Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:

I sent a copy of my translation of Songsheng Jiang's paper to him for
> review.  He found a couple of typos and a couple other small things to
> revise. . . .
>

Thanks again!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[H LV]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
>> The 'self-sustaining' phase that follows represents the release of energy 
>> which was being stored while the power was on.
>
> Harry - If you are talking about Fig2 - the May run, that conclusion is not 
> supported by the facts, since --- when the power was turned off - the heat 
> first increased for hours, which cannot easily happen from a stored source, 
> and then continued on for ~60 more hours at a significant rate - without the 
> slightest reduction. (according to the chart).
>
>
> OTOH - it was brain-dead for the Jiang team to then try to restart the heater 
> at that point - if the experimenters knew the unpowered gain was continuing. 
> They should have let the gain subside first before restarting.
>
>
> By not letting the gain subside, they tacitly could be admitting that it was 
> a relic of measurement, instead of reliable data.

Maybe. The problem is they don't explain why they restarted it.
Perhaps they were anxious to repeat the  'excess heat' phase.

You seem to approach scientific 'wrong doing' according to the
principles and procedures of criminal justice. There is another
approach
to approach to 'wrong doing' known as restorative justice.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Vibrator !]

Calorimetry, external TC's and OT for internal temps would provide a fuller
picture.  K-type TC's typically contain nickel so have a low Curie point
and are often only rated up to 185°C anyway.  I also suspect they may be
susceptible to photoelectric induction since what they actually sense is
EMF, which is then presumed as thermoelectric in origin even though it may
not be.

An optical reading is both more accurate, and less ambiguous in the
interpretation of results.



On Tuesday, March 1, 2016, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Vibrator !  > wrote:
>
> Can't help thinking optical thermometry would be preferable since it's
>> impervious to heat damage...  assuming the steel currently used for
>> chambers is entirely incidental to the reaction, a transparent ceramic
>> would would allow direct observation - if not for the whole chamber, then
>> at least a via a small window...
>>
>
> Optical thermometry has the disadvantage of no one believing that the
> results are accurate.  Part of the difficulty is that the total power is a
> function of the fourth power of the temperature, so that you'd better get
> the temperature exactly right.  Getting the emissivity of the object under
> test exactly right is also important and something people will argue about
> for years, as in the case of the Lugano E-Cat test.
>
> In light of such issues, proper calorimetry seems like a saner way to go.
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: H LV 

> The 'self-sustaining' phase that follows represents the release of energy 
> which was being stored while the power was on.

Harry - If you are talking about Fig2 - the May run, that conclusion is not 
supported by the facts, since --- when the power was turned off - the heat 
first increased for hours, which cannot easily happen from a stored source, and 
then continued on for ~60 more hours at a significant rate - without the 
slightest reduction. (according to the chart).

OTOH - it was brain-dead for the Jiang team to then try to restart the heater 
at that point - if the experimenters knew the unpowered gain was continuing. 
They should have let the gain subside first before restarting. 

By not letting the gain subside, they tacitly could be admitting that it was a 
relic of measurement, instead of reliable data.

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Alain Sepeda]

(about 2nd november experiment, fig3)
When I look at T4, at pressure, compared to input power, it seems there is
something weird happening.

does anybody know what causes the increase of pressure just when power is
slightly stepped ? about 14:00-14:15...
I suspect it is just heat ? since all other chemical reaction happened, and
since loading was happening until then.

from startup of the heating 8:30 to 9:30 it seems there is a delay of heat
from power to T4 of one hour, but from the little step of power and
pressure at 14:00 it seems much less...

note that if you imagine it is not LENR this second event looks absurd...
T4 cannot raise so fast, so much, compared to the 1400W initial powerstep .
chemical or LENR, there is something big happening at 14:00+.

people ask for calibration, let us assume the first part of the curve
before 14:00 is calibration around 1400W... after there is a rodeo.

about T1/T2 we have to consider failure is possible before the official
time.

Is it right to say, like Pr Songsheng, that when failing TC underestimate
temperature?

