On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net>wrote:
> The flow rate was stated as *measured* at 292 ml/min, or 17.5 liters/hr. > If it actually was 7.6 liter/hr then that is either fraud or major > incompetence on the part of someone. > They collected the water for 30 s and then weighed it. Maybe they forgot to subtract the mass of the beaker. > > What I find disturbing, is that, provided the energy is chemical in origin, > a similar test scaled up to 1 MW will work just like this test, for a while. > Only good calorimetry and long running tests can provide proof of a > nuclear source of energy. > I don't think the calorimetry needs to be that good if there are no energy inputs (electrical or chemical), and the test is run long enough. The world will pay attention to the field again only when the talk of energy gain is replaced by talk of energy production.
