What WOULD go a long way towards convincing engineers that the effect is
real is the simple use of DC power on the heaters. That completely
eliminates all of this meter A / meter B nonsense. Plus some
transparency from Rossi, allowing the engineers to measure what they
want to measure, such as waveforms and so forth. He can use an NDA if he
is worried about trade secrets.
For a strong proof, use an insulated chamber (tube furnace) with cooling
coils, as opposed to an uninsulated chamber just sitting in the lab. A
few days of self sustaining running (cooling only without electrical
input) would be pretty convincing. Use electrical heaters only for
starting the reaction.
http://www.sentrotech.com/high-temperature-tube-furnace
To an engineer, calorimetric measurements made on a hot tube that is
completely uninsulated appear to lack accuracy. Not to mention the
safety issues of a red hot tube just hanging out there in the lab. The
slightest draft will change the cooling rate. For good accuracy, cooling
should be done in a controlled manner with proper cooling coils.
A longer test, just more of the same, will be no more convincing than a
shorter test.
I, for one, WANT to be convinced!
Duncan
On 5/26/2013 12:02 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Andrew <andrew...@att.net
<mailto:andrew...@att.net>> wrote:
The *only* way to convince the scientific community is via evidence.
They will be carrying out a much longer experiment in the future. If
they were to have an electrical engineer take a close look at the
input power across the entire range of interest and rule out input
fake, after which they were to report results similar to the ones that
were reported this time around, would this be considered adequate
evidence for a prima facie conclusion that Rossi's device is producing
excess heat?
Eric