If so this makes T2 curve logical from 14:00 to the end.
Maybe T2 since 14:00 event  is toasted and playing yoyo, at above 1350,
displaying underestimated or very undersestimated temperature depending on
it's state. what we see is more T2 health state (bad or very bad), and not
a temperature

what is strange is T1, but a proxy for T2 is maybe the pressure after
heating.

maybe did the heating only happen from 14:00 to 14:30 when poweroff.
if so, T1 just represent the cooling period.

in that case T2 is hard to explain, except to assume that it shows higher
temperature than real (is it possible?)


my naive analysis,
1- T4 and pressure prove something anomalous happened. question is chemical
or LENR. amount and temperature point seems to exclude chemistry.
2- there is two alternative possibilities :
   a- an LENr event lasting half and hour until power is stopped, or
pressure go down, have toasted T2, and then T1 with T4 show heat
dissipation of that event
   b- an LENR event lasting few hours after poweroff maintained T2 above
1350C, while T1 is slowly dying because of overheating

where it I miss a point?

anyway, with stronger TC this seems a good candidate for an opposable
evidence.


2016-03-01 7:31 GMT+01:00 H LV :

> From Jiang's paper (courtesy Bob Higgins translation):

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[H LV]

>From Jiang's paper (courtesy Bob Higgins translation):

"How could T1 and T2 temperatures differ by so much? This is because
thermocouple T1 is in
the atmosphere, and is easily equilibrated to room temperature. T2 is
located in a sealed stainless
steel vessel, and the gas inside the vessel is at a very low pressure,
near vacuum, having better
insulating properties like a thermos."

Jiang wrote this to explain the temperature difference during the
phase labeled 'self-sustaining' in the first run,
but I think it also explains the temperature difference during the
phase labeled 'excess heat' when the power was on.
T2 is hotter in the 'on' phase because it is located in a vessel where
heat can't escape to the air by convection. Therefore, the reactor
is not generating heat at this time so it would be incorrect to call
this 'excess heat'.

The 'self-sustaining' phase that follows represents the release of
energy which was being stored while the power was on.
When the power is on I would call this the charging phase. The large
fluctuations in T2 during the charging phase indicate the storage
process is volatile. (All this assumes T2 is reliable throughout the run.)

Harry


On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:
> I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the
> trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google
> translate just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate
> version, you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and
> in fact, there were some gems hidden in there.
>
> For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U
>
> Bob Higgins
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:


> > http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/japan-population/
>
> Median age of 53 by 2050?!
>

Yup. It is 47 now. The trends for the next 20 years are demographically
irreversible. People could start having babies like mad and the population
would still fall, with the overhang of elderly people who are past
childbearing age. However, all projections after that are meaningless, in
my opinion. Demographers there assume that the fertility rate will remain
low. Perhaps it will, but that is no some kind law of nature!

People can start having children anytime they want. You could see six
children per family 15 years from now. (That's how long it takes to have 6
children.) Nothing stops Japanese people from marrying young and having
children the way they used to. There is plenty of money and plenty of room
there for large families. Much more room with larger houses than there was
in the 1970s.

People do not have children because they don't want to. They could change
their minds at any time. It would help if government and corporate policy
encouraged childbearing but from the point of view of parents, and
especially women, it is as if the society is doing all that it can to
discourage people from having children. That despite all the blather to the
contrary. I knew many married couples in Japan of my age and younger, and I
know this to be the case.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Vibrator !  wrote:

Can't help thinking optical thermometry would be preferable since it's
> impervious to heat damage...  assuming the steel currently used for
> chambers is entirely incidental to the reaction, a transparent ceramic
> would would allow direct observation - if not for the whole chamber, then
> at least a via a small window...
>

Optical thermometry has the disadvantage of no one believing that the
results are accurate.  Part of the difficulty is that the total power is a
function of the fourth power of the temperature, so that you'd better get
the temperature exactly right.  Getting the emissivity of the object under
test exactly right is also important and something people will argue about
for years, as in the case of the Lugano E-Cat test.

In light of such issues, proper calorimetry seems like a saner way to go.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[H LV]

Wow! How many languages do you know?
harry

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:
> I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the
> trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google
> translate just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate
> version, you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and
> in fact, there were some gems hidden in there.
>
> For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U
>
> Bob Higgins
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Bob Higgins]

T3 is not connected.

