You have to admire the bravery of the scientists that ran these tests and put out this paper. The enemies of the ideas that they purport to verify will try to destroy them.
How much faith that one puts in a test is usually determined by the faith that one has in the people who ran the test. If a vested interest can destroy that credibility of the testers, then they can destroy the value of the test that they have conducted. I predict that this test will not advance LENR against the vested interests afraid against it because the vested interests are very strong compared to the maximum credibility that a single test can generate. More LENR tests are required to increase the forces of credibility. For those who can, who have the ability and know how, now that you know what can be done, your systems are still of great value in the replication effort. The fight has just begun. Looking past this time of euphoria, like any initial systems design, the Rossi system is still a poor system if viewed in absolute terms, so other more innovative LENR solutions have an increased value in the upcoming LENR fray. But what is most important is the absolute validation that something is happening beyond the current consensus of scientific thought. The first transistor looked very bad and did not perform well at all. But that flawed device inspired a vision of what could be done, and that there is great value in doing it. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > *Date: *May 20, 2013 9:11:57 AM MDT > *To: *c...@googlegroups.com > *Cc: *Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > *Subject: **Re: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:* > > Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered. > > 1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. The amount of > heat being radiated depends on the value of the effective total emissivity > of the surface. This value will change with time and temperature. > Therefore, the value needs to be determined as a function of temperature > both before and after the hot-cat was heated. Details about how the > temperature of the surface was determined also need to be provided. A > detailed description of the test is required before these claims can be > accepted. > > 2. How long does the hot-cat function at such high temperatures? This time > will determine whether the device is a practical source of energy. The > extra energy may be real, but if it only lasts a short time before the NAE > is destroyed, the value of the design is limited. > > Ed Storms > On May 19, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMNS" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > >
