On 11-06-18 10:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert. Jed is right
about sparging the steam.
Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There
are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow.
OK, you asked for it, somebody should say it. We've all been dancing around
it, but it hasn't quite been said in so many words, so here it is:
It's a lot easier to produce phony results which look good when you do it with
a phase change of this sort. Flow calorimetry with single-phase water is a lot
harder to fool.
There, I said it, now you can claim I'm being pathologically skeptical and
psychotically paranoid -- and I'll apologize profusely and eat every word of it,
when ... and if ... this thing is finally either REPLICATED or COMMERCIALIZED.
But right now, IMO it smells, and it's smelled all along, and smelly stuff
hardly ever turns out to be pure gold.
If you were Rossi the businessman, and you knew your device has turned water
into steam for short periods of time without any input power, wouldn't you treat
the steam quality issue as a minor concern?
You're apparently speculating as to what Rossi might have been thinking
in an effort to explain the obvious fact that he structured the
experiment in a way that would make it easy to obfuscate the output
power, and then lied about the steam quality to do just that.
Perhaps your defense of him is right, and perhaps it's wrong -- I can't
read his mind, and have no interest in trying.
