Ed Storms said it was ok for me to post the following analysis he made:
* * * * * * A careful examination of the attached graph reveals an interesting conclusion. The Pout (power out) and the Eout (Energy out) appear to describe the net excess, not the total as everyone seems to assume. Power is applied to the internal heater, showed by the red dots, until extra power starts to increase starting at 140 min. The power to the heater is turned off for a short time at 160 min because the excess power starts to rise. This interruption of applied power and the resulting reduced temperature of the Ni caused the excess to decrease and excess power production is again brought under control. Applied power is interrupted several more times to test the stability of the power-producing reaction. Finally, applied power was turned off at 280 min whereupon the extra power increased and reached a relatively stable value. The variations in excess power production after 280 min are expected as the nuclear reaction responds to variations in local temperature in the Ni. The nuclear reaction slowly decayed away and the test was terminated before it stopped all together. I make two conclusions from this behavior. 1. The amount of energy produced was far in excess of any possible chemical source. 2. The energy-producing reaction is unstable and difficult to control. It also slowly becomes less productive unless the temperature is increased by an external source of power that can increase the temperature of the Ni, thereby causing a greater output of energy. This means the energy-producing reaction has a limited life-time, which is what Rossi has indicated. If the Pout and E out are interpreted as net excess, the graph makes perfect sense and is consistent with how such a device must behave. Ed