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> T1 is in an air gap apparently.  Possibly that could make more sense.
>>
>
> Let's see . . . You mean it is installed in the middle of the "T-Bone"
> shaped reactor, in the air gap between the reactor and the "DC Power"
> heaters (shown in orange). I guess it is touching the reactor.
>
> The DC Power heaters are inside of a stainless steel tank, which seems to
> be hollow, and is stuffed with MgO insulation. T4 is on the outer wall of
> the steel tank. That seems like a good location to me. I expect the outer
> wall temperature is uniform. It would be good to confirm that with an IR
> sensor (optical thermometer).
>
> I don't know where T3 is. Probably at the end of the reactor which is out
> in the air, protruding from the steel tank.
>
> Is there a photo of this somewhere? I don't recall. I will look at his
> earlier paper. I think the configuration has not changed much. It has the
> same problems, with the T2 thermocouple burning out, I guess from the high
> temperatures and perhaps from the hydrogen atmosphere.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[H LV]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>
>> I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the
>> trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.
>
>
> That's very helpful. Thank you!
>
> I did not know you speak Chinese. I suppose that is more in demand in the
> 21st century than Japanese. I should have known! Japan's population is
> gradually falling, falling, falling . . .
>
> http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/japan-population/

Median age of 53 by 2050?!

Harry

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Russ George]

Perhaps a Fisher polyneutron would reveal itself in a 'beta shower' that the
NaI instrument would see.

 

From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowals...@mail.montclair.edu] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

 

I am not familiar with new experimental results. Dr Fisher said he will
publish a new report, before the end of 2015. But he didn't I hope he is OK.

 

Ludwik

==

 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:57 PM, Russ George wrote:





Ludwik, What's your opinion of Fisher's polyneutrons these days? 

 

From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowals...@mail.montclair.edu] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

 

I suppose that at least one member of the Chinese Team

 is following this thread. If not then perhaps someone will be willing to
send them an invitation. It would be useful to be able to ask questions.

 

Ludwik

===

 

 

Ludwik Kowalski. 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:17 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:






Thank you very very much, to both you, Jed, and others.

 

Ludwik

=

 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:






I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the
trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google
translate just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate
version, you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and
in fact, there were some gems hidden in there.

For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U 

Bob Higgins

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Russ George]

His 'alpha' showers seem to be about the same number of events as the recent
MFMP Bremstrahlung.

 

From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowals...@mail.montclair.edu] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

 

I am not familiar with new experimental results. Dr Fisher said he will
publish a new report, before the end of 2015. But he didn't I hope he is OK.

 

Ludwik

==

 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:57 PM, Russ George wrote:





Ludwik, What's your opinion of Fisher's polyneutrons these days? 

 

From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowals...@mail.montclair.edu] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

 

I suppose that at least one member of the Chinese Team

 is following this thread. If not then perhaps someone will be willing to
send them an invitation. It would be useful to be able to ask questions.

 

Ludwik

===

 

 

Ludwik Kowalski. 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:17 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:






Thank you very very much, to both you, Jed, and others.

 

Ludwik

=

 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:






I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the
trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google
translate just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate
version, you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and
in fact, there were some gems hidden in there.

For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U 

Bob Higgins

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Ludwik Kowalski]

I am not familiar with new experimental results. Dr Fisher said he will publish 
a new report, before the end of 2015. But he didn't I hope he is OK.

Ludwik
==


On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:57 PM, Russ George wrote:

> Ludwik, What’s your opinion of Fisher’s polyneutrons these days?
>  
> From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowals...@mail.montclair.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:38 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese
> 
>  
> I suppose that at least one member of the Chinese Team
>  is following this thread. If not then perhaps someone will be willing to 
> send them an invitation. It would be useful to be able to ask questions.
>  
> Ludwik
> ===
>  
>  
> Ludwik Kowalski. 
>  
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:17 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
> 
> 
> Thank you very very much, to both you, Jed, and others.
>  
> Ludwik
> =
>  
>  
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
> 
> 
> I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the 
> trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google translate 
> just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate version, 
> you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and in fact, 
> there were some gems hidden in there.
> 
> For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U
> 
> Bob Higgins
>  
>  
>  

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Russ George]

Ludwik, What's your opinion of Fisher's polyneutrons these days? 

