Horace Heffner wrote:
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.
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#Rossi18HourTest
(with links to NyTeknik)
And do not tell me this data is incomplete. It is all you need to know,
contrary to what Lomax asserts.
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.
It is similar insofar as people continued to raise an objection long
after it was decisively proved invalid, by experiment. That's
ridiculous. Once the experiment proves you are wrong, you should admit
that, shut up, and move on. When people ignore experimental results no
progress will be made and no question will be settled.
The public tests were not good enough to prove that *any* nuclear
energy was created.
This is your opinion. Many experts disagree, as do I.
Lying is not an important issue with the public tests. The issue is
whether the calorimetry showed anything at all.
People who know a great deal about calorimetry agree that it did. The
fact that the second test with a different calorimetric technique gave
the same result proves that it did. This cannot be a coincidence.
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.
They are not flawed. This is a figment of your imagination, just as the
objections to Fleischmann's experiment were. Repeatedly asserting that
something is flawed does not actually make it flawed. If the calorimetry
had been flawed the second test with cooling water would have revealed
this. It is fundamental to the scientific method that if you suspect
there may be a problem you do a second experiment with different
instrument types of different procedures to either confirm or disprove
the results. That is the only way to settle the issue. Arguing,
hypothesizing and debating get you nowhere. You do a test. Levi et al.
did a test. They proved their point. There is nothing more to be done,
nothing left to argue about, and nothing more to be said.
- Jed
