Two major claims about Rossi's must be verified (cause and effect): 1. It is nuclear (the cause) 2. It gives far more thermal energy than consumed electrical energy so there is a commercial viability (the effect)
An experiment should focus only on calorimetry since the claimed effect would be lots of heat . Let's forget the cause, at the moment. The simple question: "Is the fire (really) hot?" still needs to be answered. All other questions come afterwards. And since such experiment could be really simple, we should wonder why it was not done right away? Since the claim is a 200 ratio for out/in the following simple components could be used besides the E-cat, H2 gas tank and control box: 1) a (sealed) room without power outlet. 2) a number of car batteries that can provide the necessary but limited amount of energy 3) a tank full of water (how many cubic meters would be enough to avoid a reaction out of control?) well insulated (quasi adiabatic) 4) a simple liquid mixer (using power from a dedicated pack of batteries) Just connect the in and the out of the E-cat to the tank and measure the temperature in different points of the tank at regular intervals until batteries are exhausted. Check the level of water inside the tank stays the same. Weight everything before and after. At the end there should be a positive T increase and should be much more than the one that could be possibly generated by the batteries (even the mixer ones) and by burning the missing mass. mic 2011/4/15 Alan J Fletcher <a...@well.com>: > At 06:17 PM 4/14/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: > I'll say it, Rossi is probably real. > I would say "almost certainly" real. > But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to totally > avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then, we'd fool > ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere people. A loss. > Well said. I agree. > > I personally agree with both statements ... but at present I have to go with > : > > http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v320.php The December/January > experiments were too short to rule out ANY of these theoretical fakes. But > if Levi's informal reports on the February trial are accepted, then ALL > chemical fakes are eliminated. However, neither the January or February > reports rule out a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake. > The March report probably rules out a Tarallo fake -- but since the > Horizontal arm was NOT unwrapped, it does NOT rule out all chemical fakes. > At present the Rossi eCat has NOT been proven to be real. However, a few > simple improvements to the experimental setup will almost certainly do that. > Here's hoping that Kullander and Essén close the remaining loopholes in > their anticipated new test.
