>I have already argued them. Not just me. I have discussed this with real >experts outside this forum. Not one of them disagrees. Also, people who know >something about steam have no doubt that Rossi has 95% dry steam in all tests. >Skeptics here may imagine they have proposed believable hypotheses. They may >even think they have disproved the results. But they will not find any real >experts in calorimetry who take their ideas seriously.
Yours ”experts” are the same that measure steam dryness fraction with RH probes? I see... From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 4:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi clarification on Bianchini Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> wrote: Jed, I think that you misunderstand. The claims of heat storage during the early October test are not referring to preheating, but merely containing all of the heat supplied during the "warm up" phase. It does not require heating before the test has begun, is there were no excess power. The total amount supplied during the warm up phase is easily measured. It is the total amount of electricity supplied. The amount that came out after that is disputed, but it can be estimated with reasonable accuracy. We know how much heat a body of this size and surface temperature radiates. That alone was much more than the total that went in. You can ignore the heat exchanger. You can see how quickly the system cooled after input power was cut when there was no anomalous power. You can see the same slope after anomalous power was cut. It is obvious that the thing would cool down to room temperature in ~40 min. We know the upper limit for the thermocouple error. It was 0.1 deg C by the only serious analysis -- but even if it was more it would not be enough to negate this conclusion. The lowest power during the 4 hour heat after death was about the same computed with two different methods. It was about 3 kW. It would be ridiculous to claim it was actually 1.5 kW, but even if you do make that claim, adjusting the graph for that as the baseline, it is still indisputable that the balance was positive. There is no way input could have been even close to output. There is no way a body inside the reactor could have been secretly heated to a very high temperature -- for example. There is no unaccounted for heat added to the system to accomplish this. For the electric heat to be "stored," the reaction would have to be magically endothermic, and the reactor covered with frost in the first phase. I am not going to argue the merits of this . . . I have already argued them. Not just me. I have discussed this with real experts outside this forum. Not one of them disagrees. Also, people who know something about steam have no doubt that Rossi has 95% dry steam in all tests. Skeptics here may imagine they have proposed believable hypotheses. They may even think they have disproved the results. But they will not find any real experts in calorimetry who take their ideas seriously. I realize that a few skeptics such as Yugo claim some expertise in calorimetry, but I have no idea who Yugo is or what she has published, and she has not made any technical assertions that allow us to judge her knowledge of this subject, so I cannot confirm her expertise. It is possible she is an expert who is hiding her knowledge for some reason. In any case, I have sent some of the skeptical hypotheses to experts. The experts dismiss them as amateur blather. Sorry to be unkind, but they do. - Jed
