At 01:47 PM 8/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The data provided can be found here:
<http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm>http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
Who wrote that? Whose testimony is it?
This data is similar to what you find on a boiler test form, filled
in by an inspector.
The inspector signs the form and is legally responsible for having
actually made the recorded measurements.
It is no less detailed than that. No sensible person would suggest
that such tests are inadequate, or that there is some reason why
they might be wrong. They are, of course, imprecise. As it says on
the guides to these forms, the results are plus or minus 10%. If
those tests did not work, in every major city dozens of boilers
would explode every day. That does not happen.
The described test isn't the same as the tests that "work."
We have seen how the public demonstrations turned out to have hidden
problems . . .
No, we have not. All of the "hidden problems" are figments of the
overworked imaginations of people who have never done such tests,
and who do not know what they are talking about.
You are nuts, Jed. Sorry. You really are in denial about this, and I
don't know why. Experts are commenting, and Kullander and Essen are
quietly backing away.
Any HVAC engineer will know that this test is valid, and that all of
the objections to it raised here are nonsense.
Great. Get one to sign off on it, taking personal responsibility for
error. However, the reactor isn't anything like what they have seen.
In particular, it appears to me that the reactor is designed and
operated very differently from a standard boiler. This, indeed,
fooled many people. Normal boilers produce wet steam, all right, but
down around 5% wet. So nobody expected that steam might be, say, 95%
water by mass. That's because nobody would ever design a boiler where
the water can spill out into the steam exhaust. Nobody would ever
have a fixed inflow rate. No engineer has experience with that,
because it would create a host of problems. No, level control is
used. In the Rossi experiments, it could easily be managed, it seems
to me, with gravity feed.
Jed, we don't have the data on the 18-hour test to criticize it
clearly. Sure, it looks good, but it raises a host of questions. Like
what 130 kW would do to the reactor. None of that is conclusive,
maybe, maybe, maybe. Aside from that, what's been appearing is enough
to consider substantial the risk that Rossi has manipulated *any
demonstration* by changing parameters and not disclosing that.
I wrote long ago that fraud can never be ruled out. Jed, you
pooh-poohed this, claiming that the existing demonstrations were so
conclusive that fraud could not be ruled out. Yet that
"conclusiveness" vanished. Without any need for a fraud claim.
However, there remains an appearance of some excess heat, for example
in the Kullander and Essen test, where it is claimed that the
temperature rose higher than the input power could manage. And,
indeed, so it appears. That's an appearance of about 600 W of power.
Once we realize that Rossi could have rather easily created that
appearance through manipulation, that manipulation was actually
observed but not noticed at first, it's seen in the videos, all bets are off.
In spite of your well-advised caution about not going to the
demonstrations without your own equipment, not going if you are not
allowed to arrange a conclusive demonstration, you've still been snookered.
Along with a lot of other people. This thing was good! I do think
Rossi did this deliberately. And I still can't tell if he's got
*anything*. Probably something, at least some of the time. It's an
old cold fusion story. Reliability is the biggest problem in cold fusion.
