Hello Jed, I recall that Horace described evidence that slugs of hot water, separated by steam, went directly from the exit of the reactor into the heat exchanger right next to the output thermocouple of the heat exchanger -- it is plausible that hot water could create the excess heating of that thermocouple, that is used to estimate remarkable levels of apparent excess heat production -- hearing and feeling the vibration of boiling within the reactor proves the presence of liquid water -- what evidence is there that the water was completely turned into superheated steam at the exit of the reactor?
within shared discussion, Rich On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> I saw it in the video, but this JPEG makes it even more obvious. Thanks >> for the upload. >> You've got 120+ degrees (allegedly) on one side . . . > > Why do you say "allegedly"? It was boiling in the cell. It has be over 100 > deg C. Add some backpressure from the heat exchanger and it will reach 120 > deg C. That's not an allegation, it is first principle physics. > >> >> , and a couple inches away less than 30 degrees. A few degrees of heat >> transfer is lauded as conclusive, irrefutable evidence of a multi-kilowatt >> cold fusion reactor? > > It is irrefutable proof of that it was still hot 3 hours after the power was > turned off and 1.8 tons of water went through the system. There is no chance > it would measurably warm after that if there were no heat generation. > Other irrefutable proof is that the reactor was still hot, and the water was > still boiling inside it. You can ignore the temperature measurements and > prove there was an anomaly by that fact alone. Or, if you can refute that, > please do so. > Also you are forgetting that the thermal mass of the cooling water is far > greater than the hot water. When you combine them together and the cooling > water rises 5 deg C while the steam condenses and falls 95 deg C. Obviously > the overall system will be closer to the cooling water temperature. > Pipes do conduct heat well, but not so much from one pipe to the one next to > it. In any case, the pipes will average it out to be a temperature much > closer to the cooling water than the steam. > > You are looking at a mountain of evidence and pretending it does not exist. > Boiling. High temperatures hours after the power went off. Increasing > temperature when Newton's law says the temperature can only fall in the > absence of power. Granted this evidence is poorly presented, but I do not > think that you or anyone else can refute it, so it is irrefutable. > - Jed
