Jed, we seem to be interleaving remarks. Also my ISP seems to be
having problems. This should resolve itself as I will be unable to
continue this today as I am leaving town.
On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
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.
Perhaps I have missed something. I have had to skip many posts made
here.
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.
I can't easily read the document, but the fact professional
techniques exist is irrelevant. When and where were these
techniques applied to Rossi's experiments?
The scientists performing these tests,
What 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.
What calorimeter used by Levi?
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.
Where is the documentation of that 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
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
