On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote:
> > I see you are using several other time-tested techniques. You have > carefully described a test that would be difficult or impossible to meet. > Joule heating or electrolysis power is necessary for most experiments. In > most cases, fuel is consumed in such microscopic amounts, it would be > impossible to avoid introducing thousands or millions of times more than is > needed. > You persist in misunderstanding me. OK, if Joule heating or electrolysis power is necessary, then measure it with a precision wide band instrument and deduct the electrical power from the output thermal power. And there is no problem with putting in fuel. Just don't keep adding anything like nickel and hydrogen during the test -- nothing which is known to have exothermic reactions with hydrogen. And run much longer than necessary at respectable excess power -- generally a watt or more is thought to be respectable. Weeks are respectable. > You have been asked again and again to read the literature. You refuse. So > you know nothing about it. > It is absolutely inane to ask critics to "read the literature". You think we have nothing better to do than to spend time with unlimited quantities of inadequate and difficult to understand papers? It's your job as proponent of this technology to choose the few papers, in any exist, maybe two or three best ones, for us to read. It should be papers that show at least a watt of CLEARLY and PROPERLY measured excess heat with no infusion of fresh fuel, running vastly longer -- orders of magnitude longer -- than a chemical reaction or stored heat could provide. THAT is what Rossi failed to do. THAT is what you have failed to point us to. And it's your job as the proponent to do the pointing. It is not our job to go rummaging through all the "stuff". > You have no idea how many papers describe the results you say have never > been published. Anyone who has read the literature can see that you are > wrong. > Really? You think it's some sort of universal stupidity or pernicious viciousness that prevents the majority of nuclear scientists and physicists from believing that robust energy production has been achieved with LENR? That would be simple paranoia.