 

From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowals...@mail.montclair.edu] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

 

I suppose that at least one member of the Chinese Team

 is following this thread. If not then perhaps someone will be willing to
send them an invitation. It would be useful to be able to ask questions.

 

Ludwik

===

 

 

Ludwik Kowalski. 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:17 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:





Thank you very very much, to both you, Jed, and others.

 

Ludwik

=

 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:





I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the
trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google
translate just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate
version, you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and
in fact, there were some gems hidden in there.

For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U 

Bob Higgins

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Russ George]

As a cold fusion experimentalist it is astonishing to see such experiments 
being done with so few thermocouples. They are incredibly cheap and using many 
for redundancy purposes is just common sense.  It used to be that the data 
channels were in short supply but these days many data channels is also very 
available. Thermocouples commonly fail for many reasons, especially when 
pushing their limits. Sigh :(  Even if data channels are few just add extra 
thermocouples and manually switch the wiring to redundants if one fails! It 
takes but a moment.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

 

I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the trouble 
to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google translate just 
wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate version, you skip 
over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and in fact, there were 
some gems hidden in there.

For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U 

Bob Higgins

 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:

I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the
> trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.
>

That's very helpful. Thank you!

I did not know you speak Chinese. I suppose that is more in demand in the
21st century than Japanese. I should have known! Japan's population is
gradually falling, falling, falling . . .

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/japan-population/

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:


> Ok, but if there was so much more heat being produced in the reactor
> why is T1 dropping so quickly while T4 is gradually rising?
>

Well, there was that last burst of internal heat, ~24 minutes long, shown
by T1 and T2. I suppose that threw the system out of equilibrium. The
surface has to finish warming up from the hot internal temperature.

But that does not make sense, because T4 jumps up suddenly, at 14:00.

It did occur to me that perhaps it is being warmed by some sort of
emission. X-rays or something.

I do not think it could be one spot that is getting hot. It is stainless
steel which conducts heat rapidly. If it were one spot that is briefly
heated up by something like a laser, the temperature would jump straight up
like this. But then as soon as the laser stopped that spot would cool down
as heat is conducted to the rest of the stainless steel outer surface.

I don't know what to make of it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Ludwik Kowalski]

I suppose that at least one member of the Chinese Team
 is following this thread. If not then perhaps someone will be willing to send 
them an invitation. It would be useful to be able to ask questions.

Ludwik
===


Ludwik Kowalski. 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:17 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> Thank you very very much, to both you, Jed, and others.
> 
> Ludwik
> =
> 
> 
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
> 
>> I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the 
>> trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google 
>> translate just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate 
>> version, you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and 
>> in fact, there were some gems hidden in there.
>> 
>> For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive
>> 
>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U 
>> 
>> Bob Higgins
>> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Thank you very very much, to both you, Jed, and others.

Ludwik
=


On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

> I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the 
> trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google translate 
> just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate version, 
> you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and in fact, 
> there were some gems hidden in there.
> 
> For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U 
> 
> Bob Higgins
> 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Bob Higgins]

I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the
trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google
translate just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google
translate version, you skip over things that Google didn't translate well
enough - and in fact, there were some gems hidden in there.

For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Ludwik Kowalski]

On Feb 29, 2016, at 8:33 PM, H LV wrote: " ... The softest x-rays are stopped 
by air."

Sorry for nit-picking. I would not say "stopped by air."  I would say "loose 
energy mostly by photoelectric and Compton collisions with oxygen and nitrogen 
atoms, in air." 

