On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If that is what you mean, you are wrong. Input power is much smaller than > output, and there is no chance it might be confused with output. > Output power may be larger than input in some demos, but the evidence does not support the claim that the total output energy is greater than the input energy in any of the demos (except the private 18-h test). > In many cases output is much larger than the highest possible input. For > example, during the 18-hour run, the wires would have burned if the heat > had been caused by input. > And isn't it strange that you always have to fall back on the 18-hour run for your example of excess heat. If that *private* run was such a good run, why didn't Rossi repeat *that* with invited reporters and outside scientists? > >> and into the larger one for a substantial preheating period. >> > > Only one test has had a substantial preheating period, and there is no > doubt that all of that heat came out long before the self sustaining event. > There was no energy storage; the effect was already exothermic. > The only ones that ran in "self-sustained" mode had substantial preheating periods, and also were done with the substantially heavier ecats. That includes the Sept 7 demo for Lewan, the Oct 6 demo, and the Oct 28 multi-cat demo. And you are simply wrong that the heat came out before the self-sustaining event in any of those cases. In the Oct 6 run, to which I assume you are referring, the output water was below 100C for more than 2 hours, which means the output power was far lower than the input, and therefore the input was being *stored* by the substantial thermal mass Rossi added since his previous tests. And don't you see that the many disagreements about this all over the web indicate the value of blank run, or a much longer run? > And then the so-called self sustaining run is always short. >> > > The Oct 6 self sustaining event was 4 hours. Ten minutes would have been > long enough. In 10 min. you would have seen the boiling stop abruptly > temperature decline rapidly. > You have absolutely no way to back up those statements. The ecat weighed 100 kg, and it was heated for hours beforehand. If it contained fire brick heated to 600C during the preheating period, there is no way it would cool off in 10 minutes or in 3 1/2 hours. In fact, if it did stop boiling in 10 minutes, it would violate the conservation of energy. All the input during preheating has to go somewhere. There is no doubt whatever that after 40 min. the reactor should have been > stone cold. > There is doubt all over the internet. What you mean is that you don't doubt it, but that means nothing to me. > By that measure this run is 5 times longer than needed. > You mean, by the measure of your gut feeling. But by the measure of heat and temperature, and the possibility of chemical reactions, it was at least 10 times too short. To really exclude storage and chemistry, several weeks would be better. As it is, Rossi excluded neither. > It would not be more convincing in any sense if it had gone on a million > times longer. > You don't even believe that. If an isolated ecat continued to produce heat at the rate of a kW or more for a year, there would be no doubt remaining. > There is *absolutely no technical reason* to demand a longer run. It is a > distraction. > Underlining it doesn't make it true. A longer run would allow the thing to produce more output energy than was put in. That's a technical reason. A still longer run would allow it to produce more output energy than could be produced by chemical fuel of the same mass. That would exclude chemical reactions unequivocally. That's a technical reason. There is *absolutely no technical reason* to invoke nuclear reaction to explain the observations in any of Rossi's demos. > I am sure that if Rossi ran for 8 hours, [...]. She will move the goal > posts indefinitely. > The skeptics have not been moving goal posts. From the beginning, they have asked for (1) output energy that exceeds the input, and (2) that exceeds the energy that could be produced chemically in a device of the same size and mass. Rossi has not even met the first criterion, let alone the second. In fact, the results have gotten further from those criteria, as the ecat gets fatter, the input period gets longer, and the output gets lower. > > Frankly, anyone who was not convinced by McKubre back in 1992 will never > be convinced by any amount of scientific proof or by any prototype device. > Of course, that's not true, and you have said so yourself. McKubre's results were available to the 2004 DOE panel, but they were not convinced, and yet as you have said, "With a small (half liter) insulated cell, the surface area should be small enough that the heat from the outer wall will be palpable (that is, sensible). ... It is utterly impossible to fake palpable heat.... I do not think any scientist will dispute this. ...An object that remains palpably warmer than the surroundings is as convincing as anything can be..." It's pretty easy to conceive of demonstrations that could unequivocally prove heat beyond chemistry. No one has produce one yet, as you yourself admit. > The people going round and round are talking nonsense. Running running > much longer would not answer any of the imaginary concerns they have > raised. > Running longer in self-sustained mode would answer all concerns about stored energy or chemical energy. To deny *that* is talking nonsense. > Any method of secretly introducing electricity or fuel in a fraudulent > system would work indefinitely. > Electricity, yes, but that's pretty easy to exclude. How one earth would secret fuel work indefinitely? What are you smoking? > Of course there would be an issue! If it is a measurement error (an > instrument artifact) it will last forever. The reactor cannot actually > remain above room temperature for more than 40 min. > Why not? 100 kg of almost anything heated to several hundred C will stay way above room temperature for 40 minutes. My wood stove weighs less than 100 kg, and it is still warm in the morning. > Yes, of course. We are arguing about where the thermocouples were placed > BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT MAKE A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE. > Capitals don't make it true any more than underlining does. People don't believe than and a blank run would have resolved it. Of course, just measuring the water temperature in the water would have resolved it too. So easy to resolve, but Rossi doesn't, because he needs the uncertainty.
