Re: [Vo]:The reaction was not dying off; it was increasing, and it was deliberately quenched
Ron Wormus wrote: > I find the "heat after death" nomenclature to be a bit weird. It is a bit weird. I use it from force of habit. There is some benefit to preserving technical terminology with peculiar etymology or mistaken etymology: you can look up the early papers on the subject. The term remains the same over time, even though it is strange. The classic example is "meteorology" which -- as it turned out -- has nothing to do with meteors. If you want read old papers on the subject or the history of it, keeping the same word is handy. You can see that word was coined around 1750 and peaked during WWII, I expect with British words like "met agency": http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=meteorology&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3 > I think Rossi's "self sustaining mode" is more descriptive. Any idea where > "heat after death" originated? > It is more descriptive. "Heat after death" originated with Fleischmann and Pons, like everything else in this field. They get the blame for everything. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The reaction was not dying off; it was increasing, and it was deliberately quenched
Jed I find the "heat after death" nomenclature to be a bit weird. I think Rossi's "self sustaining mode" is more descriptive. Any idea where "heat after death" originated? Ron --On Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:02 AM -0400 Jed Rothwell wrote: Peter Gluck wrote: The answer to your question can be given only by experiment. I gather the "question" being: Will this system run indefinitely without input power? "Indefinitely" is an indefinite description, meaning I do not know how long it might run. There is no question it would have run longer than 4 hours. Rossi claims his system is absolutely different from all the other LENRs so what happens in an Arata Cell is not valid for the E-cat. The fact that Rossi makes this claim does not prove the claim is true. He does not "own" this reaction in the sense that he can declare what it is or how it works. His opinion has no more authority than, say, that of Piantelli or Storms. In their White Paper, Defkalion claimed that this reaction has nothing to do with cold fusion. All of cold fusion researchers I know disagree with them. It is now the time Rossi should predict the duration of the 1 MW demo- and this cannot be a few hours. There is no indication this will be in heat-after-death mode. The large-scale reactor that supposedly ran in a factory for months was not in heat-after-death mode as far as I know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The reaction was not dying off; it was increasing, and it was deliberately quenched
I agree with what you say, however I cannot believe the story of the factory heated with such an generator. Actually it was a lot of involution in E-cats from the start till now (e.g. O/U from a spectacular 200:1 to a modest 6;1, power form 12 to 3 kW) but so much regress is not believable. Peter On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > > The answer to your question can be given only by experiment. > > > I gather the "question" being: Will this system run indefinitely without > input power? "Indefinitely" is an indefinite description, meaning I do not > know how long it might run. There is no question it would have run longer > than 4 hours. > > > Rossi claims his system is absolutely different >> from all the other LENRs so what happens in an Arata Cell is not valid for >> the E-cat. >> > > The fact that Rossi makes this claim does not prove the claim is true. He > does not "own" this reaction in the sense that he can declare what it is or > how it works. His opinion has no more authority than, say, that of Piantelli > or Storms. > > In their White Paper, Defkalion claimed that this reaction has nothing to > do with cold fusion. All of cold fusion researchers I know disagree with > them. > > > >> It is now the time Rossi should predict the duration of the >> 1 MW demo- and this cannot be a few hours. >> > > There is no indication this will be in heat-after-death mode. The > large-scale reactor that supposedly ran in a factory for months was not in > heat-after-death mode as far as I know. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:The reaction was not dying off; it was increasing, and it was deliberately quenched
Peter Gluck wrote: The answer to your question can be given only by experiment. I gather the "question" being: Will this system run indefinitely without input power? "Indefinitely" is an indefinite description, meaning I do not know how long it might run. There is no question it would have run longer than 4 hours. Rossi claims his system is absolutely different > from all the other LENRs so what happens in an Arata Cell is not valid for > the E-cat. > The fact that Rossi makes this claim does not prove the claim is true. He does not "own" this reaction in the sense that he can declare what it is or how it works. His opinion has no more authority than, say, that of Piantelli or Storms. In their White Paper, Defkalion claimed that this reaction has nothing to do with cold fusion. All of cold fusion researchers I know disagree with them. > It is now the time Rossi should predict the duration of the > 1 MW demo- and this cannot be a few hours. > There is no indication this will be in heat-after-death mode. The large-scale reactor that supposedly ran in a factory for months was not in heat-after-death mode as far as I know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The reaction was not dying off; it was increasing, and it was deliberately quenched
The answer to your question can be given only by experiment. Rossi claims his system is absolutely different from all the other LENRs so what happens in an Arata Cell is not valid for the E-cat. It is now the time Rossi should predict the duration of the 1 MW demo- and this cannot be a few hours. Not he will decide but the mystery Customer who probably will tell his name at the end of the Demo- if it can be considered a success.( like Lohengrin in the aria "In fernen Land") Why so much secrecy? Peter On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jones Beene wrote: > > An individual fat-Cat may run longer than 4 hours on the average run, and >> he >> probably expected at least 8 hours based on the original time schedule. >> But >> also - it was clear (to a few of us) that Rossi had most likely faced this >> exact problem before (rapid die-off) . . . > > > That is incorrect. There was no rapid die off. On the contrary, the power > was increasing before Rossi took steps to turn it off deliberately. Rossi > and Lewan both reported that the cell was de-gassed and the cooling rate > increased to quench the reaction. Rossi told this to Ed Storms and me. Had > Rossi had not de-gassed it, the reaction might have continued indefinitely. > > The reaction was quenched at the request of observers who wanted to look > inside the reactor. > > Similar gas loaded systems such as Arata's have run continuously for weeks. > Gas-loaded powder seems to be remarkably stable material, compared to things > like bulk palladium. > > Horace Heffner and some other people have also mistakenly reported that the > reaction died off on its own. Lewan's report clearly states that is not what > happened. > > > There is no indication how long a putative quiescent period would be before >> another hot run is possible. > > > I have heard it usually turns on faster than this. There is no indication > that heat after death needs to die off before it is triggered again, in a > "quiescent period." As far as I know, no one has reported that. Where did > you hear that a "quiescent period" is needed? > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:The reaction was not dying off; it was increasing, and it was deliberately quenched
Jones Beene wrote: An individual fat-Cat may run longer than 4 hours on the average run, and he > probably expected at least 8 hours based on the original time schedule. But > also - it was clear (to a few of us) that Rossi had most likely faced this > exact problem before (rapid die-off) . . . That is incorrect. There was no rapid die off. On the contrary, the power was increasing before Rossi took steps to turn it off deliberately. Rossi and Lewan both reported that the cell was de-gassed and the cooling rate increased to quench the reaction. Rossi told this to Ed Storms and me. Had Rossi had not de-gassed it, the reaction might have continued indefinitely. The reaction was quenched at the request of observers who wanted to look inside the reactor. Similar gas loaded systems such as Arata's have run continuously for weeks. Gas-loaded powder seems to be remarkably stable material, compared to things like bulk palladium. Horace Heffner and some other people have also mistakenly reported that the reaction died off on its own. Lewan's report clearly states that is not what happened. There is no indication how long a putative quiescent period would be before > another hot run is possible. I have heard it usually turns on faster than this. There is no indication that heat after death needs to die off before it is triggered again, in a "quiescent period." As far as I know, no one has reported that. Where did you hear that a "quiescent period" is needed? - Jed
