Jed its more a violation of the 1st law to have steam production without
extraction from the metal. No the temperature would not drop to zero. Sounds
like you're admitting defeat.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jed Rothwell" <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations
Horace Heffner wrote:
How else could it work? It would run out of water. Very little fits into
the cell. You cannot do flow calorimetry without a flow. It would be
like trying to do it without measuring the temperature.
Obviously my question is are you sure that *precise magnitude* of flow
rate, 300 ml/min, 5 ml/sec, 18 liters per hour, was present at the time
of the heat after death observation?
Ah. I see. Dunno. Ask Krivit to put the video back on line, or ask Levi or
Rossi.
Anyway, I am sure they thought it was showing significant, stable excess
heat or they wouldn't put it in heat after death mode, would they? That
would be pointless. The reason people do this is to eliminate input from
the equation, to confirm that the output is not input accidentally
magnified. You wouldn't do it if the calorimetry did not already indicate
significant anomalous heat. That's why the "stored up heat" hypothesis
does not work with Fleischmann's boil off heat after death, or in this
instance. There is no storing up. It is producing more output than input
continuously up to the moment heat after death begins (for a week, in
Fleischmann's case). If they are "extracting heat" from the metal as
Catania claims, the metal would be way below absolute zero by the time
heat after death begins. I believe it is difficult to extract heat from
metal in that condition. Something about the Second Law.
When people such as Lonchampt turn off the power to blank cells in which
there is only electrical or electrochemical heating, the heat immediately
falls, according to Newton's law of cooling. It is readily apparent. It
does not look a bit like heat after death.
- Jed
