Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-11-16 05:32 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:


On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:

    There are actually some technical difficulties with a "blank run"
    in the Rossi E-cat.

    Wet cold fusion researchers sometimes have used H2O in a "blank"
    run, and compared evolved heat using D2O with the blank output.
     If the D2O produces a heat measurement value higher than the H2O
    then they can conclude, with good certainty, that something
    interesting happened.  That sort of yes/no blank comparison run is
    harder to arrange for the E-Cat.

    The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as
    the hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.  This means that a blank
    run using, say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to
    produce *less* *measured* *heat* than the H2 run, even if there's
    no new chemistry or physics taking place in the "loaded" E-Cat.
     And that leaves you right back where you started, trying to do
    precise calorimetry on the "loaded" run to determine exactly how
    much "excess heat" was produced, and comparing it with a
    theoretical value for heat of adsorption.


I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a problem.  
The error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to accept it if 
(and only if) he runs so long that it's accounted for...

Oh get real.  You just made my point -- the blank and non-blank runs 
must run "long enough" so the excess due to adsorption "is accounted 
for" -- as I said, we're right back to square 1, arguing over the 
calorimetry.

As I said, it's not a yes/no test -- yes, the signature is higher than 
the blank, or no, it's not.