On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote:
> Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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 . . . > > > Yup. There is another huge practical problem with doing a blank run. > Injecting nitrogen, air or some other gas into the powder will probably > contaminate and destroy the powder. This is a problem because of powder is > expensive and difficult to fabricate. It is also a problem because after > you contaminate it, you could not produce heat from it. You would have to > produce heat first, then do your destructive blank run. > Tell me again who said anything about injecting anything? It certainly was not me. The only thing I'd inject before the start of the real run is heat, generated from a metered electrical source. This is like demanding that Mr. Ford first demonstrate that his Model T can > drive at 40 mph, then he must demonstrate that when you crash it into a > brick wall at 40 mph, it is destroyed and cannot drive at any speed after > that. > No. Why would heating the powder destroys it? If the heat is moderate, I am certain it wouldn't, based on what Rossi has said about running temperatures up to 500 C. There is no issue of injecting anything except heat. The reactor is sitting there like it always does. Instead of injecting hydrogen, you heat the device electrically and measure the output with the instruments until a steady state is reached. That's your calibration run with a blank charge. Then you allow it to cool, charge it with hydrogen, and run again. I don't see how that hurts the precious secret powder which, by the way, Rossi denies is expensive. As Valconen pointed out, there is no technical justification for a blank > run, and it would be "trivial to falsify. It does not improve the > reliability or reduce the probability of a hoax." > As you're fond of noting, hoax and error are two different things. I don't know (and asked for clarification) what she means by "falsify". If she means "fake" the blank run, I don't see it. How do you fake a calibration run when done with observers? The input power is metered, the output power is measured however it will be measured during a "real" run. It's very simple to do. I am not sure what problem you guys see with it. I simply don't understand the argument! As to hoax, yes, it does not rule out a hoax except for a hoax which would be heat activated and at least it does that. My suggestion is not intended to rule out all hoaxes. It's intended to stop the constant arguments about measurement methods for the output energy! Can I say it clearer? > Regarding the title of this thread, Krivit (and Yugo too, I think) claim > it is possible to commit fraud with an escrow agreement in which the > customer can do any amount of testing before final acceptance > I said no such thing and think no such thing. I think it's possible, even easy, to bamboozle early (and even later) investors and to trap them with very well written NDA's and disclaimers relative to the investment. I don't think you can fool a customer very long. What I said was that I don't believe we have any reason to think Rossi has or ever had a paying customer -- except for what Rossi says. I don't put much belief in that because of the insufficient tests and because of censoring and the tangential and bizarre answers he gives to perfectly appropriate questions on his blog. Of course there is such a thing as escrow fraud -- in fact it's common Nigerian fraud scheme. It's not related to this and not within the scope of the discussion but you can look it up. Basically, the escrow agent is not a real company and is part of the fraud.
