On Feb 25, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
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.
Never!! 8^) Well, maybe sometimes.
Jed, that is only one sentence that makes sense without further
explanation, not the whole paper or even just the graph.
I think this issue was well worth discussing, and I feel totally
justified in discussing it at even a superficial level since the
question had been put the list. It seemed to me reasonable to
comment on the obvious elephant in the room because it appeared there
was a present tendency to ignore it.
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.
Again I think you miss my point, or I didn't make it clear. I agree
there is a good case for helium production. There is even some
support for sporadic proportional heat to helium production. The
point was in regard to the sensibility of the graph axes and the
green line. The complexity of helium production and even measurement
is a side issue.
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
So true. It seems to me most scientific papers leave out critical
details or explanations. I think writers are too close to their own
thoughts, assumptions, and expectations, and don't even realize what
has been left out or what help the reader might need for easy
comprehension. When I read my stuff after it has aged I'm amazed at
the critical things I left unsaid, how far what I actually said was
from the meaning I intended to convey, and how many ways my remarks
could be easily misinterpreted.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
