You should measure the increase in your sparging more accurately for
instance in a graduated cylinder.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jouni Valkonen" <jounivalko...@gmail.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations
2011/9/1 Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net>:
Lying is not an important issue with the public tests.
What if there was a hidden hydrogen bottle? 200 grams of hydrogen is enough.
The issue is whether
the calorimetry showed anything at all.
Indeed, it showed. I will return this issue tomorrow.
The issue is a relative humidity
probe does not measure steam quality, or sense whether large amounts of
water are overflowing.
This silly measurement has nothing to do with Rossi, but all to do
with Galantini.
The issue is the use of a set-up that is perfect for
self delusion and erroneous results, and proves nothing.
This is untrue. It is almost trivial to measure enthalpy from steam by
sparging. See my recent experiment in other threat. Therefore
experimental setup was correct.
Such major flaws are
not an indication of an appropriate level of science being
applied.
You should tell this to Levi, Passerini, Bianchini, Galantini,
Kullander, Essén, Lewan and various other persons who all failed with
calorimetry. Frankly I am stunned when I realized how simple science
calorimetry is and how poorly it was conducted during the
demonstrations AND in various discussion forums.
Lewan had extensive public discussion what to measure before he went
to Bologna. He even measured electromagnetic radiation for heat
transfer but no one suggested for him to do simple steam sparging
calorimetry. This is what surprises me the most.
And also Rossi was only passive observer when scientist made all the
measurements what they thought to be necessary. Therefore no-one
cannot state any objections for Rossi if the level of science was
poor.
–Jouni
