So, you will go on the record? The demonstrations have proven excess heat? This is irrefutable?
Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: >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
