On 08/26/2016 05:28 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I am trying to figure out how Rossi could have faked it just as you
mention. We should be able to achieve that goal by using scientific
logic, at least that is my assumption.
Perhaps the fact that I leave open the possibility that he may be
telling the truth is where we differ.
Yes. And you're so reasonable in general I don't understand how you can
still think Rossi might have been telling the truth.
It's like the WTC collapse -- after watching videos of it a disgusting
number of times, and after watching an absurd number of videos of
demolitions to really learn what they looked like, and after doing some
back of the envelope calculations on momentum and expected collapse
speeds, and after considering the difficulties in setting up a
demolition to behave as the actual collapse did, and observing things
like the puff of smoke from the bottom of the building which should have
been followed by a bottom-up collapse (if it were really a demolition
and that really was the bottom being blown out as claimed by the
hoaxers) rather than a top-down collapse (as actually happened on the
videos I watched so many times), I was no longer able to entertain the
idea that explosives had anything to do with the collapse. Not because
FEMA said so, but because it was just about impossible to imagine how
that could have worked. (And I still don't understand Steven Jones, who
is a physicist and should have known better.)
By the same token, after going over Rossi's figures and graphs with a
fine tooth comb four or five years back, and after considering the
absurdity of tuning the system to produce low-grade steam rather than
something more useful and clear-cut, with the assertion that it's /dry
dry dry/ and never any solid proof to back that up, and after observing
that the ecat power curve /could not possibly be what he claimed/, I no
longer consider the possibility that he's telling the truth to be a
believable option. The only question I might have regards some of the
details of how he faked it.
As far as I can tell, this is the same, exact demo system he exhibited
four or five years ago, just with a lot more units, and with the water
being recirculated. The setup is the same -- heaters bringing the water
up to boiling, steam is produced /just above boiling/, and the claim is
made that the steam is dry. And everything hinges on the steam being
/dry/, which would be obvious and inarguable if only the temp were 10 or
20 degrees higher -- but it isn't. And the only demos done with liquid
output water below 100C, which should have been rock solid proof, were
done without flow meters in the circuit during the actual run.
At this point all I can say is that we need more data before
we can prove that Rossi is not being truthfully.
Bosh. Go back to the discussion of where the 1 megawatt of heat
was dumped. *There was no megawatt of heat dumped on the "customer
site". Rossi claimed there was.**What more proof do you need? *
The rest is just details. The details may be interesting, but
they follow the proof in this case, they don't provide the proof.
How can you believe he might be truthful? I don't get it.
