>From Jones, >> From Rothwell: >> I don't bet. I debate technical issues based on experimental >> evidence, not crackpot theories that predict water heaters >> don't work. If you will not give us a plausible reason why >> this calorimetry might be wrong by a factor of 1000 then you >> lose this debate.
> This “1000 times” thing is an insane slander with no basis > in fact, as are these other silly pronouncements that you have > dreamed up, and that is part of why I cannot take any of your > “teapot arguments” seriously. That they were off by a factor > of three, due to the wrong gauge - is what I have said over > and over. Wet steam is not dry steam, and a factor of 3 is > not a factor of 1000. > > Please, in the interest of your own integrity – move on to > something more productive than inventing straw man arguments. > > When the Swedish experiments are complete, and there is little > doubt that they will be performed to higher standards - then I > will remind you of how far off you were to think the Bologna > demo was accurate. I am, of course, emotionally predisposed to want to side with Mr. Rothwell for the simple reason that, well... who wouldn't want COP to be higher than what Jones is suggesting - even if Jones' COP is OU as well. (Just not as much! ;-) ) I fully admit the possibility that my emotional investment might be hindering me from observing what might be called the "obvious" facts in a more objective manner. With that confession fully disclosed I would like to add a few personal observations: Correct me if I'm wrong on this point but I seem to recall "second opinions" have been posted here that seem to favor conclusions that suggest 15kW is not out of the question. For example, See Robin's calculations: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45116.html Jones, what personally bothers me about some of the conclusions you seem to be drawing here is not the actual conclusions themselves, per say, but the manner in which you are attempting to conclude your conclusions. Beside the disquieting fact that your "expert" at present remains anonymous, and as such we cannot ascertain his credentials... in your last paragraph you seem to be implying that you have become an unofficial spokesperson for the Swedish board currently investigating Rossi's e-Cat device. Do you speak on behalf of these Swedes? Have they personally granted you special coverage that allows you to draw the conclusions you have been implying? Such support reminds me of a similar issue that has been hotly contested within the Vort Collective: It's vaguely reminiscent of Krivit's support of the W-L theory, after presumably having been granted special access; the key point being: special access to what. Seemingly speaking on behalf of the Swedes in the manner that you apparently are doing has a tendency at least from my POV of raising some questions as to how objective are you really being here as well. All we can really do at this point is wait for the Swedes to present their findings. Perhaps we can then draw more accurate conclusions. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
