On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, you see, the problem is that there are many possible errors in their >> determinations and they did not do what was need to rule them out. >> > > No, there are not. This is your imagination. > Take away the heat of vaporization, and there is no way the remaining heat could rule out non-nuclear origins. > If they had said "there is no heat" you would insist this was a > bullet-proof test. > Not a chance. Nothing Rossi has done is bullet proof, and none of it proves heat from nuclear sources. > > After Fleischmann and Pons released their videos of a boil off, many > skeptics went on for years claiming the tests were questionable. That was > incorrect. Those were first-principle, visual proof that the effect > produces massive anomalous heat. There is no way it could be wrong. > Of course it could be wrong, and probably was. It's not hard to make a video of boiling water. If they were right, set it up again with proper controls. Instead, Pons has gone into hiding. It is true that the tests witnessed by E&K were somewhat sloppy. They could > have used better instrumentation. However, E&K are good scientists and they > understand that no experiment is perfect and that these instruments are > good enough to establish an irrefutable claim. > They may be good scientists in some capacity, but they did not demonstrate it when they used visual inspection and a relative humidity probe to determine that the steam was dry. They were uncommonly *bad* scientists when they simply accepted that the power transfer from that ecat to the water could increase by a factor of 7 in about 3 minutes, when it took 20 minutes to reach boiling. Credentials mean nothing when they make obvious, mind-numbingly stupid mistakes. And although Kullander was cautious in his latest talk, he still doesn't seem to realize that it is not plausible for a fixed mass flow rate to change discontinuously from 100% liquid to 100% dry steam. > Whether this was out of politeness, a desire to have Rossi call them >> again, or a lack of diligence and determination, I don't know. >> > > I am sure it is for the reasons they stated: the test is irrefutable. > Actually he said more measurements are needed. > You may disagree with that, but please do not assume that E&K are lying, > or they secretly agree with you, or they lack determination, or they are > timid and afraid to ask Rossi to do something. > More likely, they are just wrong. > > It doesn't matter how qualified they are. They tested the E-cat >> incorrectly-- each and every public time. >> > > So you say, but every expert I have heard from disagrees. > Because you put your fingers in your ears when experts disagree. Read the experts Krivit consulted.
