[Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

Utilizing thermometry with electrolysis can generate an effect of apparent
excess heating starting after several days of running.  I found this to
particularly be the case using a stainless steel anode.  What I have
eventually figured out is that the stainless anode begins to dissolve and
iron oxide builds up in the cell causing the electrolyte to become
increasingly rust colored.  Over time, more of this builds as iron oxide
occupies a much greater volume than the stainless steel itself.  Even if
the electrolytic cell is replenished with water to the starting level, the
amount of water is greatly decreased by the increased volume of iron oxide.
 The heat capacity of iron oxide is much less than water (.69 J/gK vs. 4.18
J/gK).  Less energy is required to heat the iron oxide to a higher
temperature resulting in increased temperature in the cell despite constant
power input.  This produced apparent (but false) excess heating of up to
50% in several of my experiments.  Is this analysis sensible?

See this chart:
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/falseahe.jpg

Note: the dips in the graph are from replenishing the electrolyte with
water.

In thinking this through and studying the matter, I also came across
something of interest regarding palladium and surface changes when used as
a cathode in electrolysis.

http://www.cnrs.fr/Cnrspresse/n389/html/en389a07.htm

--

I have a question related to the first matter and specific heat capacity.
 Would these principles translate to the possibility of creating a false
impression of excess heating in a case such as Rossi were he to use
different materials for the blank vs. active reactor?  Note: I don't
believe that this was done, but I'm just wondering about the possibility.

Best regards,
Jack

RE: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

This produced apparent (but false) excess heating of up to 50% in several of
my experiments.  Is this analysis sensible?

 

Not so sure that this analysis is precise - but apparent gain could be due
to iron as a consumable and must be eliminated. If iron is leaching, then
gain would be due as much to oxidation as a change in heat capacity (a bit
of both). 

 

There are ways to check. Simplest: you could use a nickel anode to
cross-check. or plate the stainless or a copper anode with nickel or Pt or
Pd. 

 

For an complementary anode - which may be as active as a nickel cathode -
success has been seen with what is called MMO or "mixed metal oxide" coated
titanium anodes . which are used in swimming pools and spa chlorinators and
not too dear.

 

I see one on eBay now for 15 bucks.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MMO-coated-expanded-titanium-mesh-anode-2-by-6-/1710
58056592?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0
 &hash=item27d3dacd90

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

Thanks Jones.  I just ordered one of those anodes.  I am also going to
cross check with a graphite anode.  I was using standard nickels and a
thoriated tungsten rod all plated with an extra layer of nickel as a
cathode.  I also added a small amount of nickel sulfate to the electrolyte
after approximately 24 hours of run time.

For my analysis above, I'm simply looking at the relative volume occupied
by the iron oxide versus the water.  If you use the equations for
Q=mc(delta T), you can see that less energy is needed to cause the same
amount of temperature change in iron oxide versus water.  I do also think a
lot of the heat was coming from oxidization throughout the run (as noted
with the temperature checked on the anode vs. cathode with an IR
thermometer).


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  ** **
>
> *From:* Jack Cole 
>
> ** **
>
> This produced apparent (but false) excess heating of up to 50% in several
> of my experiments.  Is this analysis sensible?
>
> ** **
>
> Not so sure that this analysis is precise – but apparent gain could be due
> to iron as a consumable and must be eliminated. If iron is leaching, then
> gain would be due as much to oxidation as a change in heat capacity (a bit
> of both). 
>
> ** **
>
> There are ways to check. Simplest: you could use a nickel anode to
> cross-check… or plate the stainless or a copper anode with nickel or Pt or
> Pd. 
>
> ** **
>
> For an complementary anode - which may be as active as a nickel cathode -
> success has been seen with what is called MMO or “mixed metal oxide” coated
> titanium anodes … which are used in swimming pools and spa chlorinators and
> not too dear.
>
> ** **
>
> I see one on eBay now for 15 bucks.
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/MMO-coated-expanded-titanium-mesh-anode-2-by-6-/171058056592?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27d3dacd90
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

Jones,

Here is the run overnight with the graphite anode replacing the stainless
steel.  That temperature jump about half way through seems intriguing.
 I've never seen it do that before.  It occurred over 90 seconds.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-15-13.png

