On Dec 15, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote:
Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1)
it only deals with one test . . .
I have dealt with the other tests, separately, as have others. Some
of them are also definitive. The last one was not!
and (2) it assumes a configuration with no fraud, no chemical
energy being provided . . .
Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims
of stage magic is not falsifiable.
Uhhh .... how does that differ from just ignoring it? If stage
magic in this case is not falsifiable then buyer beware, especially
given Rossi's history, self contradictory statements, and bizarre
behavior. The nature or limitations of such magic can be examined
though, given various premises.
I have dealt with chemical energy by pointing out that in my
opinion it is impossible to make a chemical fuel system this small
that puts out this much energy. You disagree, but do not accuse me
of ignoring these issues.
I haven't said you ignored these issues. It appeared to me you did
not recall what has been numerically proven to you, at least in
regards to the big E-cat, which is the only E-cat relevant to my
paper. If you are talking about the little ones then that issue is
moot because the little ones could have been dumping almost all mass
in the form of water.
We have to agree to disagree on these issues. That does not mean I
have "forgotten" anything. It just means that if you are right, I
am wrong.
It means you are wrong to the extent of dismissing quantitatively
demonstrated feasibility. That chemical fakes can be made which can
be made to replicate the public tests it seems to me is indisputable.
. . . which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W
between time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes.
That estimate is far too low. The heat radiating from the reactor
plus the heat captured in the cooling loop far exceeds that.
Stating the estimate is "far too low" is arm waving. Also, as I
said, that power is enough to (1) boil water, and (2) burn someone
who touches the manifold. That was your stated requirement. If
chemical means are added, the thermal flux can of course be many
times higher.
Note. For some of the details I described here, I assume the
cooling loop TC may be recording incorrectly but it does reflect
the overall profile
The overall profile can be met using mixes of materials and active
control. Depending on the sophistication of the active control,
*any* profile can be easily met of course.
and relative heat output at different times. When the heat
increases, the second TC shows a higher temperature. When the TC
zero intercept is 40 min. away, that is how long it takes to cool
down.
That is how long it takes to cool down under the final conditions.
This does not mean those conditions hold throughout the test. This
is an unwarranted assumption on your part.
Actually I'm pretty sure the cooling loop TC is correct to within a
fraction of degree, but it does not matter. None of the instrument
readings matter. That is fortunate, because Rossi' instrumentation
is lousy, as we all know.
- Jed
His instrumentation was indeed lousy but easily fixed, and he
certainly knew how to fix the problems, given the extensive world
wide discussions! The motive, means, and opportunity for fraud are
certainly there in extremes, as well as a checkered past. Extreme
caution is justified, as is a more skeptical and numerical approach
to data analysis.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