Ludwik
==

> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If x-ray "warming" is taking place then we are at the very simple 'dead 
>> graduate student' test phase.. a dose of radiation capable of warming 
>> anything is surely lethal so just look into the lab and count the number of 
>> dead grad students lying on the floor, any number greater than 0 means a 
>> dramatic nuclear process in hand :(
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 5:15 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
>>>> 
>>>> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
>>>> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at
>>> around time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes
>>> before.) T4 suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>>> 
>>> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like
>>> delayed dissipation to me.
>>> 
>>> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the
>>> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for
>>> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached
>>> with adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside
>>> temperature might change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such
>>> changes to the cell during a test.
>>> 
>>> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after
>>> the power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising
>>> at a steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not
>>> have leveled off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell
>>> continued in a stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2
>>> was working correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal 
>>> temperature.
>>> 
>>> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It
>>> happens at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I
>>> think that T1 and
>>> T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly
>>> increased. T1 continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
>>> 
>>> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase
>>> shown by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to
>>> that increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would
>>> be a continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does
>>> after the initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.
>> 
>> Ok, but if there was so much more heat being produced in the reactor why is 
>> T1 dropping so quickly while T4 is gradually rising?
>> Maybe the surface (see the diagram) on which the sensor was mounted was 
>> warmed by a burst of xrays.
>> 
>> harry
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[H LV]

The term x-ray covers a wide range of em energies. The softest x-rays
are stopped by air.

Harry

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If x-ray "warming" is taking place then we are at the very simple 'dead 
> graduate student' test phase.. a dose of radiation capable of warming 
> anything is surely lethal so just look into the lab and count the number of 
> dead grad students lying on the floor, any number greater than 0 means a 
> dramatic nuclear process in hand :(
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 5:15 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
>>>
>>> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
>>> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
>>
>>
>> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at
>> around time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes
>> before.) T4 suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>>
>> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like
>> delayed dissipation to me.
>>
>> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the
>> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for
>> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached
>> with adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside
>> temperature might change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such
>> changes to the cell during a test.
>>
>> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after
>> the power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising
>> at a steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not
>> have leveled off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell
>> continued in a stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2
>> was working correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal 
>> temperature.
>>
>> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It
>> happens at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I
>> think that T1 and
>> T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly
>> increased. T1 continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
>>
>> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase
>> shown by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to
>> that increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would
>> be a continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does
>> after the initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.
>
> Ok, but if there was so much more heat being produced in the reactor why is 
> T1 dropping so quickly while T4 is gradually rising?
> Maybe the surface (see the diagram) on which the sensor was mounted was 
> warmed by a burst of xrays.
>
> harry
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Russ George]

If x-ray "warming" is taking place then we are at the very simple 'dead 
graduate student' test phase.. a dose of radiation capable of warming anything 
is surely lethal so just look into the lab and count the number of dead grad 
students lying on the floor, any number greater than 0 means a dramatic nuclear 
process in hand :(

-Original Message-
From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 5:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
>>
>> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed 
>> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
>
>
> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at 
> around time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes 
> before.) T4 suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>
> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like 
> delayed dissipation to me.
>
> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the 
> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for 
> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached 
> with adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside 
> temperature might change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such 
> changes to the cell during a test.
>
> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after 
> the power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising 
> at a steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not 
> have leveled off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell 
> continued in a stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2 
> was working correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal 
> temperature.
>
> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It 
> happens at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I 
> think that T1 and
> T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly 
> increased. T1 continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
>
> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase 
> shown by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to 
> that increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would 
> be a continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does 
> after the initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.

Ok, but if there was so much more heat being produced in the reactor why is T1 
dropping so quickly while T4 is gradually rising?
Maybe the surface (see the diagram) on which the sensor was mounted was warmed 
by a burst of xrays.

harry

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[H LV]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> H LV  wrote:
>
>> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
>>
>> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
>> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
>
>
> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at around
> time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes before.) T4
> suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>
> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like delayed
> dissipation to me.
>
> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the
> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for
> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached with
> adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside temperature might
> change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such changes to the cell during a
> test.
>
> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after the
> power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising at a
> steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not have leveled
> off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell continued in a
> stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2 was working
> correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal temperature.
>
> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It happens
> at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I think that T1 and
> T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly increased. T1
> continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
>
> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase shown
> by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to that
> increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would be a
> continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does after the
> initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.

Ok, but if there was so much more heat being produced in the reactor
why is T1 dropping so quickly while T4 is gradually rising?
Maybe the surface (see the diagram) on which the sensor was mounted
was warmed by a burst of xrays.

harry

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Vibrator !]

