No, your conclusion is both wrong and short-sighted - and apparently you
forgot to actually look at the data and go on memory.
The data in the last Table shows that in run 2, 5.5 MJ of input was
unaccounted for and could have been stored. You clearly missed that, but
it is the tip of the iceberg.
The data says nothing about ongoing nuclear changes which could have
reduced the apparent gain in those runs with apparent gain - therefore
in all seven runs, there could have been both exotherm and endotherm
taking place in the same electrode, such that stored nuclear changes
were absorbing some of the gain which was occurring with a delay from
prior stored changes.
I assume you had read this report years ago but please try reread the
papers again before making unjustified conclusions. But you main error
is the assumption that the entire electrode is either in an endothermic
phase or exothermic, when it is much more complicated and both phases
can take place simultaneously, with only the net effect being recorded.
Jones
On 6/6/2017 8:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beenewrote:
Any calorimeter that can measure a positive exothermic reaction
of X watts can measure an endothermic reaction of -X watts
equally well.
Energy storage is ruled out.
Not really ruled out. Let's be exact: energy storage by the
conventional chemical redox reaction is and always has been ruled
out - OK - we can go that far.
You are missing the point. Energy storage is ruled out because _the
data shows that no energy was stored_. The balance was zero. There was
no endothermic phase. There would have to be such a phase if energy
was stored. It would have to show up in the calorimeter data. The
negative signal would be stronger than the positive signal that
followed during the exothermic phase, because the endothermic phase
would be shorter.
- Jed