Best regards,
Jack




On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Thanks Jones.  I just ordered one of those anodes.  I am also going to
> cross check with a graphite anode.  I was using standard nickels and a
> thoriated tungsten rod all plated with an extra layer of nickel as a
> cathode.  I also added a small amount of nickel sulfate to the electrolyte
> after approximately 24 hours of run time.
>
> For my analysis above, I'm simply looking at the relative volume occupied
> by the iron oxide versus the water.  If you use the equations for
> Q=mc(delta T), you can see that less energy is needed to cause the same
> amount of temperature change in iron oxide versus water.  I do also think a
> lot of the heat was coming from oxidization throughout the run (as noted
> with the temperature checked on the anode vs. cathode with an IR
> thermometer).
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  ** **
>>
>> *From:* Jack Cole 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> This produced apparent (but false) excess heating of up to 50% in several
>> of my experiments.  Is this analysis sensible?
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Not so sure that this analysis is precise – but apparent gain could be
>> due to iron as a consumable and must be eliminated. If iron is leaching,
>> then gain would be due as much to oxidation as a change in heat capacity (a
>> bit of both). 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> There are ways to check. Simplest: you could use a nickel anode to
>> cross-check… or plate the stainless or a copper anode with nickel or Pt or
>> Pd. 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> For an complementary anode - which may be as active as a nickel cathode -
>> success has been seen with what is called MMO or “mixed metal oxide” coated
>> titanium anodes … which are used in swimming pools and spa chlorinators and
>> not too dear.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I see one on eBay now for 15 bucks.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/MMO-coated-expanded-titanium-mesh-anode-2-by-6-/171058056592?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27d3dacd90
>> 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[mixent]

In reply to  Jack Cole's message of Sat, 15 Jun 2013 05:52:25 -0500:
Hi,

At 11350 seconds it suddenly flattens off. The curve after the jump appears to
be a continuation of the curve before 11350 seconds. This gives me the
impression that something changed at about 11350 seconds which was restored
during the jump. Perhaps something like a change in conductivity &/or bubble
formation at 11350 seconds that released just before the jump?

>Jones,
>
>Here is the run overnight with the graphite anode replacing the stainless
>steel.  That temperature jump about half way through seems intriguing.
> I've never seen it do that before.  It occurred over 90 seconds.
>
>http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-15-13.png
>
>Best regards,
>Jack
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Is there anything different about this setup from prior ones?  Is the temp
sensor is a different location, or attached differently?  Any code changes,
etc... Think hard about even the smallest change from earlier tests.

-Mark Iverson

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

In reply to  Jack Cole's message of Sat, 15 Jun 2013 05:52:25 -0500:
Hi,

At 11350 seconds it suddenly flattens off. The curve after the jump appears
to be a continuation of the curve before 11350 seconds. This gives me the
impression that something changed at about 11350 seconds which was restored
during the jump. Perhaps something like a change in conductivity &/or bubble
formation at 11350 seconds that released just before the jump?

>Jones,
>
>Here is the run overnight with the graphite anode replacing the 
>stainless steel.  That temperature jump about half way through seems
intriguing.
> I've never seen it do that before.  It occurred over 90 seconds.
>
>http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-15-13.png
>
>Best regards,
>Jack
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

See this chart:
> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/falseahe.jpg
>

It would be nice to see a control run for comparison.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jones Beene]

Good point Robin.

There could have been accumulating H2/O2 bubble formation that suddenly
recombined (burned) to give the big jump in temperature. Jack has a neat
Android based controller that lets him collect data by cell phone. I think
we will be hearing more on his progress as time goes on.

The real problem with simple electrolysis as a way of looking for thermal
gain which is due to such things as Ni-H LENR - is that without a
recombiner, you have two contradictory or self-cancelling influences... in
the sense that high efficiency in water-splitting efficiency actually
carries away significant amounts of heat from the cell, and makes the cell
cooler than it otherwise would be.

Thus, an inefficient cell for water-splitting in terms of liters of gas per
minute, can show more thermal rise than an efficient cell for
water-splitting unless the heat of the gas which bubbles off is accounted
for. It usually is not. This is most problematic since thermal gain in the
electrolyte should be an easy and reliable way to document the anomalous
nickel-hydrogen reaction -IF- all the heat could be retained.

A recombiner usually requires platinum, and thus is not seen too often in
low-cost experiments. But there can be a work around in trying to maintain
hydrogen on the cathode for as long as possible. However, that means
manipulating the voltage to a minimum level, but catch-22 low voltage
electrolysis is known to cool a cell on its own.

