Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly
against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything.
I agree, and so do all of the scientists I have asked outside of this forum.
Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical principles such as
heat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected into
reactor.
I was going to mention that. I believe Heffner disputes that amount,
saying it was not actually 60 kg. Perhaps it is reasonable to say that
it might been less than 60 kg, but it is absurd to then conclude that
might have been zero. If that been the case, the vessel would have been
dry long before the four-hour test ended, since more than 30 L left the
vessel. The vessel was still full at the end of the run. Any flow rate
that explain that means that the entire volume of the vessel was
replaced with tap water at least once. It was probably replaced twice,
as Rossi claims, but even if it was only once, Heffner cannot explain that.
There is a tendency among skeptics to cite a potential weakness that may
reduce the claim somewhat, say 10%, and to say that reduces it 100%. Any
weakness at all -- even an imaginary weakness! -- is taken as proof that
the entire claim is wrong. This is the point I was trying to make in the
parable here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg53437.html
ME: Look, an airplane! It must be 1,000 feet up! What did I tell you?
SKEPTIC: It is *not* 1,000 feet up! No way. I am an expert in trigonometry,
and I assure you, it is no more than 635 feet.
ME: Okay, but it is way up there.
SKEPTIC: Look, you just made an error of more than 300 feet. A 300 foot
error! That's 635 feet plus or minus 300 feet, so as far as you know, it
could be only 335 feet high. Make another error like that, and it could be
on the ground.
Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it
might be zero. That is preposterous.
Skeptics do not see that their own claims have more weaknesses than the
one they are critiquing.
For me it seems that the quality of criticism is decreasing.
I agree. This is proof that the claims are irrefutable. If Heffner or
anyone else could have found a viable reason to doubt these things they
would have by now. Instead they come up with impossible stuff.
PS. I think that the strongest criticism so far is that all
demonstrations have been too short, including these private
demonstrations that were held for Stremmenos and Nasa.
As far as I know, in all cases the tests were stopped at the request of
the observers. They want to look inside the reactor. It is a good thing
they did look inside the reactor. In any case the 18 hour test with
flowing water, and the four-hour heat after death event exceeded limits
of chemistry by such a large margin, they might as well of been a year
or 10 years. It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than
chemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The
point is already proven.
- Jed
