Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the > propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made > irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? >
Yes. But power, not energy. If the difference between input and output had been small, than it might have been an error (with zero real excess power) which over a long time adds up to a large amount of bogus excess energy. The difference between 300 W and 900 W is so large that any reasonable method of measuring it, when performed by experts, is irrefutable. This method is good because it is simple, employing only a watt meter, an IR camera, a thermocouple, and a calibration of a blank cell. Skeptics have not found a plausible error. They never will. There are no plausible errors, unless you want to toss out the Stefan-Boltzmann law. (Yugo said it is "too complicated.") There is only the remote possibility that Rossi has discovered a way to fool a commercial off-the-shelf watt meter. In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output > couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which > would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output. > Right. But, as I said, that is because the instantaneous power is high. Also because all measurements are conservative. In every case in which there is a choice of methods, one which would underestimate power and another that might overestimate it, they chose the method which underestimates. The actual power must be considerably higher. It cannot be lower. Not if you believe elementary concepts such as the fact that a cylinder viewed from the side is not a flat surface. - Jed
