Peter Heckert <peter.heck...@arcor.de> wrote:
> If he has drained the water from the primary circuit he has wasted energy. > He said in august or september, they had done flow calorimetry previously > with big success. > Why all these confusing modifications and restrictions if this is true? > I can understand why he would not want to recirculate the condensed water from the heat exchanger. It would be difficult to keep track of how much water is in the loop, and what temperature it is. Some would escape. Some might not condense and you might have steam going out of the heat exchanger back into the cell. That would not carry off as much heat as liquid water. Inputting tap water makes things more predictable. He probably tried recirculating, or thought about it, and found that it does not work well. I expect he found you cannot control it, and it might be dangerous, so he changed his plan. This does reduce the recovery rate of the calorimeter by a large margin, but I doubt Rossi cares about that. As long as there is indisputably large excess heat and it exceeds the limits of chemistry during the heat after death, he has proved his point. That is the case. Despite the problems in this test, no rational or plausible skeptical objections have been raised, and I am sure none will be. The best that the skeptics can come up with is a gas canister hidden in the table leg that connects magically to the cell without a tube, or Krivit's magic heat storage, or various other preposterous notions that fly in the face of fundamental physics and common sense. This was a very poorly done test, but the effect is so large, even a poorly done test is irrefutable. It is annoying to me. Intensely annoying, because I like to see things done professionally. Rossi's methods confuse and confound the observer. They force the audience to dig for the answer through the noise and confusion. I prefer elegant tests that make the results obvious. But the truth is, I am quibbling, and as I am sure Rossi would say, my objections have no impact on the conclusions. The debate somewhat resembles the 1980s confrontation between the he-man, text-based computer operating systems with cryptic commands such as "grep" versus the emerging Mac or Windows icons that made things easy to understand, and intuitive. Rossi is old school. He doesn't care how much work you have to do to understand his experiment. That's your problem. Many elderly cold fusion researchers are like this, especially Arata. They expect YOU to do YOUR homework. They will not life a finger to make it easier for you to understand them. The only criterion that matters to Arata or Rossi is how much effort he himself has to do, and how convenient it is for him to do a test in a certain way. That is not to say that Arata or Rossi are lazy. On the contrary, they are fantastically productive, accomplishing as much as a dozen other people might. Arata has over 100 patents (as I recall). They do not want to waste 5 minutes making it easier for other people to grasp their work. - Jed
