On Aug 25, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote:
The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a
well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of
the device itself . . .
Defkalion claims they have done this.
Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of
discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful
progress. Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of
churning churning churning.
Hold on there! I assume you refer to the discussions and churning
here, in this group.
You assume wrongly. I refer in addition to Rossi's blog, the CMNS
news list, Krivit's blog, public press, etc., etc.
This has nothing to do with what Rossi and Defkalion are doing.
Alarm bells should not go off because people here who have nothing
to do with the research and no information about it are speculating.
I refer to the fact that repeated public demos are made and extensive
argument and even bluster, ad hominem, etc. is put up on the issue of
calorimetry, without even the most nominal effort or expense to
publicly examine the heat output independently of the E-Cat.
I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone
would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and
inexpensive science being applied.
What evidence do you have for this assertion? How do you know that
no one has done proper calorimetry? In their web site discussion
group, Defkalion claimed they did, and they claimed the Greek Min.
of Energy did as well. No details or reports have been published,
so perhaps it is not true, but can you be sure it is not true?
- Jed
The above statement is in regard to the repeated public demos, and
continued public discussion - the public information which can
potentially attract investors. It is not relevant what has
supposedly happened behind the scenes. What matters is the fact that
there has been continual public interfacing with nothing but talk
talk talk, continual stirring of the public relations pot, concurrent
with repeated flawed demos, when even an amateur level of attention
to calorimetry in the public demos could potentially blow the lid off
on the prospects for investment, for both Rossi and others. Serious
criticism by serious scientists, that could easily (and potentially
very inexpensively) be answered experimentally, is met with true
believer fluff and smokescreens from both Rossi and the true believer
peanut gallery.
There is serious reason to doubt any useable nuclear heat is being
produced at all. There is very good reason to believe liquid water
is being spurted out of the steam exit port of the E-Cat, even if a
large amount of nuclear energy is actually being created. This
"steam quality" issue has not been addressed, despite intense public
debate and criticism by serious scientists. The demos are highly
flawed, to the point of demonstrating nothing. No amount of bluster
and name calling can change that. Krivit has it right in his seven
points.
An obvious question is why would Rossi would engage in such time
consuming public interfacing when there is so much to do
technically? I think the answer has to do with money.
Hopefully I have it right on the points I made quantitatively with
regard to the percolator effect. There has thus far been no
appropriate reasoned response on the quantitative issues my post
discusses, main points of my post. I suppose there is good reason
for that; it is a lot easier to engage in blather instead of doing
any real work.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
