Mary Yugo wrote:
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.
I think many responsible and capable people don't believe that. The
only absolutely determinative test is an independent one that rules
out hidden methods to power the device.
Hidden methods are an entirely different issue. Please do not confuse
the two. I am saying that given the mass of the device and the size of
the core, a 4-hour run is long enough to rule out chemistry. Obviously,
it does not rule out chemistry if someone finds a hidden tube of
gasoline leading into the device, or hidden wires, or something like
that. Obviously I mean it rules out a chemical source of fuel inside the
reactor core.
I think you understood that is what I meant. Please do not be
argumentative. Please do not use straw man arguments.
I am confident there are no hidden wires or tubes going into the
reactor. If you are not confident of that, fair enough, but please do
not bring up that issue when we are talking about sources of energy
isolated inside the reactor.
If you do think an isolated source of chemical fuel in the reactor
vessel might explain this, please list what sort of chemical device you
have in mind. How big is it? How much fuel, and how is that fuel
reacted? Please do say there was something else hidden in the vessel
other than the cell, and this other object magically defies Archimedes' law.
- Jed
