Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > > OK, There is only one way to end this kind of fruitless thread – and that > would be a small wager to be based on the upcoming tests in Sweden. >
I don't bet. I debate technical issues based on experimental evidence, not crackpot theories that predict water heaters don't work. If you will not give us a plausible reason why this calorimetry might be wrong by a factor of 1000 then you lose this debate. I resent it when people make flippant jokes instead of presenting cogent arguments to back up their claims. I spent a good deal of time and trouble talking to the people at the NRL, and with others who have detailed knowledge of calorimetry at the 10 to 20 kW level, and people who know about nuclear reactors. Not one of these people mentioned any problem like the one your expert dreamed up. I sent the NRL people the thread from today's conversation. No one responded. No one believes there might be an error by a factor of 1000, or 10, or even a factor of 2. *No one*. The idea is preposterous, and the theory you put forth in support of it is hogwash. You should either tell us how and why the calorimetry might be mistaken by a huge factor, or you should admit you are wrong. And while I am complaining, I also resent it when people dismiss everyday, commonsense evidence based on water heaters and teapots as a "fall back argument." What is that supposed to mean?! A water heater embodies the best test anyone can make of your expert's theory. Ten million dollars could not buy a better way to test it. It is simple, it is direct, and it goes to the heart of the claim. One GLANCE inside a water heater demolishes the theory. The size of the resistance heaters tells you all you need to know. You dismiss an observation of a tea pot as somehow inadequate, or unbecoming of serious consideration. As less scientific than a power analyzer. You resemble the mindless skeptics who dismissed Fleischmann's boil-off experiments because he did not use digital instruments or computers. That experiment by itself was such elegant proof, it did not need any instrument other than a time stamp (which was recorded on the video). I ask: Why does anyone need an instrument to prove something that is manifestly obvious from the size, shape, and function of the machine itself? Have we lost all sense of how things work? I shall say no more about this. - Jed
