At the risk of starting too many thread . . . There is the graph Jouni Valkonen mentioned:
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg Here it is with a discussion: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375&set=o.135474503149001&type=1&theater You should read this discussion. In this discussion, it took Hustedt a while to figure out that the condensed water from the primary loop is being flushed down the drain rather than recycled back into the cell. The original plan called for it to be recycled back into the cell. In his latest comment he notes correctly that heat lost with the warm condensate going down the drain from the primary loop would only add to the performance of the eCat. ". . . Excess heat wasted out of the condensate side will be additional heat output from the e cat not included above, ie it will only make the ecat look better when this is included." These are the data points from the handheld dual thermocouple measuring the temperature in the secondary cooling water loop. That is why they are scattered. They are shown in the spreadsheet and also in Lewan's log: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 The first one is at spreadsheet row 71. As I mentioned, this is probably an instrument artifact. Hustedt thinks so, and so do I. I believe this is what the graph shows: They turn on at 11:10. The initial 3 kW is an instrument artifact as Hustedt says. It does nothing much until 18:47. That must have been frustrating. Yesterday I said that in most cases the thing fires up after 10 or 20 min., and in previous tests they have abandoned the effort after an hour or so. That is what people observing previous tests told me. Apparently sometimes they keep trying. At 15:37 the reaction takes off. Soon after that they decide to turn off the input power completely since it now seems to be self-sustaining. At 16:26 the reaction tapers off. Then comes the important part. It picks up again and goes to much higher levels, peaking at 8 kW. This is proof that there is energy generation within the cell. If this was stored heat or anything like that the temperature can only fall. You can never have an increase without some source of energy. (Of course, it could be electric or chemical heat.) This peak is at spreadsheet row 9685, time 16:60, Delta T temperature 10.8°C, which indicates 7.6 kW by my calculation, but Hustedt has it at 8 kW. Power falls gradually down to around 3.5 kW, and then at 16:50 it suddenly kicks up again to 6 kW. Again this proves there is some source of energy. Here's something interesting about the second peak. The log shows that the second burst of heat came after the cell was degassed, at 19:08. That's surprising! At 19:40 it goes right back to the decay curve it was on previously. As Pons says, cold fusion has a memory of how much power it should be producing for a given lattice configuration. Or a given NAE, as Ed Storms describes it. These fluctuations and the instability are what I expect from an anomalous reaction. Most cold fusion reactions are far more unstable than this. Hystedt made the same observation, that this feels anomalous. He says that somewhere; I can't find the comment. (Facebook keeps asking me to sign on, so it is hard to read. Perhaps someday I should join up and find out what Facebook is all about.) - Jed