More on this later: a milliwatt UV laser could be the answer. UV lasers are
available for almost nothing these days, and using one could be a way to
safely employ a sealed cell in which almost no extra energy from the laser
recombines the gas a few times per second.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Hi,

At 11350 seconds it suddenly flattens off. The curve after the jump appears
to
be a continuation of the curve before 11350 seconds. This gives me the
impression that something changed at about 11350 seconds which was restored
during the jump. Perhaps something like a change in conductivity &/or bubble
formation at 11350 seconds that released just before the jump?


>Here is the run overnight with the graphite anode replacing the stainless
>steel.  That temperature jump about half way through seems intriguing.
> I've never seen it do that before. It occurred over 90 seconds.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-15-13.png

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

Mark, the programming is the same as I have been using.  The wiring is a
little different as I am running directly from the power supply with this
experiment instead of through the relay bank.  The electrodes are placed a
little higher than typical, so the temperature sensor is deeper in the cell
than the electrodes.  Usually, they are at approximately the same level in
the cell.  Still, I don't think any of this would account for that.

I can think of two possibilities: 1) a malfunction of the temperature
sensor, or 2) the magnetic stirrer could have stopped spinning at some
point and then restarted causing the warmer upper layers to mix with the
layers at the level of the sensor.  I have no way of knowing about #2 (it
was spinning when I checked it later and was to start out).



On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:08 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Is there anything different about this setup from prior ones?  Is the temp
> sensor is a different location, or attached differently?  Any code changes,
> etc... Think hard about even the smallest change from earlier tests.
>
> -Mark Iverson
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:13 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry
>
> In reply to  Jack Cole's message of Sat, 15 Jun 2013 05:52:25 -0500:
> Hi,
>
> At 11350 seconds it suddenly flattens off. The curve after the jump appears
> to be a continuation of the curve before 11350 seconds. This gives me the
> impression that something changed at about 11350 seconds which was restored
> during the jump. Perhaps something like a change in conductivity &/or
> bubble
> formation at 11350 seconds that released just before the jump?
>
> >Jones,
> >
> >Here is the run overnight with the graphite anode replacing the
> >stainless steel.  That temperature jump about half way through seems
> intriguing.
> > I've never seen it do that before.  It occurred over 90 seconds.
> >
> >http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-15-13.png
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Jack
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

Yes, I will do that after I finish running another experiment tonight.


On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> See this chart:
>> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/falseahe.jpg
>>
>
> It would be nice to see a control run for comparison.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

I have collected more data in a new run that seems to explain things (see
chart below).  Something took place around 1000 seconds and corrected
around where the spike occurred (note that I removed some data from the
first part of Run 1 to line up the curves at the start of the runs).  The
most likely probability to my mind is that the magnetic stir bar must have
stopped spinning and restarted mixing the water layers again causing an
apparent spike in the temperature.  Jones suggested an experiment to
oscillate between the top and bottom of the spike range, which I have
started.  Just from the start of this new run, it is clear that the first
run was not tracking correctly from early on.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-16-13.png

I'll keep experimenting, and if I find anything of interest, will report
back.  Thank you for the comments and suggestions that helped figure this
out.




On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Good point Robin.
>
> There could have been accumulating H2/O2 bubble formation that suddenly
> recombined (burned) to give the big jump in temperature. Jack has a neat
> Android based controller that lets him collect data by cell phone. I think
> we will be hearing more on his progress as time goes on.
>
> The real problem with simple electrolysis as a way of looking for thermal
> gain which is due to such things as Ni-H LENR - is that without a
> recombiner, you have two contradictory or self-cancelling influences... in
> the sense that high efficiency in water-splitting efficiency actually
> carries away significant amounts of heat from the cell, and makes the cell
> cooler than it otherwise would be.
>
> Thus, an inefficient cell for water-splitting in terms of liters of gas per
> minute, can show more thermal rise than an efficient cell for
> water-splitting unless the heat of the gas which bubbles off is accounted
> for. It usually is not. This is most problematic since thermal gain in the
> electrolyte should be an easy and reliable way to document the anomalous
> nickel-hydrogen reaction -IF- all the heat could be retained.
>
> A recombiner usually requires platinum, and thus is not seen too often in
> low-cost experiments. But there can be a work around in trying to maintain
> hydrogen on the cathode for as long as possible. However, that means
> manipulating the voltage to a minimum level, but catch-22 low voltage
> electrolysis is known to cool a cell on its own.
>
> More on this later: a milliwatt UV laser could be the answer. UV lasers are
> available for almost nothing these days, and using one could be a way to
> safely employ a sealed cell in which almost no extra energy from the laser
> recombines the gas a few times per second.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com
> Hi,
>
> At 11350 seconds it suddenly flattens off. The curve after the jump appears
> to
> be a continuation of the curve before 11350 seconds. This gives me the
> impression that something changed at about 11350 seconds which was restored
> during the jump. Perhaps something like a change in conductivity &/or
> bubble
> formation at 11350 seconds that released just before the jump?
>
>
> >Here is the run overnight with the graphite anode replacing the stainless
> >steel.  That temperature jump about half way through seems intriguing.
> > I've never seen it do that before. It occurred over 90 seconds.
>
> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-15-13.png
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jones Beene]

Excellent work Jack, since this latest graph is starting to look suggestive
for a real comparative thermal anomaly .

