On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I do not know any very smart people who say this. > That's because anyone who says it is automatically defined by you as not very smart; it's a tautology. But Peter Ekstrom says it, and so do a dozen or more people Krivit consulted, and they wrote technical objections. Of course, I've said it often, and given technical reasons, but we know you don't think I'm smart. The fact is, though, that if Rossi's claims are right, he has not made it obvious. If he had, we wouldn't be arguing about it in some obscure corner of the internet; he'd be catapulted to fame overnight. And you have said that yourself, just a few days ago: "I do not think Rossi wants large numbers of people to believe his machine is real. [...] That is why he is dead set against having a properly done engineering test of his machine. " > All of the scientists I know who have examined the results are convinced. > Ekstrom examined the results. So did many others, and they are not convinced. > They include people such as Kullander, who is chairman of the Royal > Academy of Sciences Energy Committee. > He doesn't sound that convinced to me. He says the isotope ratios don't fit, and more measurements are needed. > I am certain that he knows more about energy than you do. I am sure he > knows more about energy than all of skeptics tied together. > The problem is he doesn't know squat about steam. He thinks you can measure steam quality with a relative humidity probe. That disqualifies him as a reliable witness, your honor. > The people who dispute these results have never offered any valid > technical reasons to back up their assertions. > Again, only by your definition of "valid" People here, like Heffner and Heckert have given technical reasons, and of course Krivit's consultants, and many others. But I can summarize the reasons. First, they require that we trust Rossi, and Rossi has not earned our trust. And the idea of a demo is that trust should not be not needed, and yet, it still is. None of the demos give evidence (independent of Rossi) that the output heat exceeds the input energy, let alone the energy that could be provided by chemical means. In most of the demos, most of the problem is in claiming that all the water is converted to steam, when there is no evidence for it. That reduces the energy by a factor of 7 or 8. Any additional claimed energy excess can be accounted for by misrepresentation in input power (Rossi got caught with his fingers on the controls), or flow rate, or by chemical energy. Somehow, he never monitored them all in the same experiment. In the Oct 6 demo, the thermocouple placement puts doubt on any claim of output energy, but certainly on the claim that it exceeds the energy input beforehand. The numbers to support these claims are all over the web, and I can reproduce them all, if you like. For example, Jones Beene claimed that the calorimetry during the 18-hour > flowing water test might be off by a factor of 1000, but he never gave any > reasons why this is possible. Other people said that the input power might > be measured incorrectly in that test, but that is impossible because the > wires would burn up if there was that much electricity being input. > The 18-hour test requires trust. If that run went as claimed, why would they bother with the fat cat on Oct. 6. Just repeat the 18-hour run. Probably they can't because it never happened. (Or maybe Rossi did a thermocouple placement trick....) > > In the last year I have not seen a a single valid technical objection to > Rossi's claims. > No. Your problem is that you don't understand the valid technical objections. You repeatedly fail to understand why a nearly constant output temperature indicates a mixture of phases, and that the power transfer can't change discontinuously from P to 8P exactly when boiling begins. When Rossi's ecat is no further along a year from now, you will still be saying there are no valid objections to his claims. The fact that it doesn't work is not valid in your mind. > Rossi's problem is a failure to conduct his tests properly and to get >> independent testing. The skeptics merely point this out. >> > > I POINT THIS OUT. Often. > >> > These problem are annoying but unimportant. > They are unimportant to believers. They are critical to skeptics. > Yes, but his failure to follow this advice has no bearing whatever on the > reality of his claim. > Obviously. It has a bearing on who believes the reality of the claim. He claims to have a multi-kW heater, and he is unable to make it obvious. That almost certainly means his claim is bogus. It would be trivial to prove it, if it's true. No, it would be difficult to make it equivocal.
