On Sep 1, 2011, at 6:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
All the opinions in the world can not change the fact that water
was probably coming out of the device in large mass proportions,
whither or not the device produced some nuclear heat.
Here is what all the opinions in the world cannot change: liquid
flow test proves that the machine is producing 12 to 16 kW of
excess heat. Period.
Again, where is the data for this test.
Years ago when Fleischmann published the boil off experiments there
was a great deal of debate similar to this. Many people claim that
droplets of on world water might be leaving the cell, which would
reduce the total enthalpy. Fleischmann did an inventory of the
lithium remaining in the cell and showed this is not the case. A
terabyte of blather on the Internet cannot refute this simple test.
This is irrelevant. Fleischmann did boil-off tests. There was not
more mass of water flowing over the side of his beaker and onto the
floor (or down a drain) than produced as steam.
Blather, Speculations and opinion do not count. The only thing that
counts is actual test results and these results prove that Levi and
Rossi are correct.
Where is the evidence for this?
No one disputes that the tests could be better but given the input
and output ratios and the high level of heat these results are good
enough to prove the point.
The public tests were not good enough to prove that *any* nuclear
energy was created.
As I stated previously these tests would not be good enough for an
investor to put millions of dollars into the device. More rigorous
tests are needed there because it is possible that Levi et al. are
lying.
Lying is not an important issue with the public tests. The issue is
whether the calorimetry showed anything at all. The issue is a
relative humidity probe does not measure steam quality, or sense
whether large amounts of water are overflowing. The issue is the use
of a set-up that is perfect for self delusion and erroneous results,
and proves nothing.
There would be no point to betting large sums of money that they
are honest when the question can easily be resolved with
independent tests.
- Jed
It would be a failure to exercise due diligence to invest large sums
of money, without independent tests, in a project where the key data
in the public demonstrations, the calorimetry, was so flawed. Such
major flaws are not an indication of an appropriate level of science
being applied.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
