In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:31:38 -0500: Hi Jed, [snip] >3. Not all chemical explanations for the excess heat were eliminated. > >Correction: All chemical explanations for the excess heat were eliminated >long before Fleischmann and Pons went public 1989. The cold fusion effect
If you classify Hydrino production as chemical energy, then it's true that "not all chemical explanations for the excess heat were eliminated". Hydrogen is the one thing present in all experiments. Hydrino production could produce sufficient heat with no nuclear signature. It could also produce a nuclear signature in some circumstances, which may be approximately commensurate with the excess heat, but need not be. >4. Excess power was only a few percent more than the power applied, >suggesting that measurement errors could account for the purported net energy. > >Correction: Excess power has ranged up to 300% when input power was >supplied. In gas loading and heat after death experiments, there is no >input power, so any detectable output heat comes from cold fusion, since >there are, as noted above, no chemical changes in the cells, and no >chemical fuel. See above. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
