Jed, Now, let me stress that I do not think that there was a hidden heater, but you're missing the point. The argument was not for a hidden 5 kW heater. It was for a small heater near the thermistor (or temperature probe). This small heater would not have to be of a kW order. It would only have to raise the temperature immediately around the thermistor or temperature probe (at the E-Cat secondary) by five degrees. I'm not entertaining it, because, as was said before, once you entertain fraud, nothing is off the table. I'm going to reserve judgment until the data arrives, and I'll be looking for heat-before-death
Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: >Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: > >Jed, so, you can say now that you are convinced that eCat is 100% true. > > >Unless these people are lying. Or, unless when they open the reactor they >find a 5 kW heating element. > >There may be some problem with the test. Let us wait to see the reports. My >point is that the problem suggested by Murray is ruled out. There is no such >thing as an invisible 5 kW electric water heater with no wires. That's >ridiculous. > >That does not mean all other problems are ruled out, or ridiculous. For >example, it could be that the inlet and outlet thermocouples are not >properly calibrated. There might be a large bias. I hope that they took >steps to ensure this is not the case. I suggested several steps they should >take to do this. I have not heard yet whether they did take these or other >steps. > >A lot of things can go wrong with flow calorimetry. However, many people are >practiced in the technique, and it is not difficult to eliminate all likely >sources of error. Whether they eliminated them in this test I cannot say. >The previous reports were not detailed enough to ensure that all sources >were eliminated, but they did give me the impression that an error is >unlikely. The previous tests should have been more rigorous, and the reports >should have been more detailed. They should have included, for example, the >make and model of every instrument used, and some discussion of null runs >and calibration. Krivit says there is "no evidence" of heat in 10 tests. >That's an outrageous exaggeration. There was considerable evidence even if >it was poorly presented and not fully convincing. There was also evidence of >other Ni-H reactions from other researchers. In cutting edge scientific >research, if you demand perfectly convincing proof before you begin to >believe something -- or at least find it credible -- and you demand that >every i dotted and every t crossed, you will never look at any interesting >new claims. All discoveries are a mixture of true and false. > >It remains to be seen whether this test will be convincing. > >- Jed
