At 10:04 AM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Essentially, depending on the thermometer being wet to inform the
observer of the lack of water is foolish.
No, it isn't. Galantini knows what he is doing. The probe would be
wet because these probes are tapered. The plug that seals it is
wider than the probe itself.
Great. What happens when the probe is removed? Does steam spray out?
Jed, you have reliable information about the flowing water test?
How do you know whether he left it alone or not?
I don't know if it is reliable or not, but here is what they told
me. It lasted 18-hours, which is most of a day. They did not babysit
it the entire time. They went home, leaving a video camera to watch
the instruments overnight.
I understand the video was on the water meter. The rest could be
recorded with the computer, I'd think.
Elsewhere you wrote:
Jed, if you could not see the boiling, how could you judge the level?
By the sound and temperature.
You can't tell the level from the temperature, until the water really
runs out. Sure, you might become familiar with the sound, but how? We
become familiar when we have an observation to match. I.e., we see
the level, we hear the sound. Rossi would only have the sound.
Sure, you can speculate that he did this or that, so he knew. Maybe
he did. But, Jed, this was to be a demonstration to show the thing.
What did he show?
I can estimate the water level in my miniature steam engine boiler
by similar means. It has a window but when the water level is high
or low you cannot see it. An experienced cook can judge the water
level in a pot by sound, for example with a pot of vegetables being
steamed, with just a little water at the bottom.
Granted, this is a complicated way of doing things. The Defalion
reactors reportedly have a primary cooling loop with glycol or some
other liquid with a high boiling point. Water going into the
secondary loop in the heat exchanger boils.
Yes. I want to remind everyone that I do *not* have a belief that
there is no excess heat in the Rossi device. I've come to a
conclusion that he has exaggerated and possibly sometimes falsified
his results, which might relate to unreliability, which is a serious
problem. I simply have concluded that, for various reasons, the
demonstrations and claims are not convincing. They could possibly be
made convincing.
