On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeff Driscoll <hcarb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input >> mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . . > > > You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? > I don't trust that he would report it honestly. > Do you trust that Krivit can? If he had any presence of mind I suppose he > checked, and he would have reported a problem. He goes out of his way to > find problems, finding mainly imaginary ones. > So far, there is no indication that Krivit checked the flow rate. Even if he did, I don't trust that Rossi didn't rig it. Remember, he declined your offer to bring your own meters to check it out. If you suspect that results are tainted by grant money, you will not > believe 99% of research. > Most research is subject to independent replication. Rossi's isn't. Even expensive experiments that can't be easily replicated, are subject to far more detailed scrutiny by a far broader spectrum of observers and participants. > >> 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a >> Relative Humidity meter (it can't). >> > > Yes, it can. > No. It really can't. If it could, the manufacturer would promote it that way, because steam quality measurement is big business. But they don't. > Rossi is one the most brilliant and original inventors in history. > You are substituting hero worship for critical thought. So far, Rossi's record is zero for two. That doesn't sound brilliant to me. > >> 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company. >> > > That has nothing to do with the claims, any more than Robert Stroud's > murder convictions cast doubt on this expertise in bird disease. > Rossi's past indiscretions relates directly to his scientific credibility. His failure to deliver on his claims makes him less believable. If he had murdered someone in a fit of rage or vengeance, that would not bear on his scientific abilities. Rossi's claims have been independently confirmed by Defkalion, so there is > no doubt they are real. > So they say... There is doubt they are real. I doubt they are real. Others do to. > >> 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods >> used to measure. >> > > He is not a scientist. He himself has said this many times. It is obvious > he is not! This is like accusing me of not being a musician. > But the reports from Levy, and E and K are all poor quality. Pathetic quality, really. And they are scientists. Various skeptical doubts about Rossi's tests have been posted here and > elsewhere, such as claims that wet steam can reduce enthalpy by a factor of > 20, or the flow rate and other factors might have made his output heat 1000 > times less than it really was, or that the meter does not work as claimed in > the brochure and by various experts. All of these doubts -- without > exception -- are without merit. > The significant doubts about steam quality (which makes a factor of 7 or 8 in the claimed power, not 20 or 1000), about flow rates, and claims of heat input have not been seriously addressed or contradicted. And they could be easily, if the claims were real. > The temperature would not be 101 deg C if there was not mostly dry steam. > The temperature was reached as soon as boiling began. You cannot go discontinuously from below boiling to dry steam. The ecat has to heat up. Like it does before boiling is reached.
