Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote:
> If the steam was wet, then the result might yet still be OU, or not, but >> why >> not wait to pass judgment until it is done correctly? >> > > The situation is way beyond just the need for "passing judgement". This is > a case of a lot of hoopla and maybe money changing hands, when the basic > science applied to the main claim, excess heat, is laughable. The science > applied to that issue is less than amateur. 1. The only money that has changed hands has gone from Rossi to U. Bologna. I do not see how you can object to that! If it were going the other direction you might have a point. 2. These techniques are professional, not amateur. Review the document I just linked, and you will see that professional engineers use these techniques. If these techniques were unreliable or far less accurate than 10% (as claimed), in any major city hundreds of boilers would explode or fail drastically every day. Before these procedures were put in place in the mid-19th century, hundreds of boilers did explode. The scientists performing these tests, such as the chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' Energy Committee, know a great deal about energy and how to measure it. Your assertion that their techniques are "shabby" or "amateur" is incorrect. Note also that when Hydrodynamics hired the best expert in the state of Georgia (the Dean of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Tech.) to design an industrial scale calorimeter for them, he came up with a system very similar to the one used by Levi et al. Regarding the steam, I repeat: wet or dry, the enthalpy must have been close to what they calculated or the Feb. 10 test would have shown a major discrepancy from the Jan. 14 test. That did not happen. I do not see how anyone can argue with that fact. Rossi also pointed this out, in his blog. - Jed
