Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > JR: Why do you say that? > > It’s pretty obvious. Going back twenty years, Thermacore – a world class > company in thermodynamics, saw 280 days of gain at COP of ~1.5 using nickel > . . . > Nickel does not always work. Many people have tried it and got nothing. So it cannot be "obvious" that Rossi succeeded. The only way to determine this is to examine his calorimetry. I and everyone else I know who has done that quickly reached the conclusion that this large reactor is not producing any excess heat.
It is possible he got heat in the past, but not in this test. > Chuck Haldeman head of Lincoln Lab at MIT visited Thermacore, copied > their technique and found even greater gain. . . . > I know. But that proves nothing about Rossi's calorimetry in this test. The fact Prof. X gets heat does not mean that Prof. Y will also get it. That is no more true of Ni than it is of Pd. It is disingenuous to suggest that Rossi could not duplicate this early > work, even if you have doubts that he added anything new. > Why is it disingenuous? Rossi has never published any convincing proof that he saw excess heat. His tests have all been sloppy and undocumented. This test is just as bad. The only credible evidence for heat from Rossi was the first Levi test, and that could be wrong. As far as anyone knows, Rossi has never succeeded. - Jed
