Mitchell Swartz: I think your problem is that you think Jed's report on the Patterson cell was presented by Jed as a scientific assesment of the exact heat generated. If that had been so then all of your frequently repeated "objections" would have some validity.
Instead, what Jed saw and reported on was a "ballpark" measurement that very significant quantities of heat were being generated in a short space of time. Hyper accurate calorimetry was absolutely not needed to show that a lot of heat was being generated. There is a type of scientist who delights in finding and measuring tiny signals, often analysed from such a mountain of noise that a casual observer would not notice anything happening out of the usual. What Jed, and many others here are interested in, is any new physical phenomenon that is large enough to generate power to run our civilisation. Messing about with tiny "optimal operating point" signals is academically interesting but doesn't cut the mustard if the goal is to replace fossil fuels or conventional nukes. Knowledge is valuable but engineering solutions is what we need. That is what Jed was trying to ascertain and, to any reasonable person, he succeeded. Patterson's beads looked promising for further development.
So, once and for all, stop ranting on about Bernard instability in vertical flow calorimetry. Such small fractional watt distorting effects can, as you say, magnify a tiny signal mixed in with the environmental noise but are insignificant if you are looking to verify a kickass kilowatt.
Nick Palmer
Nick,
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
First, optimal operating points are not "signals",
nor are they small. And they control the type(s)
of reactions which occur in LANR/CF.
OOP manifold operation is a bit like understanding
a truck has different gears. If you try to start it in a
very high gear from first, you won't get it moving.
OOP operation is not a signal but a matter
of control, and in the case of cold fusion (LANR) it gives
quite a bit of "gain", sort of like a yagi antenna
compared to conventional dipole operation.
Second, I went over this specific gain issue
in this particular experiment at that particular
time with Dennis Cravens who was doing it,
and the direction effected the "output"
from watts to "kilowatts". Rothwell chose to use
the direction that magnified the effect.
Third, Bernard instability, like all things
that can give false positives to CF/LANR, is always
a good thing to consider. And in low flow systems
it is relevant when the flow is vertical (which is
easy to avoid). Like joule controls,
and checks by waveform reconstruction, and
redundant calorimetry, it is important.
Fourth, I did not bring this up. Jed did.
Finally, fifth, in "kickass kilowatts" there are real,
observable changes in the materials and plastics, which
were not seen in the cited demo.
Thank you so much for reminding me of that, too.
Best regards,
Mitchell Swartz
---------------------------------------------------
p.s. BTW if you want to learn how to generate power
to run our civilization, keep in touch with the
COLD FUSION TIMES web site.
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
