On Dec 15, 2011, at 5:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote:
The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has
come up with a plausible method.
Jed, your memory must be even worse than mine.
I mean it. Take your analysis here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the
reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no
input power. It was too hot to touch. It burned an observer. This
is irrefutable proof that the effect is real. Instead of explaining
this, or even trying to deal with it, you raise nitpicking
objections to irrelevant details. I take this as tacit admission on
your part that the effect is real.
Your paper is the best proof that even thoughtful, careful skeptics
have no reasons to doubt this claim. Obviously, people who think
that ultrasonic humidifier mist can be pushed through a long hose
never did have any valid reasons.
- Jed
Either your memory is bad or you set very different standards of
credibility for Rossi's claims than you do for the plausibility of
faking methods.
Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1) it
only deals with one test and (2) it assumes a configuration with no
fraud, no chemical energy being provided, a configuration with a
logical reason behind it.
That said, I think you should read the analysis again. All that is
required to boil water and burn people for the test duration is an
appropriate thermal mass and thermal resistance. The gross
calculations of those were provided early on.
Later I provided Graph 2S, referenced on page 13 as:
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph2S.png
which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W between
time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes.
I'd say sustaining a thermal output of between 1500 W and 750 W, or
even half that, *without even using chemical energy*, just thermal
mass, is enough to boil water and burn observers for 4 hours. Not
all the water needs be boiled that was claimed for your conditions to
be met. Also, the position of the Tout thermocouple, as well as the
horizontal position of the heat exchanger, in the Oct test is not
nitpicking. These things are critical to the interpretation of the
results.
If you assume fraud and add the possibility of chemical energy, which
is feasible by numerous means, and only the use of the 30x30x30 cm
interior box, then it is even feasible to produce the *claimed*
energy output which was assumed but not proven. Even batteries can
do that. For example see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg58712.html
Pyrolysis of carbon based fuels is another feasible method. See:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg56339.html
Don't bother saying people saw inside the box. No one saw inside the
30x30x30 cm interior box, shown in photos 1 and 2 in my paper, much
less inside the supposed reactor chambers. There was not even proof
given such reaction chambers even existed.
As for the other public tests, the *assumption* that pure steam was
being provided makes the tests invalid as proof of principle.
You apparently think waving your arms in the air and convincing
yourself amounts to some kind of proof, or even has any meaningful
bearing, regarding what did or did not, or could or could not, have
happened in the Rossi tests. There remains doubt. I think even you
have some doubts. There is no actual proof of anything - even
though that proof could have easily been provided if Rossi cared to
do so.
Watching this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9I_CJti-RU
from 10:26 to 16:09, where the Petroldragon fiasco is reviewed,
provides sufficient reason to have some cautious reservation
regarding Rossi's present results.
Numerous methods of faking the Rossi demonstrations have been
discussed, methods just as credible as Rossi's claims that is.
Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. NASA certainly does not
find the tests credible proof. There clearly are numerous credible
ways for such short running tests to be erroneous or faked. The
burden of proof is not on NASA or anyone else to provide faking
methods credible to everyone. Certainly various faking methods have
been presented which are credible to me.
I have seen neither proof nor disproof publicly provided that Rossi
has anything worth investment. The burden of proof is on Rossi.
What is necessary is Rossi's credibility, not the credibility of
specific faking mechanisms. What is shocking is the assumption on
the part of so many people that Rossi's claims are true without the
proof that could have been so easily provided by Rossi if he cared.
If this turns out to be a boondoggle then it will damage the
credibility of the field and the serious researchers who have
struggled more than 20 years, some through retirement to the ends of
their lives, to make progress with inappropriately small resources,
in the face of denial of publishing or patenting, and even in the
face of derision of many of their peers and even the general public.
I can't believe I'm still wasting time discussing this. Rossi's
circus is not worth it. It will eventually prove out or not. I have
enough problems learning and converting some of my stuff to Win 7 at
the moment. It is irritating the amount of work that is required to
get going in a Windows environment. It is culture shock.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
