On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Berke Durak <berke.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
> so maybe it is obvious to you how everything is > connected, but it seems to me that you are making lots of assumptions > on how the structure of the system is. > No. I make very few assumptions. I am simply using the data that's in the report. Input flow rate, output temperature. That's all that's given. Those two numbers are consistent with 70 kW or 470 kW depending on the degree of vaporization. Since no evidence is presented that the steam is dry, the data are consistent with 70 kW, and therefore about 1 GJ total energy out, give or take. On the input side, the report doesn't give figures, but Lewan mentions some, which are consistent with similar amount of input energy. So, the reported measurements are consistent with no more energy out than in. I don't think it's really worth considering until Rossi at least exceeds that very minimal condition.... but of course that doesn't stop me... > 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. > You can say the arguments don't convince you, but you can't disallow them. The fact that energy storage is entirely consistent with the size and weight of the ecats means the reported results don't require nuclear reactions. Likewise the size and weight is consistent with chemical fuel, so nuclear fuel is not needed. That's enough to make me skeptical; your mileage may vary. The thing about these speculations is that it allows Fioravanti off the hook. We can take his measurements at face value, and assume he was tricked by the steam claim, just like so many others. And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some storage, but his claim was based on dry steam, which he can insist he believed was the case. So everything is tied up neatly. > Why couldn't there be overflow valves or other appropriate mechanisms > to keep the water level or pressure in check? What makes you think > that Rossi can't properly control his reactors, the input flow rate, > the power level, or any other combination of variables to keep the > thing running? > Well, he could, but there is no evidence for it, and it doesn't change the argument that the data are consistent with no nuclear reactions. That might explain the stable temperature of dry steam (but why is there no indication of regulation (oscillation)?), but it would still not *require* dry steam. And in any case, it wouldn't explain the 8-fold power increase in 3 minutes.
