Beinsen Kurt <[email protected]> wrote: If i'm right: > During 6 months of operation at 10kW, 43200kWh are "produced". > As E=mc^2, there should be a loss of 1.7mg reactive mass, which should be > measurable. > It would be interesting if Mr. Rossi et al did that kind of measurement. >
Given the nature of this equipment, and the amount of hydrogen that must leak out of those pipes, it would be impossible to measure a change of 1.7 mg. Over 6 months, I am sure the machine loses far more than that from leaking hydrogen. I expect it picks up far more than than from dust settling on the machine, solids from water (scale) sticking to the insides and pipes, and many other sources. This is a dirty, industrial-scale machine. To measure a change in mass at milligram level you would need clean equipment, ultrapurified water, Swagelok connectors and other laboratory grade equipment. Even with that it would not be easy. One problem is that laboratory grade equipment generally works with small effects, and small samples. When I was a child I visited the National Bur. of Standards (now NIST) and saw them stress testing samples of concrete. There was a sample no bigger than your fist, and from that they could extrapolate that the Bonneville Dam might collapse. I was impressed. I saw that the scale of the test does not matter; the data tells the story. You would be surprised how many skeptics never learned that lesson, including some distinguished scientists. Some of them dismiss the results from Energetics Technologies because they are "only 20 W." Only?!? There is barely any input, or no input. It is no less convincing than 20 MW would be. The problem with those results, and all results before Rossi, was control and reproducibility, not scale. Scale should not matter to a scientist or engineer. - Jed
