Horace Heffner wrote:
is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all to
attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1 . . .
That is an expectation value.
Here you have missed the point entirely. There is no such "expected
value" of energy per helium atom as a function of excess heat power.
Obviously I meant that. Please do not nitpick.
That shows how much helium there would be if the ratio of helium to
heat was 23.82 MeV per reaction, and if every atom of helium were recovered.
Apparently it does not. It shows a ratio of helium to excess power,
not excess heat.
I meant that was the power (or I guess the average power) during the
time it takes to collect the sample of effluent gas. They let the
collection cylinder fill up many times, to purge atmospheric helium.
If this were Arata he would list the energy and time unit, with some
unit that is hard to translate back into power, such as kilojoules
per hour. This is technically correct because of course helium is
proportional to energy not power, but I find it confusing. 60 minutes
time 60 seconds and so on . . . As I recall we have the Mesopotamians
to thank for that. Why we can't have time in base-10 I do not know.
They tried it after the French Revolution but people didn't buy it.
But I digress.
Those are instantaneous power readings taken at different times,
arranged in ascending order.
.
This makes the graph seem nonsensical.
It doesn't seem nonsensical to me. Maybe those are average power
readings during the time they collected the sample. Excess power does
not fluctuate quickly with a Fleischmann Pons bulk palladium cell, so
it could be both.
Quoting the paper, p. 2 and 3:
"Figure 1 presents the results of concurrent excess power and
helium measurements performed during open cell electrolysis using
two different Pd and Pd-alloy cathodes. In three instances where
excess power was measured at statistically significant levels, 4He
also was found to be conveyed out of the cell in the electrolysis
gases (D2 + O2).
This makes total sense.
Good. Next time read the paper before commenting.
This is the part that needs clarification. There is no clear link
established between helium concentration and power produced.
Well, it isn't clear, because helium production is so complicated,
but I think it is a pretty strong case. I would say the whole paper
is an attempt at clarification. A pretty good one at that, but you
can't expect much detail from only 9 pages.
- Jed
