Horace, your 15 years of experience has it's limits because you have never
seen Rossi like setup before. You should not rely on that, because it might
fail you.
I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that there is a
correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and enthalpy? Do
you discard it only because you were unable to come up with the idea
yourself?
Why do you demand ultra high accuracy for calorimetry for short tests,
although short tests cannot exclude hidden power sources. Also your
suggestions for method does not even provide great accuracy without
extensive efforts, but calorimetry from steam pressure is here more
accurate, because there is not involved unknown rate of escaping heat due to
insufficient insulation. We can estimate the heat loss just by measuring the
surface temperature of E-Cat. Very simple and accurate.
Is it not easier to demand that MW power plant would run continuously
producing it's own electricity 24 hours per day, and seven days per week and
52 weeks per year? See how utterly out of context your pondring is here,
because indeed, electricity production rate depends on only one thing and
that is the pressure of steam MW E-Cat can provide. Calibration of
instruments is of course necessary, but even more necessary is to use common
sense.
Also, instead of more insults, i am still expecting you to apologize your
public insults what you have made. I am especially offended by your insults
that did end up into Krivit's Blog. And also, I consider your experience
with zero value. Only thing that matters is what you are now. In the history
we have just too much examples where experience has guided people into wrong
direction, so it is not relevant to trust into experience, but do the
thinking always on the basis of fresh arguments and clear thinking without
prejudices.
—Jouni
On Sep 20, 2011 9:51 AM, "Horace Heffner" <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
> Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods
> which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around
> things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently working to
> disprove claims. How sad. I suppose you don't think you need bother
> with calibration control runs to check calorimetry methods. Must be
> true if quality calorimetry is never applied I guess. Doing accurate
> calorimetry could prove embarrassing I suppose, so why bother
> spending time and money on that? With such bad calorimetry methods
> applied so far there is a risk it could all be merely a big
> systematic mistake. That would be so inconvenient to discover.
>
> Well, I've made an attempt to provide what benefit I can from of my
> little experiences doing free energy experiments, and spending 15
> years discussing things just like this. I'm not sure why I posted at
> all on this. I suppose it present some fun problems and an
> opportunity to learn. Hopefully, my posting has contributed to the
> gestalt of the list.
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>> 2011/9/20 Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net>:
>>> It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic
>>> scientific
>>> methods, known to every high school student who studies science, is
>>> overlooked.
>>> That is the importance of using experimental controls.
>>
>> Uh. No way it is important!
>>
>> What is required is that someone, who knows how to measure the
>> enthalpy tests the device in an over night run to exclude chemical
>> power sources. You are doing science here by the book, but it is even
>> more important to understand in what context methods from scientists'
>> guide book should be applied.
>>
>> Control experiment would be necessary in the case where we do not know
>> the cause and effect very well. This would be the case e.g. with
>> traditional palladium-deuterium cold fusion experiment, where we do
>> not have clear understanding what is happening. Here however, we do
>> not need to study how electric heater works, because we have plenty of
>> theoretical knowledge about electric heaters. Therefore, we can just
>> calculate electric heater effect when we have measured the input, and
>> we do not need to use experimental setup to find out how electricity
>> heats the system.
>>
>> I think that you are mixing here the need for control experiment,
>> because there was not made adequate calorimetry. But if you do make
>> calorimetry for the device (easiest way is to measure the pressure
>> inside), of course there is no need to make control experiment,
>> because electric input is known and controlled. If electric heating
>> power would be also unknown, then of course control experiment would
>> be necessary.
>>
>> Rossi has several times ridiculed this demand for "control
>> experiments" as it would be same thing as testing well known internal
>> combustion engine by using sand instead of oil as a lubrication agent
>> in the control experiment. (this metaphor was not Rossi's, but you get
>> the picture.)
>>
>>> In the case of the MW E-cat, which has an enormous thermal mass
>>> and is
>>> highly complex, a control experiment has the added importance of
>>> being a
>>> means to develop confidence in safe operating procedures and
>>> emergency
>>> procedures.
>>>
>>
>> I am sure that for the last 24 months and last 4 months with the new
>> version, Rossi has done nothing but test runs!
>>
>> –Jouni
>>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
