Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> wrote: Mr. Rothwell never attacked me personally. He merely labeled all remaining > skeptics as ignorant/blind/foolish/etc. I think that there is still room to > question the results, and I'm certainly not the only one. I think that the > ad hominems can stifle open communication, and I thought that they did not > have place here. > Now, in questioning the thermocouples, I'm apparently violating the laws of > physics and > without a 7th grade education. A public forum should be a safe environment > from ad hominems, but maybe I misunderstood. > I may not have a "degree in Japanese", but I was studying quantum mechanics > at Fermilab while still in high school. Nevertheless, I'll take a back > seat, or "get out of the kitchen" if this is how you guys cook. >
Look I am sorry to rub this in, but I believe Leguillon had the notion that if you leave an anvil in a forge for a week, it will "store" more "heat energy" than you if you leave it for a few hours. Perhaps I misunderstood his comment and that is not what he meant. However, if that was what he had in mind, he does not understand the concept of thermal equilibrium. He does not grasp that when matter "stores heat" that must make it hotter, or undergo a phase change, or later break down the molecules. Once it does that and reaches equilibrium no more heat energy is stored. In other words, he does not understand some junior-high level physics that happen to be essential to calorimetry. The Rossi test is calorimetry, as are most cold fusion experiments. A person who does not grasp these concepts is not capable of understanding the results. I am sorry, but that is all there is to it. If you do not grasp thermal equilibrium or the Second Law, you cannot understand how this system works, and -- unless I misunderstood the comment about the anvil -- Leguillon does not grasp these things. And yes, these things are junior-high level subjects. Leguillon says he knows a lot about quantum mechanics. I will take his word for that. If you presented me with a problem in quantum mechanics, I would be totally incapable of understanding it or solving it. We all have our limitations. There is no necessary correlation between the complexity or grade level of a problem and a person's ability to understand it. A person who does not understand some fundamentals of a subject may well understand advanced or higher level aspects of it. For example, I understand much more about how a microprocessor works at the level of registers, op-codes and assembly language than I understand the underlying transistors and resisters that make up a register. Let me add that I understand these things, to the extent that I do, because I read textbooks about calorimetry and also "Physics Made Simple" and "Chemistry Made Simple" which are junior-high level textbooks. I recommend them. When I get confused about a subject or I am editing a paper and I encounter some basic concept I have forgotten, such as Lenz's law, I reach for them. You should never hesitate to review the textbooks at any level. Ignorance is never something to be ashamed of. I also know about this stuff because I spent weeks staring at experiments and data with Mallove, Mizuno and others. Nothing beats hands-on experience! As Franklin said, experience is a dear teacher but a fool will learn at no other. That is why, in all seriousness, I think Leguillon should spend some time in the kitchen with 8 gallons of boiling hot water and a thermometer. - Jed
