At 09:15 AM 8/5/2011, Enzo wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<[email protected]> wrote:
> By the way, the 18-hour test, on its own, certainly seems convincing, but
> the problem is that we can't trust it.
It's seems to me that most of the people talking about Rossi-Focardi
would like to have a proof given personally to them to believe....
Well, that's certainly not me. I'm looking at the evidence available
and commenting on how it occurs to me. Take it or leave it. Or are
you looking for some "proof given personally" to you?
In my opinion there are only two facts which we can judge:
1) Rossi-Focardi had given a private demonstration of their reactor to
the University of Bologna (the so called 18-hour test) which later
signed a contract to study the reactor.
You have connected two events as if one caused the other. In fact,
the University of Bolgna has declared, as I recall, that there is no
such contract. A contract may have been offered, possibly, but it's
really contingent, if the rumors are correct, on delivery of the 1 MW
reactor, or else there isn't any money. Rossi's stated that he spent
his last money on the UB agreement. No proof.
2) The same happened with the university of Uppsala, but for what we
know at the moment they have not signed a similar agreement.
The demonstration referred to here must be the Kullander and Essen
demo, which wasn't officially connected with the UU.
In fact, an agreement to investigate, particularly if accompanied by
funding, as asserted about the unconfirmed UB contract, means almost
nothing. It absolutely is not a validation.
The rest is totally pointless to discuss. The public tests are
useless, for whatever rossi would show in a public test, people would
find flaws in it saying that it doesn't constitute a proof.
Nope. Rossi could easily have arranged -- indeed, merely allowed --
conclusive demonstrations. He set up something very different.
Rossi has choose not to follow the scientific path of publishing
results and wait peer reviews. This is perfectly legitimate and I can
even think good reasons in doing this beside his justifications about
patents and trade secrets.
Sure. He has no obligation to do any demos at all. I've been saying
this for months. But he did do demos and so we have examined them,
and some very surprising facts and implications have surfaced.
For example, did you realize that a boiler with constant water
inflow, exceeding the rate of vaporization, would overflow, and if
the overflow is through an opening over which is blowing all
generated steam, that about 5% vaporization could be enough to
generate steam that is 95% wet?
It's an atomizer, the way it's designed. No boiler would be designed
that way, deliberately, if the goal is to deliver reasonably dry steam.
Lots of people have been familiar with steam quality issues, and they
missed this, because they never even imagined that someone would
design a system to be extremely efficient at making very wet steam,
so they thought that the steam quality objection was silly, since 5%
wetness couldn't possibly affect the results so much!
