess, I'd say IH & Rossi told them they could only take a small sample to create just this kind of confusion. Why would we think they'd be ready to unveil their trade secrets already? Seems like a little bit of an obfuscation tactic to me. Just IMO.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < [email protected]> wrote: > Jed was talking in watts, W ~ T^4, T is the fourth root of W so it is > logarithmic > not exponential in your jargon. > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *From:* Jed >> >> >> >> The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W >> for two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should >> have been about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make it >> go so much higher, other than anomalous excess heat. >> >> >> >> Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious >> ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference >> between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a >> formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law >> >> >> >> look at the graph on this page !! small change in temperature (based on >> emissivity) are increased exponentially. Now we know that those changes >> could have been influenced by the photon output of the resistance wires. >> >> >> >> The is no evidence of gain in the way this was done and Levi should have >> known that from before ! >> >> >> >> Jones >> >> >> > >
