On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They used perfectly normal calorimetry. > Normal to me means common. But I have not seen calorimetry performed with IR thermometry. Do you have some references for where it has been used? > There is not the slightest chance output is any less than 3 times input. > The thing about that method is that it's indirect, and there is no natural way to integrate the output energy. That gives opportunities for deception. If you actually heat a large volume of water, the heat had to come from somewhere, so that's more unequivocal. And if that's done with a clearly isolated device, the evidence would be much stronger. Then, if you take it public, with unrestricted scrutiny, you've got a revolution. > > I do not think it would be good idea to put reactor in an enclosure where > you cannot keep an eye on it. The previous one melted, so I think they > should leave it in the open air. > > That's ridiculous. You keep an "eye" on it with thermocouples. And if you have a cooling system, you have far more opportunity to do something about it if it gets too hot. > If they were to build something like an enclosure with flowing water tubes > around the outside, the skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt > those results. They would say that Rossi hid something in the box, or the > flow rate is not correct, or the thermocouples are placed incorrectly, or > this, or that, or an onion. > > Not if the water were collected to integrate the heat. And insulation is not heavy, so exceeding the entire device's weight in chemical fuel should be easy. But yes, open public scrutiny, or accessibility to the device by *any* qualified scientist would be necessary to allay all suspicions. > It does not take much to set off the skeptics. Cude sees one extra wire with three-phase electricity and he calls that "a rat's nest" of wires. One wire! You're mixing objections up. The rat's nest of wires is possible with single-phase too. The reality is that it is a rat's nest from the pictures. The 3-phase involves more complicated measurement, and additional wiring. I don't know if there was a neutral or ground from the mains, but if there were, then it's more than one wire, and 3 times the measurements, and also more processing -- and for no advantage. > No doubt he would call a flow calorimeter a rat's nest of cooling water pipes and way too many thermocouples. If you circulate the water from a 1000L tank, you wouldn't need anything more than a mercury thermometer to verify the heat produced. Thermocouples could be used to regulate things, but it would not affect the actual amount of heat needed to heat a volume of water. If you think that the ecat has a practical future, then surely an unequivocal demonstration should be possible.
