David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: I guess I hit a touchy subject with this one. Rossi's device came up > because his heat gain(6) is so low relative to, as example, DGT(>20). >
Rossi has demonstrated a self-sustaining reaction lasting 4 hours. The ratio is infinite. Why do you say the ratio is 6? In any case, the ratio is easy to improve with any cold fusion device. It is just a matter of engineering. With any electrochemical FP device improving the ratio is trivial, but it is not done because that ends obscuring the results and making the experiment more difficult. > The heat pump issue arouse just because of the relatively low gain > performance . . . > The word "gain" implies that the reaction is some form of amplification, or that output is coupled to input. There is no evidence for that. If that were the case, self-sustained heat would be impossible. Input power is needed to trigger the reaction or to keep the cell at operating temperature. You can do the latter with insulation. > The 1 hour time frame suggested as adequate to prove self sustaining of > the reaction is absurd. If super accurate instrumentation were available > to measure temperatures at many internal points and power input could be > extremely well determined then that might be correct. > No instrumentation is needed. Human senses alone suffice. The observers felt the heat coming from the device hours after the power was turned off. Simple first-principle physics and observations of everyday objects such as a pot of boiling water left to cool in the kitchen prove beyond doubt it was producing kilowatts of heat. There is no way it could be doing that from stored heat or chemical heat with such a small cell. No heat was stored prior to the self-sustaining phase. On the contrary, it produced a great deal of excess before that. You are demanding "instrumentation" to prove something that any cook in the last 100,000 years would have known with absolute certainty. This is a distortion of the scientific method. Instruments are important to science, but even more important are observations and common sense knowledge of how things work. The human senses are reliable and just as good as any instrument for this particular test. Natural science observations of things like rocks, animal behavior, smell, appearance, heat and cold are just good -- and just as "scientific" -- as a reading from a multi-million dollar laboratory instrument. In modern science we have elevated the instrument and the computer too far above old fashioned, hands-on human interaction with objects, and the human senses. The primary school test in which an egg is sucked into a bottle is proof that there is a vacuum in the bottle. It is definitive, irrefutable proof. If you brought in a million-dollar vacuum gauge and measured the vacuum in the bottle to 8 significant decimal places, that would not prove the existence of the vacuum any better than the simple, direct, visual observation of the egg does. - Jed
