Peter Heckert <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you say, Rossis thermomeasurements are fine, does this mean that you > dont see the possibility for easy and cheap improvements? > Did you read what I wrote about this? What I wrote SEVERAL DOZEN TIMES?!? Here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm QUOTE: Although some experts question these results, most believe that the reactor must have produced large amounts of anomalous heat, for the following reasons: . . . When a poorly insulated metal vessel is filled with 30 L of boiling water, it begins to cool immediately. It can only grow cooler; it cannot remain hot or grow hotter; that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. . . . Unfortunately, this test was marred by problems that made it impossible to accurately determine how much energy was produced. Peak power was nominally 8 kW but the instruments were so imprecise it might have been lower or much higher, perhaps 10 kW. Problems included: poorly placed instruments; the arrangement of the outlet hose that prevented accurate independent verification of temperature and flow rates; critical parameters such as flow rates not instrumented or recorded . . . These problems could have been fixed at in a few hours, at minimal expense. The test could easily have been arranged to answer most skeptical objections . . . All points that are discussed here can be eliminated by better > thermoelement placement almost without efforts and costs. > I was probably the first to point that out, before the test, to Rossi himself. I have said that dozens of times. > If somebody does not admit this, then he must be a blind mouse. > I not only admitted it, I emphasized it in my report. However, these problems -- bad as they are -- do not negate the findings. If you think they do, I suppose you do not know much about measuring temperatures. I invite you to demonstrate your assertions with actual tests, rather than words. I will check your claim about plastic wrap. I do not think it will cause a measurable difference. - Jed
