On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Cude>>In slide 7 of that pdf that Lomax pointed to, the current density is shut off at about 610 (units?) and the excess power immediately goes to zero. Rothwell> This cell is not in heat after death. Other cells have been. That's what I said. I was commenting on the data Lomax referred to, and said the immediate drop in power seemed implausible if it was from D-Pd, especially because other experiments claim heat after death. > When I tell there are red birds, do not point to black ones and say that proves red ones do not exist. Maybe you weren't paying attention. Lomax referred to the Mckubre data in a particular pdf on your site, and I said in that data, which is held in such high regard, it doesn't make sense that the power drops so quickly when the current is shut off, particularly in light of heat after death claims. I never denied heat after death. > >the red excess power data points overlap the green current density line as they both fall to zero. Am I reading that graph wrong? > No, you are looking at the wrong graph. Look at one that shows heat after death. We were discussing a particular experiment in a particular report. Is there a graph in that report of that 1994 experiment that reports heat after death? >> If that had been shown already, and given that scientists are in general not convinced of CF, you could not have made that statement. > Most of the scientists I have encountered who are not convinced have never heard of heat after death. Unequivocal revolutions have a way of getting around. If no scientist could possibly deny the results, then they would not keep mum about it. The DOE panel would have heard about it, but they were not convinced. So that contradicts your statement. Sixty minutes at least, considering they were pretty sympathetic, might have mentioned it. But on a show advocating CF, with consultants like McKubre and Dardik, there was not a word about heat after death or heat without input in gas loading. >> In the heat after death or gas-loading, the cells or chambers are still connected, and in most of those cases, it is impossible to be sure what the input is and what is being measured. > It is quite easy to be sure of this. In an electrochemical cell after boil-off, there is no connection between the anode and cathode, so it is physically impossible for current to flow. Also, all cells are equipped with sensitive, modern voltmeters and ammeters, which show with absolute certainty that there is no input power. Few phenomena in nature can be measured with as much precision or certainty as electricity, so it is strange that you claim "it is impossible to be sure" of electric power measurements. In a demonstration to outsiders who can't even see what's connected, it's impossible to be sure what the measurements mean. And it would be so easy to demonstrate it conclusively. Take that electrode after the boil off and put it in an isolated thermos, and measure see how long it can keep it boiling or whatever. Take that thermos with nothing connected to it, and the water boiling madly, to the DOE, and see if they don't pay attention. >> What I want is, if Dardik's electrode is really generating a half a watt of power for days without input, take that electrode out, keep it inside the liquid if necessary, and put it in a separate beaker or clear thermos with 100 mL of water on a separate table far away from all those wires and tubes and meters and complications. > What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion. Right. Because the fact that CF doesn't work is beyond the scope of this discussion. Cop out. > But what makes you think that wires, tubes and meter are "complications"? This is rather like saying that the spark plugs and pistons in an automobile engine are frivolous add-ons we can easily dispense with. Well if you claimed they weren't needed to move the car, then yes. I know that not all phenomena are simple to demonstrate in a visual way, and some measurements are indirect, and then we have to depend on reproducibility and so on. But heat can be demonstrated simply and visually, and when wild claims are made that could be but aren't demonstrated simply, then it looks suspicious. >> This would be an excellent demonstration for the likes of 60 minutes. But instead they showed Duncan doing calculations in a notebook. And they didn't even mention heat after death. > What would make a good demonstration, and whether "60 Minutes" mentioned something or not has no bearing on the discussion. Yes it does. 60 minutes looks for visual and dramatic things to entertain and interest their audience. You claimed they exist, but none were used. > Dardik published it. In a conference proceeding, with very limited description of the experiment. For a revolutionary result, that doesn't wash. > In a scientific discussion, what the mass media says, shows, or does is not admissible evidence. The discussion was about an experiment I would find convincing. It's not a court of law. To me, a complex experiment like Dardik's in a conference proceeding is even less convincing than an obvious visual demonstration could be on 60 minutes, if your claims were valid. In any case, Dardik's experiment does not come close to satisfying the description I gave for a convincing demonstration. >> Same goes for the gas-loading experiments. In Arata's experiment the device stays at a constant temperature a degree or two above ambient, but ambient wasn't monitored . . . > Yes, it was. It was not recorded by the computer in the first experiment, but it was monitored. And yet you questioned it in your report. >> and the thing was still connected to pressure pumps etc. >What bearing does that have on the calorimetry? Well together with the "etc", it makes it more complicated than necessary. Look, you can twist what you said around, but it's clear from what you said that you recognize the value of an isolated device palpably warmer than its surroundings, and your lamenting with Mallove for a demonstration suggests you know it hasn't been done. You're trying to cover it up with sophistry.
