On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]>wrote:
> Mary, I think that you are advocating a blank run because you do not have > necessary understanding how to do accurate calorimetry and more > importantly, how to use simplest possible methods to calibrate the > calorimetry. > So you say. In reality, I have performed and published highly reliable results of research involving calorimetry. You can bet we made plenty of runs using an electrical heater as a calibration source! I can't prove it to you without revealing my real identity but it doesn't matter. Perhaps you can explain why simplicity, rapidity or even economy is of the slightest importance in proving a questionable and much debated claim to the most amazing discovery of the last century. And why such proof should not emphasize caution, reliability, and absolute iron-clad confirmation of the claim instead? > (Lots of people such as Levi and Lewan had insufficient understanding > for doing simple calorimetry from steam. E.g. Levi did sub-boiling > calorimetry 18h test that was inherently bad and inaccurate method, because > he was unable to think how to measure the enthalpy from steam. > I disagree. Actually Levi's test, supposedly done entirely with a liquid coolant and no steam and for 18 hours, using a comparatively tiny E-cat, was exactly what was needed. The problems are that it wasn't documented, Levi won't give any of the details about the data, and most amazing of all to me, he has not insisted that it be repeated! Why in the world not? It's so quick and easy and absolutely obvious and difficult to fake that it's exactly what Rossi should have done instead of all the weird "dog and pony" shows that he has performed since January. Rossi is no dummy. He must know that! That he hasn't done a replication of Levi's test strongly suggests that he can't. I understand that one could get good accuracy measuring enthalpy by sparging the steam into an insulated container perhaps with the aid of a condenser made of copper inside the tank, and measuring the temperature rise. Rossi has never done that or allowed it to be done by others. Why do you think that is? It's not difficult, time consuming or expensive. Worried about losses? Calibrate it with an electrical heater, of course. Simple. It's been described and recommended to Rossi many times by many people and he has not done it. Why? > Also Celani suggested to Rossi super expensive calorimetry because he was > unable to think in simple terms.) > Really? You consider $10K (Celani's cost estimate for the test IIRC) expensive? When Rossi just claims he sold a single machine for $2 million and has a 13 order backlog worth $26 million? I bet any banker would jump at the chance to loan Rossi $10K if that backlog is real. I'd do it myself! Thinking in "simple terms" when there is the possibility of fraud is an absolutely certain way to get taken. > Joshua and I have suggested, that blank run could be done in paraller with > the real test. But there is again the problem that we get better resolution > for the calorimetry if we do two real ECat tests in paraller, than if one > is real and other is just a dummy. > That's confused. Resolution is no issue. Why would it be? You seem to be saying that you think if we obtained a measurement by a potentially erroneous method that the output of the device was 4.1000 kW +/- 0.0001 kW, that would be more supportive of Rossi's claim than if we could only resolve 4.0 kW to +/- 0.1 kW? Or do you mean something else by "resolution" and if so, what? The purpose of the blank run is to prove that the measurement method using heat of vaporization of water to steam is valid. It also checks thermocouple accuracy and placement, flowmeter accuracy, eliminates effects of losses, and much more. It would eliminate all the unending arguments we have here about internal pressure, wetting of the core, quality of the steam, entrapped water droplets in the steam and much more. A blank run does not, however, entirely eliminate the possibility of cheating with hidden energy but there are at least two good ways to do that. Rossi could allow disassembly down to the rather small cores he claims are in the reactors -- but there is no need to reveal secrets by invading them. And of course there should be independent testing. Rossi has never done or allowed any of those two measures. >
