On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Berke Durak <berke.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As I said, steam or not steam, this thing produces lots of excess > energy. This argument hasn't been properly countered by skeptics. > Fire bricks/hot graphite/molten lead/batteries/garden gnomes etc. > are not allowable arguments since they imply willful deception, > a needlessly complicated hypothesis which is easily subsumed by the > simple claim that all the data is simply fake. > Why are you rejecting the possibility that Rossi faked his data? Perhaps he did it with deliberately bad measurement methods that he knew would mislead his guests in the early demonstrations. And when he introduced an entirely different and much larger module on October 6, along with an entirely different measurement system, maybe he also faked that and knew in advance what the erroneous measurements would show. And maybe there is no client for the October 28 device other than someone working with Rossi. You seem to reject the above hypotheses because they imply willful deception which you think is too complicated. But scamming wasn't too complicated an explanation for Steorn, Tilley, Dennis Lee, Priest, Geller, Mylow and many other scammers, was it? Yes, it would be daring and tricky to fool the scientists and reporters but such foolery has been successfully accomplished many times before. And the easiest to fool are often the eager early investors. You expect the skeptics to counter the argument that the E-cat produces excess heat but maybe it does. Maybe it does it only for the short times Rossi allowed it to run and only because there is an extraneous source of conventional energy in it. At the risk of boring the others, I have to remind you that it is Rossi who refuses to run long enough to rule out the scam hypothesis. It is Rossi who won't properly calibrate the measurement system as a whole by a blank run. It is Rossi who didn't allow complete disassembly (down to the cores, no need to go inside them) in the October 6 test. It is Rossi who has never availed himself of independent testing, even when Celani, an LENR proponent recently proposed it. It is Rossi who gives tangential and lame responses when asked about independent testing. It is Rossi who claims that he's sold 14 container sized nuclear fusion reactor and won't reveal who the clients are, much less the details of how they tested and the data they took. The skeptics can't prove the E-cat is phony because they can't take it apart or test it properly. And Rossi has not, in my estimation, done enough to prove it's real. I admire the efforts to analyze the details of the steam generation and I hope an answer will be found there since Rossi and his perhaps mythical clients are not disposed to provide one. But given the scattered data we have, it's a difficult proposition. Nor is it obvious from "first principles" as Jed Rothwell insists. > Now the 1 MW module has a control system; wires run to the pumps, of > which there are at least four; we don't really know what kind of > piping is inside the reactors. We know that the power of each reactor > can be controlled, but not to what extent or how fast. > Rossi's devices have always been crude, poorly instrumented and with no evidence means of fine control -- hardly what one would expect in an experimental nuclear fusion device. Where are all the thermal, pressure and flow sensors and readouts we'd expect of such a potentially hazardous and powerful device? Where are the automated controls for the megawatt plant? How was it made safe? How was it proven to work? What was that honking huge generator doing running during the entire experiment and supplying unknown amounts of power to the device? These are all valid issues Rossi could provide answers for without compromising any trade secrets. Try asking him on his blog. Either he'll not allow the question to be seen or he'll give a brief, almost always tangential, evasive or equivocal response. Ask yourself if that's what you'd do if you had the greatest invention of the century.
