It is a telling and sad story on the character of LENR when this Chinese report that shows inadequate experimental design and clearly defective thermocouples with no redundancy is proposed by some as a ‘confirmation’ of lenr. Whether the reported experiment(s) are shoddy or not, the data presented can certainly not make anything clear, save to reveal a path to repeat with improved design and methods.
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 11:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3 I printed out the graph and measured the elapsed time between events toward the end of the run, starting around hour 14:00. I measured some temperatures on the right Y axis. I assume T2 and T4 are correct. I do not trust T1. Times are approximate: Minute 0. T1 and T2 begin rising. T4 stable. Minute 14. T4 suddenly rises from 110°C up to around 120°C. Minute 30. T1 falls abruptly. Becomes erratic. Minute 34. Power off. T2 begins falling. T4 still rising. Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster. Minute 68. T4 reaches a peak temperature of 167°C. This is 34 minutes after the power has cut off. Note that from ~9:00 to 13:15, T4 rose from ~20°C and stabilized at 110°C, in response to internal power levels that raised T1 and T2 up to around 1100°C. In other words, T4 goes up 90°C, or 1 degree for each 12 degree increase in T1 and T2. Then when T1 and T2 rose only about 100°C more, up to around 1200°C, T4 rose proportionally much more than before. It should have gone up ~8°C. Instead, it jumped up by around 24°C initially, then it gradually climbed to a peak of 167°C, a 57°C increase, even though T1 and T2 had already fallen drastically when it peaked. I cannot make head or tail of this behavior. If there is heat after death, it should show up on T2, but I don't see it. T1 is probably damaged, but T2 seems intact. - Jed
