At 11:04 AM 6/23/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Jed, I've asked this before. What second test proved what you show?
Are you referring to the Levi test that increased the flow rate?
How would this show that Galantini was correct?
Yes, I meant the test with flowing water. This showed that the steam
in the first test must have been dry.
Okay, thanks for clarifying. No, it doesn't show that the steam in
the first test must have been dry. It shows, to the extent that a
private test like this "shows" anything, that it is plausible that
the steam in the first test was dry or not far from dry. In fact, we
have reason to believe that the steam isn't dry, not completely.
Remember, Rossi has acknowledged that these earlier E-Cats emitted
wet steam, at least somewhat wet!
And completely dry steam is apprently pretty hard to come by, so the
question is really "how much"? If you had an E-Cat with stable heat
output, you might make a pretty good guess from the data. I'd
suggest, Jed, getting very precise about this issue. Don't say "dry"
as a finding, especially when completely dry steam is fairly unlikely.
It is conceivable that Galantini measured it wrong but he got lucky
and it was dry anyway.
Right. That Galantini didn't use a correct method doesn't mean that
his conclusion was wrong. But, Jed, we don't know what Galantini
said, do we? Where is his measurement -- or calculation -- of the
wetness of the steam? What did the meter indicate and how was this used?
I haven't seen it anywhere.
Or are you referring to the results of Kullander and Essen? Those
results appear to contradict Galantini, though, to be sure, we
don't have Galantini's results, so how can non-existent results be
confirmed, or contradicted, for that matter.
I do not see how they contradict Galantini.
Kullander and Essen did not claim that the steam was "dry." Rather,
they measured the wetness and found it to be, correctly or not,
between 1.2% and 1.4%. I'm assuming that these are mass measurements,
not volume, in spite of Kullander sputtering in the Krivit phone
interview. Otherwise those are pretty high! From the way that
Kullander used the measurements, they would be mass ratio, the
percentage of water being discharged as liquid instead of as vapor. I
just don't see how they came up with the values!
Jed, you are completely confused here. It looks like you are
confusing confirmation of heat generation, in very rough numbers,
with confirmation of steam quality. You are mixing public
demonstrations with private evidence, as with the "second test,"
i.e., by Levi with high flow.
It wasn't exactly private. Or I guess I should say it wasn't
supposed to be. Lewan and I got a report of it.
"Private," here, means witnessed only by Levi and Rossi. Lots of
people were told about it, not private in the sense of kept secret.
We were hoping and expecting more. I might not have described it at
LENR-CANR.org if I had known that no further details were forthcoming.
Yeah. It's got to be disappointing.
The interview with Levi in Query today discusses it. I disagree with
his assertion that a far more compelling test is needed, and much
more time. If I had a few days with flowing water tests, or even one
day, I think I could do a more compelling job than they have done so far.
I think you are correct, but this gives Rossi more time, it fits with
my understanding of his strategy.
You have already acknowledged being convinced by "private
information." That's fine. For you. It's not adequate for the rest of us.
Yes.
Great!
It is very frustrating for me, but I cannot do anything about it.
Believe me, I am trying. In the larger sense, I have been trying for
years to persuade cold fusion researchers to publish more. I have
had mixed success. I have thousand of pages of papers and
information I cannot upload. Most of it is unimportant, but some
would go a long way to clearing up these misunderstandings.
Yes. It's a problem, a problem with science in general, but
especially in a field like cold fusion, where the issues are
extremely complex and where the sharing of knowledge can be crucial.
There is a conflict here between the general advancement of science,
and private interest. I'd hope for public support of pure science; in
exchange for public support, the scientists openly publish and share
their results, and hopefully rapidly. Errors can be corrected! And
that, of course, should also be part of it....
I think that with publically funded research, the desirable situation
is more or less what happens. But with public funding for cold fusion
heavily whacked, we get what we have, a mess. Slow development.
Plenty of research results that are not available. Trade secrets. Etc.