Calorimetry's the last word of course, and yes the data from the external
TC's is exciting.  My point about optical thermometry though was that it's
possible to have a window into the reactor (using transparent ceramics) and
so read the internal light...   no doubt Rossi or others have already tried
this, but it would also allow sampling the full spectrum along with the
IR..  there could even be revealing microwave or x-ray activity..

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Vibrator !  wrote:
>
> Can't help thinking optical thermometry would be preferable since it's
>> impervious to heat damage...
>>
>
> But you can't use it for the inside thermocouples, and the outside one
> (T4) is at moderate temperatures peaking at 167°C. There is no way that
> temperature could cause damage. Plus I am sure it is hot enough that room
> temperature fluctuations are not affecting it much.
>
> At this point I would say T4 is the best evidence for anomalous heat.
>
> Mizuno thinks someone should run this kind of cell with an air flow
> calorimeter. That is a large, well-insulated box with the cell installed in
> it. Air is blown through the box, with thermocouples measuring the air
> temperature at the inlet and outlet, and an anemometer. This is how HVAC
> engineers measure the performance of space heating furnaces. See:
>
> http://www.calright.com/an_introduction_to_anemometers_
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Sorry for my last comment; I was thought I were commenting on VORTEX's earlier 
post.
On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> 1) Suppose a wish list is composed, containing suggested technological 
> innovations for Artificial Intelligence (AI) robots. Would such a list be 
> useful to leaders of technology?
> 
> 2) My first  wish would be a computer operating system (OS) which allows for 
> at least three hundred of "human undo steps, no matter how many buttons were 
> pressed, and how many different applications are involved.
> 
> 3) And my second wish would be a mind-reading OS.
> 
> Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> 
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> 
>> Can't help thinking optical thermometry would be preferable since it's 
>> impervious to heat damage...  assuming the steel currently used for chambers 
>> is entirely incidental to the reaction, a transparent ceramic would would 
>> allow direct observation - if not for the whole chamber, then at least a via 
>> a small window... 
>> 
>> For example Perlucor is stable up to 1,600 c and 3-4x stronger than glass:
>> 
>> https://www.ceramtec.com/perlucor/
>> 
>> 
>> You'd think it'd be practical to fabricate a whole test chamber from this 
>> stuff..
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> H LV  wrote:
>> 
>> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
>> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
>> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
>> 
>> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at around 
>> time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes before.) T4 
>> suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>> 
>> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like delayed 
>> dissipation to me.
>> 
>> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the 
>> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for 
>> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached with 
>> adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside temperature might 
>> change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such changes to the cell during a 
>> test.
>> 
>> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after the 
>> power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising at a 
>> steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not have leveled 
>> off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell continued in a 
>> stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2 was working 
>> correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal temperature.
>> 
>> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It happens 
>> at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I think that T1 and 
>> T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly increased. T1 
>> continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
>> 
>> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase shown 
>> by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to that 
>> increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would be a 
>> continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does after the 
>> initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.
>> 
>> - Jed
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:

T1 is in an air gap apparently.  Possibly that could make more sense.
>

Let's see . . . You mean it is installed in the middle of the "T-Bone"
shaped reactor, in the air gap between the reactor and the "DC Power"
heaters (shown in orange). I guess it is touching the reactor.

The DC Power heaters are inside of a stainless steel tank, which seems to
be hollow, and is stuffed with MgO insulation. T4 is on the outer wall of
the steel tank. That seems like a good location to me. I expect the outer
wall temperature is uniform. It would be good to confirm that with an IR
sensor (optical thermometer).

I don't know where T3 is. Probably at the end of the reactor which is out
in the air, protruding from the steel tank.

Is there a photo of this somewhere? I don't recall. I will look at his
earlier paper. I think the configuration has not changed much. It has the
same problems, with the T2 thermocouple burning out, I guess from the high
temperatures and perhaps from the hydrogen atmosphere.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jed Rothwell]

Vibrator !  wrote:

Can't help thinking optical thermometry would be preferable since it's
> impervious to heat damage...
>

But you can't use it for the inside thermocouples, and the outside one (T4)
is at moderate temperatures peaking at 167°C. There is no way that
temperature could cause damage. Plus I am sure it is hot enough that room
temperature fluctuations are not affecting it much.

