Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: 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. >> > > There may be other reasons not to believe in it but certainly a 40 hour > run is more persuasive than a 4 hour one . . . >
This is like saying that a gigaton thermonuclear bomb is more convincing than a 20 kt bomb. No, it isn't. Once you exceed the limits of chemistry by a large margin, a larger margin proves nothing. Or, to take a more peaceful example, it is like saying that the quantum levitation shown in this video would be more convincing if the superconducting material was a meter away from the track instead of ~1 cm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA It is definitely levitating. Making it farther from the magnet would not prove anything that is not already proved. . . . especially when there is no compelling legitimate reason to stop > early. I've made jokes that maybe Rossi has another appointment? > Not a joke. The people observing the tests told me that they had other appointments. They asked him to stop. That is a compelling, legitimate reason. > As for there being no way to cheat with the experiments Rossi has done so > far, how do you know? > The only suggestion you have come up with is a stage magician trick. I know enough about stage magic to know that such a trick could never fool anyone who opens up the device and looks inside. If there are wires or hidden fuel, you would see them. Otherwise it would be genuine supernatural magic. There is no such thing. You have said that someone, somewhere may know of some stage magic method. That assertion cannot be tested or falsified, so it is not meaningful. It is like saying there might be an undiscovered error in Newton's laws. Do you know every possible way there is to store energy in an 80 kg > device? > Yes, I do. More to the point, so do all physicists and chemists. The limits of chemical energy storage have been well known since the mid-19th century. If you are challenging them you will have to overthrow far more than a few plasma fusion theories that some people claim cold fusion may violate. I know just about everything relevant to this system, and experts who know this in far more detail than I do are certain there is no way to store this much energy in this device. It is not close, or questionable, or marginal. It is not a difference of 20%. It is beyond question. The thing would cool rapidly, reaching room temperature in 45 min., tops, yet it still boiling 4 hours later. That's not close. It might as well be a million hours. How do we know there was no heat storage? We know the specific heat of water and the metals in this device. We know how much the metal weighs. We know there is no invisible concrete that takes up no space and displaces no water. We know that if you "store up heat" before the test, the reactor would get hot. It would have to be 1000 deg C inside. There is no insulation so perfect that the outside surface would not be quite hot to the touch. When the observers picked the thing up to weight it, they would feel it is hot. The human sense of touch is sensitive and 100% reliable at these temperatures. > Do you know every possible way there is to bamboozle the instrumentation > and the observers? > There is no way to bamboozle the sense of touch. You cannot make a dozen people think that a box at room temperature is radiating heat at 80 deg C. You cannot make it burn someone and cause pain. Prepackaged modern electronic gadgets such as the thermocouple meter cannot be bamboozled either. All you can do with those things by monkeying with them is break them. Besides, one of the observers tested the meter against his own, and found that it works. > If you don't know for sure EVERY possible way, you can't be sure that > one wasn't used. > Yes, I do know EVERY possible way, because this is first-principle, fundamental physics. Any person in the last 100,000 years would know that boiling water in box that is radiating heat must cool down in 4 hours. It is ridiculous to question that. It is absurd to natter on about the placement of the thermocouples when sense of touch alone proves the point. The only possible cause is energy generation, and I do know EVERY possible way to send electric power or chemical fuel into the box: with a wire or tube. There are no wires or tubes. Do you know of any other way to put energy into this system? > Longer duration and higher power would make a lot more sense than the > anemic and brief tests that we've been subjected to thus far. > What the hell is that supposed to mean?!? Those are absurd adjectives in this instance. 4 hours is not "brief" compared to 40 minutes. Heck, you would know in 10 minutes that it is cooling rapidly. If kilowatts of heat an a large box radiating at 80 deg C is "anemic" what the heck do you want? A blast furnace? "Anemic" compared to what? If you think this is a small amount of energy, I suggest you boil 30 L of water and trying dropping something into it, such as a half-dozen lobsters. You will see this takes a tremendous amount of heat. You would be severely scalded -- hospitalized -- if you put your hand in that for a few seconds. Turn off the flame, wrap it in insulation, and check back in 4 hours. That is how it would be if there were no anomalous heat. Lukewarm, probably room temperature. Go ahead and put your hand in. Can you tell the difference between that and boiling water? Would you call that an "anemic" difference? It is gigantic. - Jed
