I apologize. I did not institute my five-minute sarcasm filter. Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Statement only slightly more ridiculous: >The most energetic thing that they could put inside is a fission reactor. A >fission reactor produces the most energy, because if it didn't, nuclear power >stations would use something else. And since we can't fit all of the necessary >safety controls in such a small space, the only remaining explanation is >nickel-hydrogen fusion. >Compare to the rocket-fuel analysis below. Discuss. > >Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>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. >>>> >>> >>> Maybe someone else who's more of a chemist and electrochemist than I am >>> can try to put together an exhaustive list. >>> >> >>You do not need an exhaustive list. The problem is much simpler than >>that. All you need is the extreme. You find out what chemical produces the >>most energy per unit of volume, and you figure out how much of that will >>fit inside the reactor core. The answer is rocket fuel with an oxidizer. >>The thing is underwater so it cannot be fed with air. We know the answer is >>rocket fuel because if there was any chemical with higher energy density, >>they would use that for rocket fuel instead of what they do use. >> >>It is easy to determine that this cell cannot hold enough rocket fuel plus >>the equipment you need to ignite it and control it. >> >>Of course there is not practical way to put rocket fuel in this reactor. Or >>gasoline, butane, or any other high energy density chemical. You would only >>make a bomb. In real life, you would have to use something less energy >>dense, producing much less heat. In other words, rocket fuel is the >>theoretical maximum, and any real chemical would be much worse. Since >>rocket fuel would not work, neither would anything else. >> >> >> >>> I'd include, in addition to various sets of chemicals, issues of things >>> that change state at moderate temperatures, adsorb to surfaces, and >>> probably many things I have not thought of yet. >>> >> >>All irrelevant. The only question is, how much heat can you generate with a >>chemical device of this size? Answer: Nowhere near enough. >> >> >> >>> And I maintain that the interior volume available for cheating is >>> unknown because nobody has recorded it. >>> >> >>They did record it, by Archimedes' method. Do you think that has stopped >>working after 2200 years? >> >> >> >>> What was that finned thing inside the device? You're sure it's only a >>> heat exchanger with active core modules in it? And you know that how? >>> >> >>That's the cell, but who cares what that is? For the purposes of this >>analysis, it does not make the slightest difference what that is. You can >>estimate the volume of it by displacement, and you can see it is not big >>enough. There is no electric power or fuel being being fed into it, and it >>cannot hold enough chemical fuel. That's all you need to know. >> >> >> >>> In any scam, it's the part you don't get that gets you. >>> >> >>Any scam must obey the laws of physics. >> >> >> I suspect Rossi may be cheating but you're right -- I can't name the >>> method or methods. >>> >> >>If you cannot name it, then no one can test it or falsify it. A thing that >>you cannot name or specify cannot be part of a scientific debate. That >>would be form or religion, or perhaps literature. >> >>All propositions and assertions in a scientific debate must be subject to >>testing and must be falsifiable, at least in principle. Asserting that >>somewhere, someone might somehow know how to do this by stage magic . . . >> means nothing. That is like saying there is an invisible unicorn or a lump >>of concrete in the reactor but no one can see, detect, or weigh, and it >>does not displace any water. If there is no way you or any of us can know >>anything at all about this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in >>the universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it? >> >> >> >>> They may be different and multiple each and every time. >>> >> >>Stop multiplying entities. You violate Ockham's razor. Especially, stop >>multiplying invisible entities that cannot be detected by any means, even >>in principle. This is -- literally -- like debating how many angels can >>dance on the head of pin. Until you specify a method of stage magic you >>have proposed NOTHING. >> >> >> Similarly I don't know how famous magicians do their illusions. >>> >> >>I do know. You can look it up in Wikipedia. When you look inside the >>stage apparatus, the methods are immediately obvious. Not one is >>sophisticated or mysterious. Some of them have been use for hundreds of >>years; some go back thousands of years. If this the only proof you can come >>up with -- that you personally do not know how stage magicians do their >>illusions -- you have disproved your own point. Anyone who makes a casual >>study of stage magic will know that the methods are dead simple and cannot >>be used to hide a wire in Rossi's reactor, once you open it up. >> >>- Jed
