On 11-11-03 04:20 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-11-03 03:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said
that they are certain this was dry steam.
I mean that he said that about Rossi's previous tests. And this one too.
There is no doubt the Oct. 28 test produced only dry steam. You can
see the condensate collection bucket right below the pipe, with the
tube going to it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with
steam, that bucket would have overflowed in no time.
This colonel was confident that of Rossi's previous tests were valid.
Ah, but if he is secretly in cahoots with Rossi that's _just_ what he
_would_ say, isn't it?
I do not believe in conspiracy theories. This one is expanding beyond
all credibility. You have to believe that Rossi has now paid off
George Miley and his intrepid grad students as well.
Oh? Did Miley do an independent rep of Rossi? I hadn't heard that.
Got a reference? I would love to see the paper.
Wait -- do you mean Miley's recent work on Patterson-type cells?
That doesn't vindicate Rossi, at least not that I can see. It doesn't
even replicate Patterson. It shows positive results from Ni-H but
that's all you can say for it -- it's 'way less power than Patterson
saw, using a totally different geometry, and it's nothing remotely like
what Rossi's doing.
I've never argued that what Rossi is claiming is physically impossible.
He's too clever to claim perpetual motion or any such thing; he's picked
something that *could*, after all, be true.
The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said that
they are certain this was dry steam. I'm sure they are right and the
people here who disagree are wrong. I tend to believe experts who
have worked in a field for decades, rather than the peanut gallery.
"Experts" cut no ice with me, I'm afraid, unless they really are
experts in the exact subdiscipline in question, which these people may
or may not be.
Remember, the scientists at SRI were totally fooled by Uri Geller.
And Steve Jones is a physicist who should really, really understand
how things can and can't fall down, yet he thinks the WTC came down
via explosives. (A single viewing of the tapes makes that hypothesis
seem totally silly, IMHO, but I guess ol' SJ doesn't agree. And he's
a lot more of an expert on mechanics than I am, I'm quite sure.)
These tests all employed large reservoirs in the reactors, so the
water level might have varied. It must have varied. There is no
reason to think the power was stable to within 1%, never mind a
fraction of 1%.
If I can find the time I'll try to look back at what we've got on the
tests from last spring, and see how long it should have taken for the
temp to start shooting up had the power been, say, 2% too high. I
suspect it would have happened PDQ, but it'll take a little work (and
some guesses about reservoirs) to see if I'm right.
