In this case, the skeptics are ignoring the fact that the heat increased during
heat after death, instead of declining according to Newton's law. This proves
they are wrong. I have not seen a response from any of them trying to explain
this fact.
Steve Krivit was so anxious to gloss over the facts, he did not even notice the
flow calorimetry was working before heat after death began, and that output
balanced input.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
- Jed
Please provide a specific example of the heat increase during
"Heat-After-Death." You have been asked multiple times for this, and you seem
to be relying on the measurements at the secondary. Due to differing specific
heats and flow rates of water vs. steam, and the thermocouple location, spikes
in the secondary can and should be questioned.
"This proves they are wrong" is a pretty bold statement.
Many skeptical voices in Vortex have taken a great deal of care in making sound
arguments and careful calculations. If you take the time to make your own
calculations, you realize that the lack of reliable data, the scarcity of
datapoints, and the generally haphazard paradigm of the "self sustaining mode"
creates hurdles that are insurmountable.
When we are forced to dismiss measurements at the secondary, we look to the
primary. When measurements at the primary lack proper flow rates, and the E-Cat
thermocouple is nearly resting on the core heat-sink, there is not enough data
to make any reasonable calculations. And whenever we try to, we end up using
circular arguments that point back to, or rely upon, data we had previously
dismissed.
When arguments of hidden power sources arise, I actually snicker. The
"frequency generator" is obviously having some effect, but the calorimetry is
so damaged, that we can't have a serious conversation about the effect.
We know that the paristaltic pump is erratic with back pressure, we know that
the E-Cat thermocouple was in close proximity to the core heat-sink, we don't
know the output flow volume to the E-Cat, we don't know if the thermocouple at
the secondary was "wicking" heat from the steam input. Heck, we honestly don't
even have any way of determining that the measurements taken off the
voltmeter/ammeter were constant. Maybe the "device generating frequencies" drew
500mA when it was first connected, but, since the measurement was never taken
again, it was drawing 12 Amps for the rest of the demonstration.
I throttled back on putting in my two cents when I realized that nothing could
be accomplished. I can only wait for the next demonstration.
So, back to your statement:
"the skeptics are ignoring the fact that the heat increased during heat after
death"
If you are really going to trust the secondary measurements, and think that
there is no stored heat, then how did the output increase after all power was
removed (including the frequency generator) and the hydrogen was purged? If
there's no stored heat, then why did the secondary show an increase from 3.943
kW at 19:03 to 6.101 kW at 19:22?
If you are really going to claim that there is no stored heat, then look at the
September 7th test with the same E-Cat. At 23:10, the pump is stopped,
hydrogen is purged, all electrical power is pulled, and the water is drained.
Why does the temperature begin climbing again after 23:20?
There are many skeptical observers, that have serious questions. Don't use
Krivit as a straw man for Vortex critics. As I've said before, extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence. If we were truly convinced, We'd be
dumping any investments for nickel commodities. We'd be heavily leveraged into
nanoparticle manufacturers and nickel mining operations. Ni-H may be the wave
of the future, but I have yet to see a convincing demonstration.