At this point I would say T4 is the best evidence for anomalous heat.

Mizuno thinks someone should run this kind of cell with an air flow
calorimeter. That is a large, well-insulated box with the cell installed in
it. Air is blown through the box, with thermocouples measuring the air
temperature at the inlet and outlet, and an anemometer. This is how HVAC
engineers measure the performance of space heating furnaces. See:

http://www.calright.com/an_introduction_to_anemometers_

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jack Cole]

T1 is in an air gap apparently.  Possibly that could make more sense.

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:49 PM Jack Cole  wrote:

> Jed, I thought the same when looking at the graphs.  It doesn't make much
> sense.  He needs to get some better control over the input power to keep
> from burning up his TCs.
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:13 PM Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> H LV  wrote:
>>
>> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
>>
>> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
>>> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
>>>
>>
>> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at around
>> time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes before.) T4
>> suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>>
>> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like
>> delayed dissipation to me.
>>
>> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the
>> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for
>> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached with
>> adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside temperature might
>> change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such changes to the cell during
>> a test.
>>
>> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after the
>> power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising at a
>> steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not have leveled
>> off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell continued in a
>> stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2 was working
>> correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal temperature.
>>
>> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It
>> happens at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I think
>> that T1 and T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly
>> increased. T1 continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
>>
>> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase
>> shown by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to that
>> increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would be a
>> continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does after the
>> initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Ludwik Kowalski]

1) Suppose a wish list is composed, containing suggested technological 
innovations for Artificial Intelligence (AI) robots. Would such a list be 
useful to leaders of technology?

2) My first  wish would be a computer operating system (OS) which allows for at 
least three hundreds of "human undo steps, no matter how many buttons were 
pressed, and how many different applications are involved.

3) And my second wish would be a mind read-reading OS.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)



On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:

On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:

> Can't help thinking optical thermometry would be preferable since it's 
> impervious to heat damage...  assuming the steel currently used for chambers 
> is entirely incidental to the reaction, a transparent ceramic would would 
> allow direct observation - if not for the whole chamber, then at least a via 
> a small window... 
> 
> For example Perlucor is stable up to 1,600 c and 3-4x stronger than glass:
> 
> https://www.ceramtec.com/perlucor/
> 
> 
> You'd think it'd be practical to fabricate a whole test chamber from this 
> stuff..
> 
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> H LV  wrote:
> 
> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
> 
> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at around time 
> 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes before.) T4 suddenly pops 
> up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
> 
> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like delayed 
> dissipation to me.
> 
> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the 
> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for 
> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached with 
> adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside temperature might 
> change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such changes to the cell during a 
> test.
> 
> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after the power 
> is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising at a steady pace 
> for a while, then it would drop off. It would not have leveled off after 
> 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell continued in a stable 
> condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2 was working correctly. So 
> there was no large increase in the internal temperature.
> 
> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It happens 
> at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I think that T1 and 
> T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly increased. T1 
> continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
> 
> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase shown 
> by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to that 
> increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would be a 
> continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does after the 
> initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.
> 
> - Jed
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Vibrator !]

Can't help thinking optical thermometry would be preferable since it's
impervious to heat damage...  assuming the steel currently used for
chambers is entirely incidental to the reaction, a transparent ceramic
would would allow direct observation - if not for the whole chamber, then
at least a via a small window...

For example Perlucor is stable up to 1,600 c and 3-4x stronger than glass:

https://www.ceramtec.com/perlucor/


You'd think it'd be practical to fabricate a whole test chamber from this
stuff..

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
>
> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
>> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
>>
>
> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at around
> time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes before.) T4
> suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>
> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like delayed
> dissipation to me.
>
> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the
> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for
> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached with
> adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside temperature might
> change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such changes to the cell during
> a test.
>
> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after the
> power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising at a
> steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not have leveled
> off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell continued in a
> stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2 was working
> correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal temperature.
>
> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It
> happens at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I think
> that T1 and T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly
> increased. T1 continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
>
> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase
> shown by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to that
> increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would be a
> continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does after the
> initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jack Cole]

Jed, I thought the same when looking at the graphs.  It doesn't make much
sense.  He needs to get some better control over the input power to keep
from burning up his TCs.

