David Roberson wrote:
Jed, are you sure that Horace assumes that there is no water flowing
through the ECAT? That would be totally unbelievable.
I believe he said that previously. Actually I think he said something
like "we do not know what the flow rate is so it might be zero."
Ask him.
While you are at it, ask Robert Leguillon what he meant by saying "we
have no idea what the flow rate actually was." Does "no idea" mean there
could be no flow at all? See the thread I just started.
What I am saying here is that if you assert the that 60 L was not added,
okay, fair enough. Maybe you are right. Yeah, it sure would have helped
if Rossi had used a proper flowmeter. But if that is what you say, how
much water do you think _was_ added? What is the minimum? 30 L? 10 L?
You have to pick some reasonable number. You can't say zero. If it was
10 L (which is unreasonable, in my opinion), how does that impact your
stored energy hypothesis?
Jouni Valkonen has it completely right when he says that Heffner is
ignoring all factors that work against his hypothesis, such as heat
losses from the reactor, and the energy needed to bring the tap water up
to boiling temperatures. He is also ignoring observations such as the
person who was burned by the reactor several hours into the
self-sustaining event. He is carefully slicing and dicing the evidence,
looking for a few stray facts that -- taken in isolation -- might be
seen as lending support to his hypothesis. Actually, they are more
easily explained by other means.
This is not how to do science.
- Jed
