It was intended as tongue-in-cheek, and I probably should have added a clarifying "smiley". I was laughing to myself at your ability to bend-over-backwards in Rossi's defense, and make matter-of-fact "case closed" comments ad infinitum; it's funny to observe. I apologize if it was demeaning.
Of course the weighing of the tank is silly. But, Rossi has done it as part of his demonstration-theatrics. I'm sure the intention was to show that he wasn't adding enough hydrogen to serve as a convenional fuel. So, is the weight unreliable, and Rossi was just really really, really lucky that all past demos dropped weight, and always a gram or two? Or is the scale incredibly precise, and 107 E-Cats (and the associated lines) consume less hydrogen than one does? Or, is there maybe, just maybe a "fudge factor" in the numbers? Could it be possible (gasp) that Rossi has fabricated a technical claim or two? Again, I believe weighing the tank and assuming such precision is silly. It's a curious artifact and doesn't even remotely change the size of the grain of salt I add to the rest of his claims. Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: >Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> But, Jed says that there is no reason to think that the numbers were >> fabricated, so it must be fine. >> > >Perhaps that is intended as a joke, but it is not funny. Cynical and >argumentative comments have become too common here in recent weeks. I wish >people would tone it down. > >In this case there is no reason to believe the numbers are fabricated. It >is quite plausible that the total weight of hydrogen is 1 or 2 g. What >would you expect to be, a nanogram? > >Just because you do not like Rossi, or trust him, there is no cause to >doubt his every assertion. > >I said this method is close to useless because: > >I doubt the weight scale is accurate enough. If you were to weigh the tank >three times in a row I expect you would find variation of a few grams, >depending on where you place the tank and other factors. > >Even if this is the correct weight, we do not know how much of the gas went >into the cell and sat there, and how much was absorbed by the powder. The >pressure is some indication but that is complicated. > >We do not know how much gas was used to purge the hose when the hookup was >made, or how much escaped when the hose was disconnected. > >- Jed
