At 10:06 PM 1/2/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
You have no evidence they were taken in. They are smart people and
they have been doing experiments for decades.
Not of this type.
Of this type exactly.
Kullander and Essen? That's who were were talking about. Where did
you get this?
No, *many people* have examined the results and came up with
problems that were overlooked by Essen and Kullander.
Who? Where did these people publish reports? I recall a lot of
blather here but I have not seen any reports showing errors in the techniques.
Krivit published them.
Yes, Krivit pulled all of this together, but he didn't invent it.
Krivit measured nothing and found nothing. His report is hot air.
Krivit collected and pubished the reports of others, who analyzed the
available data. Krivit pointed to suspicious activity by Rossi from
the Mats Lewan video. Yeah, Krivit is a muck-raker, but ... that
doesn't mean he's always wrong.
This has been discussed to death on Vortex.
That does not count. Where is there an authoritative report by
someone who knows calorimetry showing errors in the calorimetry.
The error is obvious. Jed, I'm sorry. This is beyond the pale.
Several people, such as the NASA group, said the tests did not
work the day they saw them. It was obvious the thing was not working.
Which, as you know, only means that the thing wasn't working.
You are missing the point. If the thing is fake, why wouldn't it be
a totally reliable fake? Who would make a fake system that often
appears to do nothing? It often fails at critical times when a lot
of money is at stake, as it was during the NASA visit. If this is
fraud, it could not be conducted more ineptly.
You've already come up with one reason.
I have not. Rossi was counting NASA's evaluation. The failure was a
disaster for him.
He could have recovered. No, Jed, your analysis is corrupt.
Another would be very simple: it's not reliable and it wasn't
working on the day they showed up.
A fake system would be reliable! It is not difficult to make a fake
system. It is impossible to make one that E&K, Focardi or Levi would
not instantly see is fake. The only person who could be fooled is
Krivit, because he made no observations at all. But if you made a
fake system it would work as reliably as any movie prop.
Depends on the nature of the fake.
Rossi developed a technique vulnerable to a certain illusion.
You state that is if it were a fact.
It's a fact. You actually know the fact. You are arguing here, for what?
There is no evidence for that at all. There are no illusions at
all. When the thing works, it is obvious, and when it failed -- on
several occasions -- that was equally obvious to the observers. No
one was fooled into thinking it was actually working.
There is a reason why we want to see independent replications. They
are *much* harder to fake, and it's also harder to make an innocent
mistake, to be fooled by an artifact.
The thing was independently tested for a week or two when Rossi was
on another continent. That is as good a confirmation as an
independent replication. Calorimetry is calorimetry; the same everywhere.
Great. You demanded reports above on calorimetry error. Where is the
report on these tests, certified by a reliable witness, who can be questioned?
The only reason I want to see independent replications is so that
other people can manufacture it quickly.
That's BS, Jed. There are types of replications. A fully-independent
replication must disclose IP, fully, because every aspect must be
independent. But there are replications that do not disclose IP. A
device can be sealed, for example, so that the independent replicator
only deals with input and output.
That is why Rossi does not want to see independent replications,
and why he will do all that he can to prevent them. He has no IP.
In which case he's probably sunk.
Okay, scientists could be fooled by the unexpected presence of
overflow water. They could assume that a single look at the outlet
hose would be adequate to show that there was no overflow water.
This makes no sense. They independently measured the flow coming out
of the machine.
Who did? Kullander and Essen did *not* do this.
No, the hose would have to go into a bucket to show that, and the
hose would have to be well-insulated and short. As you know, that
was not the experimental setup. Overflow water, when quantity of
water boiled is the measure of heat, is fatal to accuracy.
I was talking about the flowing water tests. The steam tests are a
little more complicate but not by much. The enthalpy of steam has
been well known for over a century, despite comments posted here.
Yes. But how much steam was there? The assumption was that all the
water coming into the device was converted to steam. That assumption,
with Kullander and Essen, was not verified. Who did the flowing water
tests? There have been so many demonstrations, with this and that,
that I don't recall them all.
Kullander and Essen also attempted to use a humidity meter to
measure steam quality.
That meter is intended to measure steam quality, according the specs.
I checked the specs, I read the spects. No. The meter they used does
not measure steam quality, and that you could say this, Jed, is sad
for me. You are not being careful. You can check this. It measures
humidity, and one of the measures is g/m^3, and that was assumed to
be a measure of steam quality. It is not. The device is not designed
to measure steam quality, and if there is flowing water, even a steam
quality measurement would be defective.
That was as much of a bonehead error as were Pons and Fleischmann's
neutron results.
No, it wasn't. Anyway, the enthalpy is pretty much the same even if
you don't measure it at all. The blather here about wet steam was nonsense.
There are two sources of error: wet steam and flowing water. Jed, did
the meter measure steam quality or not? How much non-vaporized water
might be ni the steam might normally be low, but the actual
conditions in the device -- which we don't know -- could make it very
high. A device coudl be designed to produce very wet steam. And then
there is the flowing water.
Jed, you know better. Please stop and think.
But the proof of it, that they accepted, was clearly defective.
Says who?
I say so. I reviewed that evidence, and that's my conclusion.
Where did you publish? Did E&K review your work? Did they publish a
rebuttal? Have you done calorimetry with a similar system, and did
you demonstrate how an error might be made?
I've published here. Krivit published pretty much the same analysis.
They have not commented. Why, I don't know. Surely they are aware of
the criticisms. Krivit claims to have contacted them, but, I must
say, I wouldn't blame them for not replying to him. Most in the field
have given up on talking with Krivit.
The error sources are basic physics.
No, I have not done calorimetry.
Unpublished speculation from the peanut gallery is not science. You
don't get a free pass.
Nor do you, Jed. WTF are you doing here? Where *is* the "science"
here. It's surely not with Rossi! And did Kullander and Essen publish
a paper? Where?
They watched a demo and said some things to a journalist, that's
pretty much it. And then everyone here goes bananas for almost two years.
If you seriously think there might be an error, you need to write
up your reasons and perform calorimetry with a similar,
conventional system (an electric heater). Then you need to run your
work by E&K.
Not a bad idea. However, a basic physical study of a claim is not
irrelevant. Jed, are you seriously proposing that if there is a
substantial fraction of overflow water, that this would not
substantially overestimate heat?
This is the problem, Jed. If there were a published analysis, under
peer review, of the K&E claim, then a response would be submitted to
the same journal. There is no such publication, there is a newpaper
account by Mats Lewan. And there is New Energy Times.
