Hello Stephen A. Lawrence, By any chance, do you as an older brother often find yourself in friendly exasperation rebuking a younger brother for impetuous, intemperate outbursts, not based on sober prudent consideration of much detailed evidence? Anyway, I admit being charmed by your rebukes.
I find kindred spirits in Mary Yugo, Horace Heffner, and Joshua Cude -- their views loosely agree, defining a reasonable territory of skeptical appraisal re Rossi -- I don't pretend to be able to track all the details -- but I notice that, as far as I know, Cude is the first to bring the derivative of the energy into the discussion, ie, how fast is the output energy rising, considering output T and output water flow, and what does this tell us about the likely rise of temperature and the speed of change in temperature of the core -- this approach makes it clear that sudden huge heat bursts within the core cannot produce equally sudden heat flow changes in the measured output water flow. Has anyone taken the next step -- given reasonable guesses as to the composition, size, mass, and geometry of the core, as exposed to public view as Shangrala, [ note that we are all whistling in the dark, guessing fervently, since maybe Rossi has a necessary, effective business strategy of dramatically discrediting his own demos for nearly a year, to divert the competitors... ] -- how hot would the core get, and how quickly? Would the Ni micro or nano powder fuse, melt, vaporize, or engage in complex chemical reactions, even explosions -- could a small fraction of the electric heat input, activating a small active region inside of the core, crack it open, suddenly exposing some of the cooling water to intense pressures and temperatures and even electrical shorts and arcs...? Beware of sorcerers bearing boiling murky pots showing random flashes of gold... My thoughts about this have in recent months resulted in warning posts for experimenters to be very, very careful... This seems to me to be everyone's duty, as the network continues to deal with situations as poorly understood as X-rays and nuclear radiation for decades after 1895. Don't you agree that Cude is displaying higher level, faster insight than any other contributor on Vortex-L? Have you noticed that very few understand him -- and some are proud of it? I said what I understood after reading Cude's concise, definitive, brisk comments -- perhaps what he is really saying through the format of careful acceptable scientific discourse... within mutual service, Rich Murray On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> wrote: > > On 11-11-28 11:21 AM, Rich Murray wrote: >> >> Joshua Cude has completed his proof that Rossi's own data from the "1 >> MW" demo shows unavoidably that it is certain that no excess heat was >> produced. Q.E.D. > > > Jeeze, Rich, if you're going to post things that boil down to "We are the > chorus, and we agree, we agree, we agree!", could you at least try to agree > with what was said, rather than what you wish had been said? > > Joshua has done a very nice job of showing that the data are consistent with > little excess heat having been produced, and with certain additional > assumptions, they're consistent with scenarios in which no excess heat was > produced. > > That is a very far cry from showing "unavoidably" that "it is certain that > no excess heat was produced", which is what you morphed his words into. > > You, Rich, sound like an anti-Aetherist, bellowing that Einstein proved > there is no aether. He didn't; he merely presented a theory which was > consistent with observation and which did not *require* an aether. > Similarly, Joshua didn't prove there's no excess heat; he merely showed > that the evidence for excess heat during the 470kW run is inconclusive. > > (And now I really must go back to ignoring this list for another little > while....) > >
