OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal > measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal > inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially > dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut > off. That data is from: *Test of Energy Catalyzer, Bologna, September 7, 2011* Analysis of calorimetry http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 I am glad to see Lewan included a fairly detailed time-stamped data log in this report. We could have used that in previous reports. As Lewan remarks, it is a shame they did not let it run another hour in self-sustaining (heat after death) mode. But it was late at night, after all. I am still working through this report. Someone here suggested that the power supplies might have affected the thermocouples. I don't think so. Thermocouples and interface equipment attached to them are designed to work around machines with power supplies and magnetic fields. If the power supplies produced affected thermocouple performance, the people observing the experiment would have seen that happen immediately when the power went on, and again when it went off. Also this could not explain the temperature rise 10 minutes after the power went off. Catania apparently thinks that thermal inertia can cause a temperature to rise when there is no internal power production and no change in the flow rate (rate of heat loss). This is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Thermal inertia can only produce a temperature that falls at some rate. The highest temperature would have to be recorded just before the power was turned off. I believe the temperature could rise because of thermal inertia if you cut the flow rate and if there were a very hot body inside the cell. - Jed
