On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Berke Durak <berke.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > For the 1MW demo, the data, as well as the claims, are provided by > Rossi et al. > > IT IS THEREFORE EQUALLY EASY TO FAKE THE DATA AS TO FAKE THE CLAIMS. >
This is certainly the way I feel about the 18-hour test, where there were zero outside witnesses, and none of the data was released. Unfortunately, it also involves Levi, and it would require his complicity. After the Oct 6 demo, though I got an idea how Rossi might have fooled Levi -- using the old thermocouple on the metal trick. After all, he used an unnecessarily high flow rate so that just a few degrees difference would give a large power. But in most of the demos with reporters present, the temperatures were taken of the fluid with witnesses, not all of whom could be complicit (probably none), so the numbers had to bear some relation to reality. And most of them relied on the same steam claims that appear in the megacat demo. So, in those cases, showing that the data is consistent with much lower power does invalidate the claims. Even in the megacat demo, it's entirely possible that F. is not in on the scheme, and may have been fooled by the steam trick. After all Kullander and Essen were. So showing that the numbers *they* report do not *require* 470 kW output, but are consistent with 70 kW, should completely rob them of credibility. It does for me anyway. > The only thing we can do is look for INCONSISTENCIES. > That's exactly what I did. Maybe you didn't read the posts. I said that the claim of dry steam immediately after the temperature hits 105C is *inconsistent* with the time it takes to warm up the ecat in the pre-heating stage. It is inconsistent that it could go from 70 kW power transfer to 470 kW power transfer in a few minutes if it takes 2 hours to go from 0 power transfer to 70 kW power transfer. It is also inconsistent for the temperature of the output to be so closely regulated at 105C if the output is pure steam. Unless it is a mixture of phases, the temperature will be proportional to the power, and it is not plausible that the power is regulated to within 1 %. > Claiming that some subset of the data could be achieved using a > particular method M is not useful if the method M contradicts the body > of information provided by Rossi. > That's not what I did. I claimed that *dry steam* (not a subset of the data, but a physical phenomenon) could not be achieved, because it is inconsistent with the body of information (warm-up period) provided by Rossi. And I claimed that *all* the data reported could have been achieved with 70 kW power output (nothing to do with methods), and that 70 kW power output is consistent with the entire body of information provided by Rossi. You're not having much success trying to generalize what I'm saying, so why don't you just try to address the specifics of what I'm saying. If the measurements that Rossi reports are completely consistent with 70 kW output, why should I believe that they are producing 470 kW, just because they misinterpret their own data? > > For example, claiming that the same results could be obtained by > storing heat in graphite and having it released during the demo is useless. > Ah, you're talking about earlier discussions of mechanisms to provide the heat storage. When I said what you quoted, it was about the 70 kW output vs the 470 kW output. As for the mechanism of heat storage, that is a less essential part. It seems to me that any demonstration of an energy producing device must *at least* produce more energy than it consumes. Otherwise it's a pretty useless device. It's not enough to say, well it *would* produce more if we kept it running. That's what the demo's about: showing us that it can produce more. The measurements reported by Rossi do not support the claim that it produces more energy than it consumes. That should really be the end of the story. But if people don't believe it could store energy, then it's reasonable to point out ways that it could. And probably the easiest way is with fire bricks, but much more could be stored in molten metals. > > It is useless, because according to Rossi's description of the > reactor, the reactors contain no large amount of graphite (or unicorn > poo) capable of storing that much heat, nor do they contain a > mechanism for thermally insulating that graphite until the demo starts > and then providing a controlled heat exchange. > Well, I agree that this is a little pointless in the megacat demo, because it's all Rossi's word anyway, and even Rothwell said he takes his confidence from earlier demos. But still, F. doesn't have to know what's in the ecats, and so if you can show that the measurements he reports are consistent with energy storage, and can convince yourself that energy storage is possible, then there is no reason to believe that Rossi has produced heat from nuclear reactions. Apart from saying there's nickel, hydrogen and lead in the cell, Rossi has not described them in detail, He has denied any hidden fuel (but that's not needed in this case), but I don't know that he's denied all possible ways of storing heat. The demo starts immediately after the pre-heating period, so you only have to worry about losses during the demo, which would be pretty small, otherwise the inside of the shipping box would have been a sauna. And hot rocks would provide a pretty controlled release of heat. > If, on the other hand, you manage show that the shell of the reactor, > as deduced from the known data, can store the pre-heating energy and > release it during the demo at the observed rate, then you're in > business and can claim that the data does not unambiguously support > the conclusion that excess heat was produced. > I've said it before, but no one can show how nuclear reactions can produce the heat without radiation, and yet they are claiming the heat is from nuclear reactions. Why should skeptics have to show how the heat can be produced chemically or by storage before that possibility is considered. As long as the methods don't exceed conceivable energy densities, then one unexplained method is just as good as another. > Now, as I said in the initial post of this thread: > > The amount of water heated proves that a large quantity of excess > energy was released during the demonstration. > No. It doesn't. Not if by excess energy you mean more energy out than was put in, and especially not if you mean more energy out than could be produced by non-nuclear means. > Persons who wish to claim that this excess energy might have come from > the pre-heating period need to provide plausible accumulation, storage > and retrieval mechanisms compatible with the claimed geometries > of the reactors. > Persons who wish to claim this energy comes from nuclear reactions need to provide plausible nuclear mechanisms compatible with the claimed geometries, materials used, and the radiation observed. Between Rossi and the skeptics, the skeptics have provided far more plausible mechanisms of storage or chemistry, than he has of nuclear reactions. The only claimed evidence that it's nuclear is that the energy density is higher than chemical.. Except. It's. Not.
