Obviously, you prefer to go after an individual. Then you oversimplify arguments with an 8 gallon pot. I cannot comprehend if you're being facetious, or truly do not understand what we are referring to by stored heat in the core.
Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: >Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Mr. Rothwell never attacked me personally. He merely labeled all remaining >> skeptics as ignorant/blind/foolish/etc. I think that there is still room to >> question the results, and I'm certainly not the only one. I think that the >> ad hominems can stifle open communication, and I thought that they did not >> have place here. >> Now, in questioning the thermocouples, I'm apparently violating the laws of >> physics and >> without a 7th grade education. A public forum should be a safe environment >> from ad hominems, but maybe I misunderstood. >> I may not have a "degree in Japanese", but I was studying quantum mechanics >> at Fermilab while still in high school. Nevertheless, I'll take a back >> seat, or "get out of the kitchen" if this is how you guys cook. >> > >Look I am sorry to rub this in, but I believe Leguillon had the notion that >if you leave an anvil in a forge for a week, it will "store" more "heat >energy" than you if you leave it for a few hours. Perhaps I misunderstood >his comment and that is not what he meant. > >However, if that was what he had in mind, he does not understand the concept >of thermal equilibrium. He does not grasp that when matter "stores heat" >that must make it hotter, or undergo a phase change, or later break down >the molecules. Once it does that and reaches equilibrium no more heat >energy is stored. In other words, he does not understand some junior-high >level physics that happen to be essential to calorimetry. The Rossi test is >calorimetry, as are most cold fusion experiments. A person who does not >grasp these concepts is not capable of understanding the results. > >I am sorry, but that is all there is to it. If you do not grasp thermal >equilibrium or the Second Law, you cannot understand how this system works, >and -- unless I misunderstood the comment about the anvil -- Leguillon does >not grasp these things. And yes, these things are junior-high level >subjects. > >Leguillon says he knows a lot about quantum mechanics. I will take his word >for that. If you presented me with a problem in quantum mechanics, I would >be totally incapable of understanding it or solving it. We all have our >limitations. There is no necessary correlation between the complexity or >grade level of a problem and a person's ability to understand it. A person >who does not understand some fundamentals of a subject may well understand >advanced or higher level aspects of it. For example, I understand much more >about how a microprocessor works at the level of registers, op-codes and >assembly language than I understand the underlying transistors and resisters >that make up a register. > >Let me add that I understand these things, to the extent that I do, because >I read textbooks about calorimetry and also "Physics Made Simple" and >"Chemistry Made Simple" which are junior-high level textbooks. I recommend >them. When I get confused about a subject or I am editing a paper and I >encounter some basic concept I have forgotten, such as Lenz's law, I reach >for them. You should never hesitate to review the textbooks at any level. >Ignorance is never something to be ashamed of. > >I also know about this stuff because I spent weeks staring at experiments >and data with Mallove, Mizuno and others. Nothing beats hands-on >experience! As Franklin said, experience is a dear teacher but a fool will >learn at no other. That is why, in all seriousness, I think Leguillon should >spend some time in the kitchen with 8 gallons of boiling hot water and a >thermometer. > >- Jed