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:13 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
>
> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
>> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
>>
>
> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at around
> time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes before.) T4
> suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>
> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like delayed
> dissipation to me.
>
> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the
> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for
> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached with
> adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside temperature might
> change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such changes to the cell during
> a test.
>
> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after the
> power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising at a
> steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not have leveled
> off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell continued in a
> stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2 was working
> correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal temperature.
>
> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It
> happens at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I think
> that T1 and T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly
> increased. T1 continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
>
> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase
> shown by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to that
> increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would be a
> continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does after the
> initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The

rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
>

I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at around
time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes before.) T4
suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.

Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like delayed
dissipation to me.

Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the
dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for
example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached with
adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside temperature might
change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such changes to the cell during
a test.

If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after the
power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising at a
steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not have leveled
off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell continued in a
stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2 was working
correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal temperature.

Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It happens
at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I think that T1 and
T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly increased. T1
continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.

I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase shown
by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to that
increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would be a
continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does after the
initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[H LV]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

 >for the second run, shows a similar pattern, with T1 falling
> steadily and monotonically after the power is turned off, while T2 goes
> bananas. However, this graph also shows T4 increasing after the power turns
> off. T4 is mounted on the outside of the MgO insulation. It rises from 110°C
> up to 167°C. That could not be the effect of room temperature changes. It
> does look like anomalous heat being generated inside the cell.

Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

Figure 2, for the second run, shows a similar pattern . . .
>

ARRRGGH! I meant *Figure 3* for the second run.

I wish I could fix these messages.

Fig. 1. Configuration
Fig. 2. First run, showing T1 and T2 readings. But not T4.
Fig. 3. Second run, showing T1, T2 and T4.

I wish he had shown T4 in both graphs. I will ask him for the data.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Thermocouple T2 on the outside of the cell does not show self-sustaining
> anomalous heat after power is turned off. It falls smoothly and
> monotonically.
>

Oops. I meant T1 on the outside of the cell, sandwiched between the cell
and the the MgO thermal insulation material. It does fluctuate up and down
during the run, but after the power is turned of it falls monotonically. If
this were real excess heat T1 would track T2 more closely, instead of
falling the way it does.

I refer here to Fig. 1.

Figure 2, for the second run, shows a similar pattern, with T1 falling
steadily and monotonically after the power is turned off, while T2 goes
bananas. However, this graph also shows T4 increasing after the power turns
off. T4 is mounted on the outside of the MgO insulation. It rises from
110°C up to 167°C. That could not be the effect of room temperature
changes. It does look like anomalous heat being generated inside the cell.

The thermocouples T1, T2 and T4 do not agree with one another. They do not
track the same pattern. This is not what I would expect to see with real
anomalous heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jed Rothwell]

I am sorry to say this, but it looks to me like Jiang had the same problem
this time as last time. The T2 thermocouple in the center of the cell
overheated. It exceeded the 1372°C limit for that device. It probably did
this early in the experiment on May 4. After that it is erratic, and I do
not trust the readings. Thermocouple T2 on the outside of the cell does not
show self-sustaining anomalous heat after power is turned off. It falls
smoothly and monotonically.

At the end it says "T2 destroyed." I suspect it was destroyed earlier.

This is shown in Fig. 2. The configuration is in Fig. 1.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jones Beene]

The long period of self-sustained heat is exactly what everyone wants to see. 

 

This is what we were hoping to see from MFMP, due to all the buildup. Perhaps 
it will happen this time for Alan and Mark.

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

See:

 

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/520-20160301-125433238-pdf/?s=3a03aad919292f429f6fa5106e356d459314aa42

 

The abstract is in English, and Google translate does a pretty good job of 
translating the whole paper. Go to:

 

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN 

 
=en=y=_t=en=UTF-8=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-forum.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%2FAttachment%2F520-20160301-125433238-pdf%2F%3Fs%3D3a03aad919292f429f6fa5106e356d459314aa42=