I feel that the description of my analysis of the October 6, 2011 test as the
work of a Rossi fan boy requires that I respond. Mr. Cude, you should read my
analysis before coming to such a conclusion since you seem to think of yourself
as open minded and honest in your assessment of the Rossi devices. We would be
far better served if you were to devote some of your energy to seeking the
truth instead of hiding facts and evidence. I am convinced that you have
talent, but that it is being misdirected at the moment and hopefully will begin
to make a positive contribution to the discussion one day.
It was interesting to follow your disagreement with another of the more
skeptical members of the group earlier today. He was cowered by you for some
reason and decided to abandon his position. He was correct but his analysis
was in direct opposition to your only island to stand upon in trying to prove
Rossi is a scammer. Of course you howled until he realized his mistake and
dropped out of the argument. You skeptics must stay together at all costs of
course.
I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been faithful
to that end. My fan boy analysis as you say feeds fresh meat to both sides of
the argument. My conclusions have slowly been sharpened up with time and new
ways of reviewing the data. Rossi’s tests have been more like a CSI job
instead of a simple physics experiment and I am sure you understand that. The
latest document that Mats Lewan refers to has a third and final section where I
made my best effort to make sense of the space data. Please read the total
document before you trash it. My conclusions are somewhat speculative because
of the situation, but seem to fit the data fairly well.
Your ridiculous warping of the facts regarding the 1 MW test are just
laughable. We both agree that if the output of the ECATs is just water, then
the power would be far less than certified by the engineer conducting the test.
On the other hand, the maximum power delivered could be in excess of 500 kW if
we are to assume that everyone is honest and reporting facts. Why should we
assume that a well trained engineer would be so stupid as to be incapable of
catching water? Your explanation does not hold water any better than his
method.
Please read the Wikipedia article on steam locomotives to put things in some
perspective. I would estimate that the total area of Rossi’s 107 ECATs is
comparable to that of boiler within one of these devices. How do you think
that they can function at all if most of the steam leaving has a quality of 5%
or so as you keep repeating? This is what you peg your argument upon and it
does not hold water.
You have demonstrated that you are not looking at the facts, but make up
whatever you like to argue your case. My model of the 1 MW systems does not
require me to do any of this maneuvering. If a straight forward model fits all
of the facts, why should we go out of the way to insist upon one that requires
dishonest behavior, ignorance or just plain deception as you suggest? Come on.
Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would be
for LENR action to be taking place? Is that your hang-up? Where are the
skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough and intense enough to
continue to heat the output for the full 5.5 hours? Have they all given up on
this possibility and now leave it up to people like yourself to throw
uncertainty at the entire test system? Please examine your motives here and if
your conscience is clear, keep supporting your side of the argument. I just
hope that you are not making your statements to be argumentative as that is a
waste of all of our time.
Dave
