On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It is not sufficient evidence, but it still can be interpreted as > evidence of nuclear reactions. > I don't agree. Not if the heat is coming from a 100 kg device that we're not allowed to inspect. If it were heat + commensurate radiation (in any form), then yes. If it were heat without any chemical changes after detailed inspection, then yes. If it were heat that exceeded the devices weight in the best chemical fuel, then yes. But just heat that represents less than a per cent of chemical energy density, then, to me, there is no evidence of a nuclear reaction whatsoever. And as always, the epilogue: if it were nuclear, it would be easy to unequivocally exceed the limits of chemistry. > Your alternative doesn't persuade me that the heat produced is > worthless as evidence. As everyone knows, there are countless ways to > fake the results. Each alternative suggests places where evidence of > fraud might be found. In your thermal mass alternative you need to > look for evidence that he misrepresented the electrical input power. > I haven't looked at the model that MY introduced in detail, but in broad strokes, I don't see a need to misrepresent the input power, even for an energy storage explanation, and still less for energy from chemical fuel. The input energy is in the range of 34 MJ, and the hard evidence can be explained with only about 12 MJ. What does need to be questioned is the energy as measured with the misplaced thermocouples on the heat exchanger, and the claim that the steam coming out of the ecat is dry. > > Similarly, if I claimed to have superhuman strength, I would not convince > > anyone by lifting a 50-lb bag of sugar, because you can lift 50 lb > without > > superhuman strength. > > > > The analogy doesn't make sense to me. I think what you mean is that > you show yourself effortlessly lifting 500lbs of sugar with one hand, > while the lifting was actually done by a piano wire attached to a > hidden hoist above the proscenium. > No, I think my analogy is closer. Rossi is claiming nuclear reactions based on the heat produced in a 100-kg device. There is no question that a 100 kg device can produce that amount of heat using only chemistry, with no strings attached. Ten times that would be easy.
