Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote: It is an interesting result. They really need to do a calibration as a > comparison. >
Yes, a calibration is essential. I think they need to do a lot of things, but I think this is more promising than the previous paper by Jiang. I like the way the inner and outer thermocouples reverse, and I like the way they continue to track one another closely after the reversal. I do not think the inner one was damaged by hot hydrogen gas. If it had been, it would go haywire the way Jiang's did, and it would no longer track the outer one. At first glance, this looks to me like real anomalous heat because: 1. It is smooth and steady, unlike the abrupt bonkers behavior in Jiang's T2. (Actual anomalous heat may be coming out in short bursts but the 1 L stainless steel vessel with 1-cm-thick walls makes a good heat sink. It will smooth out busts of heat.) 2. As I said, the inner and outer thermocouples track one another pretty well. They drop out and recover suddenly at 1200 and again at 1400. Look at the small perturbation at 1500, soon after the "150 min." (150 分) segment begins. They seem to be in tandem. 3. The temperature difference is big enough that I do not think it is an instrument error, or within the margin of error. - Jed
