On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dennis, > > I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the > experiment that you propose. > It's amazing the excuses true believers contrive to explain why inferior experiments were used. If the thing is to be useful, it should at least be able to heat water. > The recent tests were conducted in the open air and the thermal resistance that the ECAT works into has a very strong influence upon its operational parameters. But the thermal resistance is completely out of the experimenters control, and is affected by people walking by. Some kind of water cooling could be designed to remove heat at exactly the same rate, and would be easily controllable. How is that not preferable? > If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be conducted away from the core. That depends on how it is coupled to the water. But it doesn't need to placed into a tank. You can just circulate cooling water through conduits inside an enclosure. These things are already available off the shelf, and for much higher temperatures. > This loss of internal temperature likely would prevent the positive feedback from operating properly. I suspect that he went to a lot of trouble adjusting the parameters so that the experiment would be successful in the open air instead of the typical connection methods planned. But why? It has practically no use in that configuration. To exploit it, especially to make electricity, requires some kind of heat exchange, usually with a fluid. > Many skeptics insist upon a simple experiment where the ECAT is naked and is easy to observe as protection against scams. He has made a great deal of effort to accommodate their wishes and they are still not satisfied. Do you honestly think that Cude and the others would not come up with some other excuses to claim that the test was not accurate if set up as you suggest? > I am convinced that there is no possible way to convince them that his device is real. If you think skeptics can't be convinced, how do you think it can ever be made practical? A system that heats a volume of water would be pretty convincing. That would leave only the input side to worry about. A generator with finite fuel would be good, as long as open scrutiny were permitted, but using controlled cooling should make it possible to self-sustain, and then no input at all would be necessary. Heating enough water in a neutral location without any input and with open scrutiny would convince anyone. But this system is so far from adequate from a skeptical view, that it's a joke. The input is unnecessarily complex and measurements are inadequate, the output is indirectly measured, the blank run uses a different power regimen, the system should self-sustain, but doesn't, the reactor temperature (central cylinder) is not monitored, and above all, it's behind closed doors in Rossi's facilities supervised by hand-picked academics, most of which have been avowed supporters from the beginning. A month before this report, I indicated what I thought would be significant, and what wouldn't. None of the criteria I suggested were needed were met in this test. And it fits the description of a test I specifically said would fall short. It's in the first verbose post I wrote on the subject here. So, this does not represent a change of criteria. On the other hand, true believers were hoping for an independent test with a dozen researchers from 4 universities published under peer review. But they seem to have lowered their standards and are perfectly happy with this farce.
