On Oct 12, 2011, at 6:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Susan Gipp wrote:
I'm sure that for Rossi numbers are pretty meaningless. He often
use them just as nice words to emphasize his speeches. We don't
have to take them to make calculations.
Let's talk instruments (when they work properly)
No, let's talk human reflexes. At around 18:00, someone touched the
hose going to the heat exchanger. That person jumped back because
the connection with hot. that was four hours after the power was
turned out.
No, that was 2 hours 7 minutes after the power was turned off, at 15:53.
No matter how you analyze it, there is no way any part of the
system could have been even warm at that time, unless there was
kilowatt levels of heat being generated in the system.
This is simply wrong.
people also held there hands over the reactor and determined that
it was very hot. Again there is no way this could be true unless
heat was being generated inside the reactor.
The reactor was well insulated at this point.
Let us talk human hearing. People heard boiling inside the reactor.
four hours after the power was turned off.
Yes. They should hear boiling, as I showed there should be a few
hundred watts steam generation at that point.
It would have been great to have the hose off momentarily at that
point to see what was actually coming out of the E-cat.
You do not need to believe Rossi and you do not need to believe any
of the instruments to be sure the thing was producing anomalous
heat. You have first principle irrefutable proof right there, in
what the witnesses felt and heard.
That is merely proof a thermal storage mechanism is available.
It would be nice if we had more reliable instrument readings, but
we do not. However, that is no reason for us to ignore witness
accounts, or to imagine that a person who is burned and feels pain
has not touched something hot. Do not let your anger at Rossi cloud
your judgment and make you ignore first principle proof.
You should look at the evidence you have, not evidence you do not
have, or that you wish you had instead.
As it happens the Rossi numbers are not meaningless. As I just
showed you can reconcile the condensate flow rate with the inlet
and outlet temperature readings. It is likely that the outlet
temperature was affected by the steam pipe, but that the effect was
small and the numbers are basically correct.
Innumerate arm waving.
Instruments such as the Termometro meter are extremely reliable and
there is no way Rossi could open up to meter and change it so that
it produces fake numbers. Instruments such as this have
microelectronics, like digital watches, and the only thing you can
do is break them.
- Jed
It may be useful to read my review, though it is still in draft form:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
