On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > > ** >> That is precisely why I (and Duncan Cumming) are calling for a test >> whereby there is no power input for a decent amount of time. If there is no >> power input, there's nothing than can be fudged past the limitations of the >> measurement equipment. >> > > I appreciate the legitimate desire of many observers to rule out fraud, > even if one must entertain elaborate conspiracy theories to sustain the > possibility. People just want to be sure and not fall into a trap by an > Amazing Randi-type character. But what you're asking for here is a > significant technological accomplishment; even giving Rossi the benefit of > the doubt (as I do), it is not clear that this is something that would be > achievable without a significant development period. > I think this is nonsense. First, because the ecat is a thermal-to-thermal device, so if 400 W from the outside of the reactor cylinder is enough to initiate the reaction, then how could 1600 W from inside the reactor not be enough to sustain it? And in any case, as has been argued here, the device could be insulated, and the temperature could be controlled with cooling to achieve any temperature necessary to maintain the reaction. Second, because Rossi has been claiming a commercial-ready device for 2 years. If the COP is only 3 (or even 5), that hardly represents a practical advantage over a heat pump. It certainly is not going to revolutionize anything. > It's like asking the guys who worked out the initial transistor to > fast-forward their development ten years in order to provide a more > convincing demonstration. > No, it's not, because the demonstration of amplification was already unequivocal. There were no secret experiments and proprietary waveforms involved. A working transistor could have been supplied to anyone skilled in the art to verify. Rossi doesn't permit that with the ecat.