 

Let's hope that this continues, since you are starting to see the thermal
"ratcheting effect" which seems to be one the most reliable "tells" for gain
in the Ni-H reaction - and you are seeing it in a situation (electrolysis)
where minimal gain is expected under any circumstance (compared to a
dedicated gas-phase reactor).

 

It is not clear if Run 2 is a real ratcheting or not, but it sure looks like
it, so far. (I'm assuming that it is the lower duty regime?)

 

Jones

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

I have collected more data in a new run that seems to explain things (see
chart below).  Something took place around 1000 seconds and corrected around
where the spike occurred (note that I removed some data from the first part
of Run 1 to line up the curves at the start of the runs).  The most likely
probability to my mind is that the magnetic stir bar must have stopped
spinning and restarted mixing the water layers again causing an apparent
spike in the temperature.  Jones suggested an experiment to oscillate
between the top and bottom of the spike range, which I have started.  Just
from the start of this new run, it is clear that the first run was not
tracking correctly from early on.

 

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-16-13.png

 

I'll keep experimenting, and if I find anything of interest, will report
back.  Thank you for the comments and suggestions that helped figure this
out.

 

Jones Beene  wrote: Good point Robin.

There could have been accumulating H2/O2 bubble formation that suddenly
recombined (burned) to give the big jump in temperature. Jack has a neat
Android based controller that lets him collect data by cell phone. I think
we will be hearing more on his progress as time goes on.

The real problem with simple electrolysis as a way of looking for thermal
gain which is due to such things as Ni-H LENR - is that without a
recombiner, you have two contradictory or self-cancelling influences... in
the sense that high efficiency in water-splitting efficiency actually
carries away significant amounts of heat from the cell, and makes the cell
cooler than it otherwise would be.

Thus, an inefficient cell for water-splitting in terms of liters of gas per
minute, can show more thermal rise than an efficient cell for
water-splitting unless the heat of the gas which bubbles off is accounted
for. It usually is not. This is most problematic since thermal gain in the
electrolyte should be an easy and reliable way to document the anomalous
nickel-hydrogen reaction -IF- all the heat could be retained.

A recombiner usually requires platinum, and thus is not seen too often in
low-cost experiments. But there can be a work around in trying to maintain
hydrogen on the cathode for as long as possible. However, that means
manipulating the voltage to a minimum level, but catch-22 low voltage
electrolysis is known to cool a cell on its own.

More on this later: a milliwatt UV laser could be the answer. UV lasers are
available for almost nothing these days, and using one could be a way to
safely employ a sealed cell in which almost no extra energy from the laser
recombines the gas a few times per second.


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
Hi,

At 11350 seconds it suddenly flattens off. The curve after the jump appears
to
be a continuation of the curve before 11350 seconds. This gives me the
impression that something changed at about 11350 seconds which was restored
during the jump. Perhaps something like a change in conductivity &/or bubble
formation at 11350 seconds that released just before the jump?

>Here is the run overnight with the graphite anode replacing the stainless
>steel.  That temperature jump about half way through seems intriguing.
> I've never seen it do that before. It occurred over 90 seconds.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-15-13.png




 

Re: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jack Cole]

Jones,

I don't know if we have a real ratcheting effect or not.  I have it running
like a simple thermostat.  Turns the electrolysis on at a set temp and off
at a set temp.  With this method, you would only see ratcheting if there
was "heat after death."  The other possibility to see it would be a
decreasing amount of time that the electrolysis is turned on.  Another
possibility would be to compare to a control run.

I would need to switch over to a fixed duty cycle to demonstrate a
ratcheting effect more clearly.  I think another possibility to produce the
effect would be to run the electrolysis continuously while pulsing a joule
heater at a fixed duty cycle within the cell.  This would really be closer
to an electrolytic analogue of the E-cat, because of the continuous
presence of hydrogen.  If I'm not mistaken, P&F had some good results with
pulsing a joule heater.

