On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alan J Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: > > 4. Rossi purges the core, eg with air or Nitrogen, until there is a very >> small chance of hydrogen being left. >> > > That can be hard to do, and really hard to know if you have succeeded. It > might take a couple of weeks. Ed Storms devised automatic equipment to do > something like this the Case experiment. It cycled through added gas, and > then pulled a vacuum. > > I guess N would be okay but air may permanently contaminate it. My guess > is that a vacuum would be your best bet. > > This seems like a pointless exercise to me. Of course I understand the > necessity for blank runs and controls when you are trying to measure a > fraction of a watt, or even ~10 W. But with kilowatt levels of heat that > anyone can confirm by sense of touch, running a blank is ridiculous. > It would be if Rossi wasn't pouring power into the smaller E-cat continuously and into the larger one for a substantial preheating period. And then the so-called self sustaining run is always short. It would be pointless except that a lot of people go round and round about adequacy of the measurements and related issues. There'd be no issue about the measurements if the runs were much MUCH longer. As it is, we're still arguing about the 8:1 error that can be due to wet steam and the issue of where the thermocouples were in the October 6 experiment. The calibration run would remove those uncertainties. There is no need to flush anything. Just take a new E-cat before it's ever seen hydrogen and run that as a blank. Now that I think about it, I have no idea why you're worried about flushing the thing -- that was your idea. I never suggested it. Rossi always charges E-cats with hydrogen just before running them. I have to assume that if he didn't, they wouldn't work! Or get a brand new one. He said he made hundreds! > We are talking about a heat release on the scale of everyday experience, > like you get when you turn on your stove, or a room heater. When you see a > steaming hot cooked turkey, do you ask yourself: "Could this really be > cooked? Is it really hot? I'll need a frozen turkey as a control before I > can be sure!" Ask a cook whether she can tell a frozen turkey from a > cooked one. She will think you are crazy. And yes, that *is* the > magnitude of the difference we are talking about. That is not hyperbole. > I don't understand the similarity you see between Rossi's obscure and obfuscated experiments, all done on his venue, entirely by whatever method HE chooses, and with his power, coolant, pump and most of the measuring gear and telling the difference between a cooked or a frozen turkey! It's OK. I get confused between Greece and Turkey anyway. But seriously, you are advocating proper testing to Rossi and resisting it here and rationalizing incomplete and inadequate tests. Are you of two minds? > > Do you find that you must look at a parked car for reference before you > can be sure that one driving past you at 20 miles an hour is moving or > standing still? > Dreadful analogy.
