James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the > researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry? >
They used perfectly normal calorimetry. There is not the slightest chance output is any less than 3 times input. There is nothing for them to explain. I do not think it would be good idea to put reactor in an enclosure where you cannot keep an eye on it. The previous one melted, so I think they should leave it in the open air. If they were to build something like an enclosure with flowing water tubes around the outside, the skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt those results. They would say that Rossi hid something in the box, or the flow rate is not correct, or the thermocouples are placed incorrectly, or this, or that, or an onion. It does not take much to set off the skeptics. Cude sees one extra wire with three-phase electricity and he calls that "a rat's nest" of wires. One wire! No doubt he would call a flow calorimeter a rat's nest of cooling water pipes and way too many thermocouples. There is no advantage to flow calorimetry if all you want is clear proof of excess heat. - Jed
