Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Am I to understand that even the most pragmatic skepticism it to be > dismissed? > > So the *open-minded* position is that: > The 6 statements that follow are not open-minded or pragmatic skepticism. They all mistakes. You do not understand what I and others have been saying despite the fact that we have repeated some of these points several times. Please pay closer attention. > > 1)It doesn't matter if the E-Cat thermocouple was resting on the heat-sink > fins, because the thermocouples are laboratory grade and they read > correctly. Skeptics are foolish to look at this. > The thermocouples are definitely reading correctly. It is not possible for two sets of thermocouples to show the same trend in both be wrong. It is not clear what they are reading but that does not matter. Suppose for the sake of argument is the heat sink fins. Those fins did not cool off when the power was cut. They heated up. Therefore there is heat being generated. In a steady-state system with no power being generated every molecule in the system must cool down. > 2)Any attempt to quantify the flow rate into the primary doesn't > matter. It must have been consistent, and large enough to imply significant > power gains. Skeptics are foolish to look at this. > This does not matter because the reservoir did not fill up. There was no outflow from the pump action. (I base this on an analysis by David Roberson which has not yet been presented here.) > > 3)The proximity of the secondary thermocouple to the steam input doesn't > matter. It may have been influenced by the steam/water input, but it must > have been less than a few percent. > You misunderstand. The error could be 95%. That is irrelevant. No one said it was "a few percent." This is a strawman argument. The proof is in the trend, not the actual power level. However, different methods of measuring the power all indicate that at 18:34 power was ~3.5 kW. Since there was no input power at this time calorimetry is simplified. It is not likely that different methods yielded the same answer but they are all wrong. > It's not worth attempting to quantify any effects, because there must > have been observed power gains. Skeptics are foolish to look at this. > Of course it's possible to quantify the effects! This is another strawman argument; i.e., one that no one here has made. It is not possible to quantify the effects up to the usual standard of modern science. Rossi conducted the test ineptly, preventing this. > 4)Temperature fluctuations in the secondary-side thermocouple cannot be > caused by overflowing water, because specific heats of steam/water don't > change the efficientcy of heat transfer to the heat-exchanger fitting. > Skeptics are foolish to look at this. > Skeptics are wrong. The water did not overflow. The analysis at 18:34 and the analysis from Roberson demonstrate this. And no, I do not think overflow water can change the heat transfer enough. In any case, after 4 hours there it not the slightest chance the reservoir water would still be at the same temperature -- or hotter. The surface of the reactor was ~80°C, meaning it is not well insulated. 30 L of water cannot continue boiling that long without input energy. If you believe that is possible, you need a refresher course in everyday reality. Better yet, you need to boil 30 L of water (8 gallons) in a large pot, insulate it such that the surface is still too hot to touch, and wait 4 hours. I seriously recommend you try that before making more assertions about this test. It is not expensive or difficult to put insulation around an 8-gallon pot of boiling hot water. Turn off the gas, move the pot to an blanket of insulation, and cover it up. Use ordinary household insulation and don't make it thick or well sealed, because you have to leave the surface so hot you cannot touch it. I promise you will find that it does not remain at 100°C for four hours. It will cool down considerably and after the system stabilizes, with the insulation reaching terminal temperature, the temperature in every part of the pot and insulation will fall monotonically. 5)The sporadic checking of the output temperature hurts calculations of heat > output, but the actual gains don't really matter in the end. They must have > been large. Skeptics are foolish to look at this. > Skepics who claim that the temperature did not really go up, or that it went up but there was no energy generated and yet this is not a violation of the second law are not foolish. They are ignorant. They lack 7th grade knowledge of physics. > 6)It doesn't matter if there was never any evidence of heat-before-death, > because there is ample evidence of heat-after-death. > This is deliberate nonsense. The rest was mistaken. > Cold fusion is a more likely explanation than bad calorimetry or stored > heat. Skeptics are foolish to look at this. > The calorimetry was bad but not that bad. Stored heat cannot do this. Try it, and you will see. - Jed
