Jed, are you sure that Horace assumes that there is no water flowing through the ECAT? That would be totally unbelievable. Maybe I was assuming that he was seeking the truth, but if he is neglecting such important issues, then I have been mistaken.
Horace, you need to defend against these allegations if you are to generate anything that can be believed. What use would it be to waste your time simulating something that is so far away from reality that everyone can immediately toss the conclusions out? I was making suggestions of some of the issues that will need to be considered to satisfy my curiosity. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress 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 eat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected into eactor. was going to mention that. I believe Heffner disputes that amount, aying it was not actually 60 kg. Perhaps it is reasonable to say that t might been less than 60 kg, but it is absurd to then conclude that ight have been zero. If that been the case, the vessel would have been ry long before the four-hour test ended, since more than 30 L left the essel. The vessel was still full at the end of the run. Any flow rate hat explain that means that the entire volume of the vessel was eplaced with tap water at least once. It was probably replaced twice, s 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 educe the claim somewhat, say 10%, and to say that reduces it 100%. Any eakness at all -- even an imaginary weakness! -- is taken as proof that he entire claim is wrong. This is the point I was trying to make in the arable 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, nd 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 rror! That's 635 feet plus or minus 300 feet, so as far as you know, it ould be only 335 feet high. Make another error like that, and it could be n the ground. Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it ight be zero. That is preposterous. Skeptics do not see that their own claims have more weaknesses than the ne 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 nyone else could have found a viable reason to doubt these things they ould 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 he observers. They want to look inside the reactor. It is a good thing hey did look inside the reactor. In any case the 18 hour test with lowing water, and the four-hour heat after death event exceeded limits f chemistry by such a large margin, they might as well of been a year r 10 years. It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than hemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The oint is already proven. - Jed
