The amount of thinking and detailed engineering detective work that some of our most esteemed members have put forward to makeup for Rossi's ill defined test plan is truly awe inspiring.
But my eyes glaze over when I try to get to the heart of the proof of principle that the demo was suppose to convey. I have spent a good chunk of my life designing these types of tests to prove operational capability. The ordinary man on the street will not understand the reasoning needed to prove that the Ni-H reaction is real much less that the Rossi system can do the job. So simplification of the demo might have been in order. Looking back, what might have worked best is a simplified test. The simplest test possible. Such a test continually presents and records the input power and the resultant output power until a predefined maximum output power level is reached sufficient to be achieved over a very long time period. Such a simple demo would be enough to convince most people. Like some 10 year old boy, I get the felling that Rossi just wanted to show the world a new gimmick that he just came up with; self sustaining mode. Rossi does not realize that each demo is self contained and it stands on it own merits indivisible in its entirety without holes or mistakes or assumptions. From initialization to lights out, a demo must be perfect in order to show proof of function; the simpler and elegant that the demo is designed to be the easier it is to be believed. A demo must be rehearsed and gone over and over again until it is completely debugged and perfect. Rossi does not yet get this simple principle because he uses these demos as on-the-fly design and unit testing tools. He has no respect for his audience. He must think to himself “if you can't overlook my bugs, then the hell with you because I have shown you this before”. Such a demo takes lots of time to design and perform; all meticulously done with loving care. Loving care and attention to detail is not in the Rossi game plan. The world doesn’t care what the last five Rossi demos have shown ...more or less... because his reactors never stay the same from one demo to the next. As a long time Rossi watcher with intense interest in cold fusion, a Rossi demo is an exercise in agony not the ecstasy of the angles. On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Please provide a specific example of the heat increase during >> "Heat-After-Death." You have been asked multiple times for this . . . >> > > I have pointed it out multiple times. The temperature continues rising > after the power is cut off at 15:50. It rises again peaking at 16:51. It > rises a third time at 19:18. > > The analysis of the T2 temperatures by Robert Lynn confirm this pattern. > > The assertion that this increase may be caused by stored heat is a > violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. > > > *If you are really going to trust the secondary measurements . . .* >> > > As I said, Robert Lynn shows that this is in both the primary and secondary > measurements. > > > >> *, and think that there is no stored heat . . .* >> > > > I NEVER SAID there is no stored heat! Where did you get that from? If there > were no stored heat the reactor would be a room temperature, obviously. Many > observers say the reactor surface was hot and one person touched > accidentally jumped back because it was hot, so there was stored heat. > > Stored heat = an elevated temperature > > Releasing stored heat MUST lower the temperature > > > >> *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?* >> > > That cannot be caused by stored heat. Stored heat cannot increase the > temperature. It can never maintain the same temperature. It can only slow > down the decrease. > > > *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?* >> > > That is a change in calorimetric conditions. That does not count. Also cold > fusion will often produces a burst of heat when you change loading > conditions, so there could be anomalous heat their. It is not possible to > purge all of the hydrogen at one time. It takes hours or days, and you can > never remove all of the hydrogen. > > > There are many skeptical observers, that have serious questions. Don't >> use Krivit as a straw man for Vortex critics. >> > > No skeptic has addressed the fact that the temperature rises. I believe one > person mentioned in passing that these thermocouples may be wrong. In other > words, this may be an instrument artifact. There is no chance of that. They > registered a 5°C Delta T most of the time and up to 10°C at other times. > They are never that wrong. they do not fluctuate rapidly. The one advantage > of putting the thermocouple on the pipe is that it blurs out rapid changes > and you can be sure the temperature elevation is real. It may not be > correct; it may be some average between the cold water in the steam, but the > temperature did rise. Whether it was the average temperature or the cold > water temperature makes no difference. Neither temperature can rise except > when heat is generated. That is physically impossible. > > - Jed > >
