Vorl Bek <vorl....@antichef.com> wrote:
> - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why > does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough > to eliminate the possibility of the heat > coming from a chemical reaction? > Here is a similar loaded question: Q: Why does Obama refuse to show his birth certificate? A: He did show his birth certificate. This question incorporates a falsehood. Q: Why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction? A: It *has* been run long enough to eliminate this possibility, by a wide margin. Also, you have no reason to think this particular machine can be run for 6 months between charges. Rossi never said that. Your question incorporates two falsehoods. Perhaps the tests Nelson observed did not last long enough, but the 18-hour test in Feb. and Oct. 6 test did. Rossi ran for 4 hours. Anyone glancing at the data can see that the reactor should have fallen to room temperature in 45 min. Anyone can see the heat balance was zero going into the self-sustaining event. There was no stored heat. It is ridiculous to claim there might be some hidden source of chemical fuel that can produce this effect. Even if Rossi were to run the thing for 40 hours or 40 days, I am certain you would demand more. You would still be finding excuses not to believe it. People who are not convinced by this duration will not be convinced by any longer duration or higher power. You will have to wait for some major customer to buy a reactor and then go public. Probably you will not even believe that. You will say that General Electric is conspiring with Rossi to defraud the public. - Jed
