On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of > stage magic is not falsifiable. > I don't know who you think is convinced by that. Of course it's falsifiable. Just run the experiment long enough without input to exclude any possible source of energy except nuclear. "Stage magic" is not real magic you know. It still depends on the laws of physics. And even if it were paranormal, James Randi makes a living falsifying claims of paranormal. To be falsifiable, you only have to be able to *conceive* of an experiment that would contradict it. It's intended to distinguish scientific theories or assertions from religious ones. Not to discount speculation as you've done. Otherwise we could "deal with" Rossi by saying his claims are not falsifiable. It's ridiculous, and you need to find a new chorus to sing. > 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. > This is not a matter of opinion. Clean-burning fuel like alcohol stores the amount of energy Rossi displayed in less than one liter. It would be easy to burn that in a 100 kg device of that size. > > . . . 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. > > Hard evidence does not support more than a few hundred watts on average. And the soft evidence, the losses through the insulation, not more than a few hundred more, for a total of 1 kW or less. Remember there were 50 of those fat cats inside a shipping container. If each was losing a kW or even 500 W, the inside of that container would have been unbearably hot. How's that for soft evidence?