Jack


On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Excellent work Jack, since this latest graph is starting to looksuggestive
> for a real comparative thermal anomaly …
>
> ** **
>
> Let’s hope that this continues, since you are starting to see the thermal
> “ratcheting effect” which seems to be one the most reliable “tells” for
> gain in the Ni-H reaction – and you are seeing it in a situation
> (electrolysis) where minimal gain is expected under any circumstance
> (compared to a dedicated gas-phase reactor).
>
> ** **
>
> It is not clear if Run 2 is a real ratcheting or not, but it sure looks
> like it, so far. (I’m assuming that it is the lower duty regime?)
>
> ** **
>
> Jones
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jack Cole 
>
> ** **
>
> I have collected more data in a new run that seems to explain things (see
> chart below).  Something took place around 1000 seconds and corrected
> around where the spike occurred (note that I removed some data from the
> first part of Run 1 to line up the curves at the start of the runs).  The
> most likely probability to my mind is that the magnetic stir bar must have
> stopped spinning and restarted mixing the water layers again causing an
> apparent spike in the temperature.  Jones suggested an experiment to
> oscillate between the top and bottom of the spike range, which I have
> started.  Just from the start of this new run, it is clear that the first
> run was not tracking correctly from early on.
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-16-13.png
>
> ** **
>
> I'll keep experimenting, and if I find anything of interest, will report
> back.  Thank you for the comments and suggestions that helped figure this
> out.
>
> ** **
>
> Jones Beene  wrote: Good point Robin.
>
>
> There could have been accumulating H2/O2 bubble formation that suddenly
> recombined (burned) to give the big jump in temperature. Jack has a neat
> Android based controller that lets him collect data by cell phone. I think
> we will be hearing more on his progress as time goes on.
>
> The real problem with simple electrolysis as a way of looking for thermal
> gain which is due to such things as Ni-H LENR - is that without a
> recombiner, you have two contradictory or self-cancelling influences... in
> the sense that high efficiency in water-splitting efficiency actually
> carries away significant amounts of heat from the cell, and makes the cell
> cooler than it otherwise would be.
>
> Thus, an inefficient cell for water-splitting in terms of liters of gas per
> minute, can show more thermal rise than an efficient cell for
> water-splitting unless the heat of the gas which bubbles off is accounted
> for. It usually is not. This is most problematic since thermal gain in the
> electrolyte should be an easy and reliable way to document the anomalous
> nickel-hydrogen reaction -IF- all the heat could be retained.
>
> A recombiner usually requires platinum, and thus is not seen too often in
> low-cost experiments. But there can be a work around in trying to maintain
> hydrogen on the cathode for as long as possible. However, that means
> manipulating the voltage to a minimum level, but catch-22 low voltage
> electrolysis is known to cool a cell on its own.
>
> More on this later: a milliwatt UV laser could be the answer. UV lasers are
> available for almost nothing these days, and using one could be a way to
> safely employ a sealed cell in which almost no extra energy from the laser
> recombines the gas a few times per second.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com
> Hi,
>
> At 11350 seconds it suddenly flattens off. The curve after the jump appears
> to
> be a continuation of the curve before 11350 seconds. This gives me the
> impression that something changed at about 11350 seconds which was restored
> during the jump. Perhaps something like a change in conductivity &/or
> bubble
> formation at 11350 seconds that released just before the jump?
>
> >Here is the run overnight with the graphite anode replacing the stainless
> >steel.  That te

RE: [Vo]:One peril of thermometry

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

I don't know if we have a real ratcheting effect or not.  I have it running
like a simple thermostat.  Turns the electrolysis on at a set temp and off
at a set temp.  With this method, you would only see ratcheting if there was
"heat after death."  

 

Yes, that would be the expectation if LENR were involved. 

 

Since you are logging temperature over time, then it should be possible to
determine if there is persistent heat after death by adding an indication on
the chart - of when the power goes on and off; in order to show if -
immediately after shutoff there is some kind of thermal continuity. 

 

Or - are you saying that you have looked for that already, and not seen it
so far? 

 

Actually, it can be noted that the "heat after death" phenomenon - whatever
it really consists of - is certainly involved in the ratcheting mechanism at
a fundamental level . and there are a number or ways that it could show up
in practice, so the thermostat method of control is probably an acceptable
way to see it.

 

This seems to be the beauty of your Android control setup - although I
confess to not understanding exactly how you have implemented it.

 

Jones