Rich Murray to little, vortex-l, michael, Rich, Sterling 8:12 AM (1 hour ago)
Well, Horace, there were a series of spikes on the input electric power record in Test 1 on Dec. 16. And in Test 2 on Jan. 14, a "catastrophic" "welding failure" on a heating resister... In science, experimenters largely find only what they make an effort to find. Leaks and resulting shorts could be small and transient, and still unleash complex effects in H2 at 80 bar and 100's of degrees C. We need to know the exact voltages and currents used for heating, and also for any thermocouples and pressure transducers inside the cell, and the quality of the power production and measuring devices. Note that data recording failed for Test 2... And today, feedback that the output power may be only 1.6 kw, not over 10 kw... Rossi has mentioned "explosions" several times, without giving details, contributing to the risk run by independent experimenters who attempt replications. I want to be wrong, but all doubts have to be candidly explored in this very important scientific debate, in which Rossi at least could share critical details with some independent scientists of repute who can be trusted with secrets. I respect your urbane good sense and experience. Rich On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote: ..... - Hide quoted text - > This kind of irrational debunking is laughable. The one thing done well in > the experiment was measuring the input. You don't think a short would show > up on a power meter, or even just a current meter, or even blow a fuse? > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com> wrote: ... > That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is no > measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked out and > burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would see it had leaked > out. > In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does not need > to be addressed. > - Jed
