On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:25 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Maybe we are making headway in this discussion. Can I assume that you are > now saying that the hot cat can actually produce heat by some unknown > process? So far it is not clear that you accept this premise. > > For heaven's sake. You piddle along asking stupid questions to avoid actually addressing my objections. Let me spell this out for you. I am skeptical of the ecat, partly because *if* it worked as he claims with a thermal-to-thermal COP of 3 or 6, (1) it would be easy to make it self-sustain (possibly with thermostatically controlled cooling), and yet he doesn't, and (2) it would be difficult to control with the addition of heat. What I said was that it is possible to conceive of a situation in which one could control positive thermal feedback with adding heat, particularly if the external heat were concentrated and at a higher temperature -- think flames to sustain charcoal briquets when they are being lit. But the hot cat uses external heat that is more diffuse and at a lower temperature than the heat from the reaction, so it is very difficult to imagine -- think controlling glowing embers with a space heater held nearby. And even if it were possible, it's the last way any sane person would do it. If the thing produces heat, and there's a danger of runaway, the obvious way to control it is with thermostatically controlled cooling. The claim that he needs heat to control it is such an obvious excuse to allow him to add heat, I'm amazed true believers buy into it. So, no, I think it highly unlikely that the hot cat is actually producing heat by an unknown process. But that's totally irrelevant to the question of whether it's plausible to use heat to control it *if it were producing heat*. Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical? > Then, are you agreeing that DC current flowing in the primary due to rectification … I didn't follow the dc discussion you're talking about, and I don't follow what you're saying about it here. But that's not the point. I don't believe we could enumerate every possible way to trick those meters, even if we had a decent report about how things were connected and where the measurements were made, which we don't. But the way to exclude tricks is to take the control of the experiment away from the suspected deceiver. Give open access to the hot cat under whatever necessary supervision. This test was the furthest thing from that, and it used unnecessarily complex input, a severely inadequate device to measure the input if there was suspicion of deception, and an indirect way to measure the heat output, when much more direct and visual methods are available. > I have not personally been following the energy density so I must leave that discussion to those with more knowledge. No one really knows exactly how LENR works including me so that is unfair to ask of me. And you don't see a double standard here? You said that anyone unqualified to describe how a deception might work is not allowed to speculate that deception might be occurring based on sadly inadequate measurements and scrutiny, And yet you say you are not qualified to explain how such a high power density is possible without melting the nickel, or how nuclear reactions can happen in the first place, and yet that doesn't stop you from speculating -- nay practically guaranteeing -- that they are happening. You know, there would be a very easy way to at least show that the heat is coming from the central cylinder (if it were), just by putting a thermocouple on it and outside the resistor radius. But of course, they didn't do that either, did they?
