On Nov 7, 2011, at 7:52 PM, David Roberson wrote:
It always works out the way you desire when you cherry pick the
data. Throw away data that does not match your needs, keep all
that does. This is the common way that some science operates.
OK Dave, please supply the input power and flow time stamped data
from the time the M-cats are cool initially to power down. I
especially would like to have the power supplied via "frequency
generator". I'll scale it down to a single E-cat and run it through
my simulator once it is completed.
If you want to be truly honest in your effort, you must explain all
of the experimental evidence. And, it is important that you
consider the fact that 3 core modules were used in the 1 MW test.
The customer acceptance was based upon having 3 cores and thus the
results were far more robust. I guess that you are attempting to
explain the test in early October by suggesting that there was no
active core at all. It might be possible to simulate that since
only one core was generating heat. My last conclusion seemed to
indicate that the power output was a lot less than the thermocouple
data suggested. Try not to be manipulated by Rossi and confused as
he seems to enjoy misdirecting us at every possible turn of events.
He has done that to me on many occasions.
Think of this. One core module supplies 3.4 kilowatts of output in
driven mode. In the self sustaining mode it is generally 1/2 that
amount. I would not be surprised to see just 1.7 kilowatts under
this condition, and that should be easy to simulate with concrete
or iron or many other possible materials. But then, with 3 modules
of the 1 MW system output power goes up to approximately 10
kilowatts for each ECAT. This will be virtually impossible to
simulate in the driven mode where the system puts out 1 MW. You
might be able to approximate the self sustaining mode at half that
power (500 kW), but it will be much harder.
Again, if you expect to convince the majority of us that Rossi is
conducting a scam, explain the difficult case.
Convincing anyone that Rossi is conducting a scam is not my goal. I
*would* very much like to see customers demand at least mediocre
calorimetry though. I would like to see credible proof produced, and
it could have already been produced at almost no expense, with simply
the right experimental plans. I also do not want to see a bad
financial deal made of any kind - because it will be used as an
example every time serious scientists attempt to obtain research
funding. This kind of turn of events could have a serious negative
impact on billions of people for years to come. It is important to
determine as quickly as possible if nuclear energy is actually being
produced and at what power level.
That said, consider the fact the less data the more difficult. The
most difficult case would be the case where Rossi holds a press
conference and states he has been running an E-cat for more than a
year to heat a building. Yes, all claim and no data. That's the
most difficult case. Really not very far from the MW test though is
it? The data from that test, like 9 prior, depends on the assumption
that steam was flowing, plus various other assumptions that are
unreasonable to make during due diligence. There really isn't much
difference between insufficient data and no data.
Say, wait a second, Rossi has already specified the the most
difficult case. He already stated he has been using an E-cat to heat
a building for over a year. Well, I guess I can't run that data
through a program, can I? Yep, scientifically irrefutable! Wow, I
really had no idea the nuclear energy claim was so well verified.
The most difficult experimental evidence can not be explained away!
That's iron clad proof! I wonder if dealerships are being offered? 8^)
Sorry, the sarcastic nome must have cast a momentary spell on me.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Nov 7, 2011 8:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Colin Hercus
> <colinher...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C and make
>> very little
>> steam
>
> But that assumes that the numbers are falsified. In the customer's
> public report, it says :
>
> Water vaporized : 3716 l.
>
> So if that figure is false, anything goes and there is nothing
left to
> investigate. You have
> to put faith in something, otherwise it is pointless to discuss -
just
> call it a scam and move on.
> --
> Berke Durak
>
Anyone who believes that 3716 liter number with so little evidence
deserves the E-cat he buys.
My work is focused on the 6 Oct. test. I think the 1 MW test too
nonsensical and data free to be worthy of a technical discussion.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
