Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. This is ruled out. The observers collected the water in vessels and measured the temperature externally with their own instruments. At least, they said they would do this. I will be upset if they did not. The larger point is that tricks of this nature are easily discovered. They are much easier to discover than actual experimental errors. They are blatantly obvious. No experienced person could miss seeing this kind of thing. I am not all that experienced, but I am sure that if I were there, I would have put my hand in the outlet stream of water and I would have known that it is not 5°C warmer than the inlet. I would do this instantly, by instinct, the moment the instruments indicate a large temperature difference. (I would not conclude it is fake, but only that the instruments are not working right, which is never a surprise in a test of this nature.) I would also bring my own thermocouples, obviously. When Rossi invited me to a test but told me not to bring them, I declined the invitation, because I am not an idiot. I cannot imagine why he did that. Nor can I imagine why Krivit accepted the invitation, knowing these were the conditions. A wacky thing to do. Or if he did not know those were the conditions, or it never occurred to him to bring instruments, that's even more wacky. Rossi and Krivit repel one another because they are of the same polarity. > 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. > Ah, but this method of committing fraud would not work for more than a few minutes, with any experienced person. As far as I know, no one here or anywhere else has come up with any method of fraud that would work. Certainly no one has suggested a method would survive opening up the reactor and looking inside it. Think about the technique you describe. When they open the reactor, they would see wires and a joule heater next to the thermocouple probes. Don't you think they would recognize that? Even if they did not think to feel the water temperature (as I would have -- as ANYONE would have), surely they would recognize a wire and a heater! As I said, every method that has been suggested would be as easy to discover as it would be for me to detect that you are pretending to speak Japanese but actually speaking gibberish. That is not an exaggeration. Senior professional experimental scientists have spent a lifetime finding actual experimental errors. They can spot a deliberate, human-induced malfunction easily. It is crude in comparison. An experimental error only survives because it is subtle, like a program bug in finished code written by a professional. Any problem easy to spot is nailed before the test run begins. I'm going to reserve judgment until the data arrives, and I'll be looking > for heat-before-death > You will find it. There is no way you can have heat after death unless it begins before the power is turned off. It would be a fantastic coincidence if they ran for 8 hours with no heat and suddenly it appeared the moment they turned off the power. That is out of the question. As far as I know, the heat in this cell always appears in the first 10 or 20 minutes, if it is going to appear at all. I do not think they would have run for 8 hours with no heat and then said, "heck, let's try turning off the control current." That's implausible. They would have given up after the first hour. In several tests of the Rossi device, they did give up, because it did not work. - Jed
