Replies

I suggest you look at page 9. A total power output of ~300 MEGAJOULES (~83KWH) from a piece of palladium 100 mm long and 2 mm in diameter.

I looked at page 9 and what I saw is that out of 7 experiments, 4 were total failures, a fifth was a partial failure, and of the two that appeared to produce excess power, they weren't consistent. So the results were still pathetic, and P&F were unable to exonerate themselves in spite of several millions of dollars of funding.

And the watt is the proper unit for reporting energy rates. Joules are used when you get pathetic results over a long period of time, but still want to impress the gullible.

In addition to pallidium they were replacing solvent and applying input power. And let's not forget the considerable input power when they weren't seeing any excess power, including the power applied during the 5 failed experiments.

"I looked at page 9 and what I saw is that out of 7 experiments, 4 were total failures, a fifth was a partial failure, and of the two that appeared to produce excess power, they weren't consistent. So the results were still pathetic, and P&F were unable to exonerate themselves in spite of several millions of dollars of funding."

Go back and re-read the THIRD sentence in my comment...the work was done in 1996. Things have changed since then. Note also that you were supporting the critical comment that the IMRA experiments totally "lacked a tangible result". AT MINIMUM the IMRA experiments replicated P % F's Utah work with much more accurate and precise calorimetry. Note also that this is just ONE report on the IMRA work. I haven't bothered to look up other publications from the period.

And to rehash the topic...note also that this 1996 work, as "pathetic" as you paint it, was still more successful than any and all "hot fusion" research, which has yet to generate excess energy AT ALL, at a cost of >120 BILLION dollars.

"And the watt is the proper unit for reporting energy rates. Joules are used when you get pathetic results over a long period of time, but still want to impress the gullible.

Which is why I also expressed the quantity as KWH.

"In addition to pallidium they were replacing solvent and applying input power. And let's not forget the considerable input power when they weren't seeing any excess power, including the power applied during the 5 failed experiments."

Uh, dude.....the ~100KWH is EXCESS energy. You know, energy over and above that supplied to the system. And your attempt to use the other experiments as "power negative" is simply bogus logic/propaganda.