On 11-12-16 04:48 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Stephen,
Sorry, but you are quite mistaken.
Here is the conclusion:
*Replication of experiments claiming to demonstrate excess*
*heat production in light water-Ni-K2CO3 electrolytic cells*
*was found to produce an apparent excess heat of 11 W*
*maximum, for 60 W electrical power into the cell. Power*
*gains ranged from 1.06 to 1.68.*
**
*How is a gain of 1.68 NOT successful? *
Go back and read what it says, not what you wish it said.
They said it, right there in the abstract: They couldn't rule out
in-cell recombo as the source of the "excess heat". In other words, the
"excess" was a book-keeping result which came from adding the calculated
energy lost to electrolyzed gas to the measured heat output. It was not
an actual, measured, excess.
That's suggestive but it's not conclusive, and as such it doesn't
replicate, and barely supports, McCubre's results, which were far more
solid all by themselves.
Why do you think they used the term "*apparent* excess heat"?
