*delurks* Frustrating that with COP's >2 and output powers of 100's to 1000's of watts that simple calorimetry cannot be used to remove doubt, instead we have 5-10 equivocal demonstrations from Rossi over last 4 years, (supposedly a genius, yet not competent or willing to do this relatively minor part right, and endless excuses and supporter rationalisations about why he doesn't need to do it well - which stink). Still awaiting combined big COP+bullet proof calorimetry from newer replications. At these outputs simple <20% error flow calorimetry setup is probably only $1-200 in parts and 1-2 days in build time (aquarium pump, couple of buckets and thermocouples).
Might it be that when better calorimetry is applied good news disappears (eg MFMP)? In which case sloppier calorimetry would be more rewarding and get more traction given the illusion of success. I've given up on Rossi (Lugano sunk him in my eyes), and my hope for others will probably not last into 2016 without some good results. Looking forward to better demos and calorimetry from multiple sources. *relurks* On 20 March 2015 at 10:40, Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: > For that matter, without the calorimetry we don't really know if it's 3 > COP. It could be < 1 COP and the run without the fuel was just < 1/3 COP. > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> That being said, is it possible that the the first run just burned up the >> shell of the tube / insulation and is now radiating heat more easily. >> >> At some point Alexander is going to have to remove the fuel and re-run >> the test. >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> .. that wants the replication to be real so that the global energy / >>> scientific revolution starts in some old fringe Russian scientist's living >>> room?? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
