I fully agree with Jed- and think this will be kind of "Now or Never" (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnm0dLThp9c) test because the idea to combine 52 potentially unstable Fat Cats is risky up to the very limit of of a kamikaze mentality. Peter
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > The upcoming test of Rossi's reactor is described here: > > > http://pesn.com/2011/09/26/9501920_NobelPrize_Laureate_to_Test_Cold_Fusion_E-Cat/ > > This says there will be a primary steam loop, a heat exchanger, and a > secondary flowing water loop. Rossi confirmed this in his blog. This > also says the reactor will be run in heat after death mode for extended > periods. The article has various other details. I discussed it with some of > the people who will participate. They confirm these details. So if things go > according to plan, this will be much better than previous tests. It may not > be definitive but it will be an important step forward. > > I made some suggestions to the participants such as: > > They should record all parameters in a single computer, so that the time > stamps correlate. They say they will do this. > > They should record watts, not just amperes, and they should record the flow > rate, for goodness sake. I believe they will do this. > > They should have the paper edited by a native speaker of English before > publishing. They will do this. > > They should confirm all parameters with hand-held instruments, for example, > they should measure the flow with a flow meter and also a stopwatch, a > bucket and a weight scale. I sure hope they do this. > > They should report the make and model of every instrument used in the test. > > I have strongly recommended they publish the complete dataset in a > spreadsheet, similar to the spreadsheet Lewan uploaded recently. No response > yet, but I hope they will do this. > > > In my opinion the totality of the evidence from the previous tests has been > convincing, especially the February 18-hour test with flowing water and the > recent test with 30 minutes of heat after death. Convincing, yes, but I also > agree with critics who say these tests have been sloppy, and poorly > reported. When I say "poorly reported" I mean, for example, they should have > listed the make and model of all instruments, as I told them. I felt silly > saying this to professional scientists. This is teaching grandma how to suck > eggs. In high school in college you learn that all technical papers should > include the make and model. But they did not do this, so I thought I should > tell them. > > To give another example, they should have reported the readings from the > flow meter in the 18-hour test. It appears to be an analog, non-electronic > meter. In that case, they should have reported the instantaneous readings > every 10 minutes, and the final cumulative reading. Of course it is better > to use an electronic meter and record the data along with input power and > temperatures every minute. The instruments typically measure these values > thousands of times a second, before recording an average value periodically, > one to five times per minute. There is no need to record more frequently > than this in a test that lasts an hour or longer. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
