Some people have an annoying tendency to jump to conclusions based on notions they themselves dream up, like this:
I suspect there may be a problem. My suspicion is proof there is a problem. That problem (however limited) proves the entire experiment is wrong. Here is an extreme example of that: http://knol.google.com/k/jed-rothwell/cold-fusion/2zjj2hvn3qzi5/2#comment-2zjj2hvn3qzi5.wwzfkv This person thinks that McKubre and other electrochemists to not know how to measure direct-current input power. The fact that they've been doing this for over a century does not register with him. This is kind of like thinking that programmers don't know what a for-next loop is. Storms posted a response. I've been thinking of adding that input power measurements cannot be the problem because many cells produce output without input. Here's another example, which is less extreme but still arrogant, from Peter v Noorden today. He made a number of incorrect assumptions and speculative assertions and somehow persuaded himself that he's probably right. Jones Beene already commented on this. I do not wish to beat a dead horse but let me point out some of the problems: > The calculations from Jeff Driscoll about the velocity of the ejected steam are very important to understand what is going on. > >*How is it possible that the black tube is laying quiet on the ground while the steam has a high velocity of about 300 km/hr. The high velocity of the steam would create a reaction force in the tube which would cause the tube to change position. . . ." This is wrong on many levels: 1. During these tests there is no chance the black tube is lying on the ground, quiet or noisy. The room would be filled with steam. The tube is either vented out of the window, or it is being sparged in cold water. I saw 100 kW process steam generators in operation at Hydrodynamics. They make a lot of noise in air but when they are sparged the sound is muffled. 2. For all you know, the hose does make a lot of noise. No one has told us otherwise. The noise would not be recorded on the video because -- as I said -- the room is not filled with steam. 3. You do not know the size of the tube. The premise of the Driscoll's calculation may be incorrect. 4. The calculation itself may be wrong. 5. You know nothing about the stiffness or weight of the hose, or whether it will likely move around with 12 kW of low temperature process steam. >*Why has nobody noticed the extreme volicity of the steam when the steam quality was measured with a probe ( deafening hissing sound)? Assuming there is a sound, how do you know this has escaped people's attention? Were you there at the demo? Have you spoken with anyone? Can you point to an online message from someone saying "there was no noise"? >*Has anybody paid attention to the situation in the adjacent room during the demonstration? What happened in that room is equally important for the interpretation of the experiment in comparison to the results witnessed in the room with the Rossi experiment. > > *Also I would expect that the black tube ( which looks like a waterhose) would soften because of the high energycontent of the steam. Just because you think something looks like a water hose does not mean that it is a water hose. There are plenty of high temperature black hoses. This is an extreme example of someone who says: "I expect X because it looks to me like X and therefore it must be X." You need to stop and think. You know that this test is being conducted by experienced experts from the university and the Italian government, and you know that Rossi must also be expert in dealing with steam, even if -- for the sake of argument -- he is also a con man. Why do you suppose this group of people would pick inappropriate or non-functiong materials? >All in all it looks as if the energy content of the "watervapour" from the Rossi experiment is much lower to the energy content of steam created by for instance a steam engine heated with 12 kW of power. There is no evidence for that. It is all speculation and guesswork, and some of it is manifestly wrong. There is no harm in speculating about things but that is a mere parlor game. A pastime. Do not confuse your speculation with facts. If you want to know whether the tube made a noise, contact someone who was at the experiment and ask. Find out the size of the tube and the extent of noise. Until you get hard information from primary sources about the the noise or lack of noise or what said noise might mean, you cannot reach any conclusion. It is bad form to say: "All in all it looks as if . . ." There is no "all" at all; it is all empty handwaving and speculation. It does not "look as if" anything; in your mind it "seems as if" this or that may be true unless they aren't, and you have no knowledge either way. - Jed
