Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
> Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat? > So they say. > If they saw inside some other device at some other time then that is > irrelevant. > That one, as far as I know. It was tested before. It shows signs of having been run many times, such as scale inside it. > Levi has been an inside guy from the beginning has he not? > No, only since December 2010. He only became an "insider" because he saw proof that the reaction is real. If you're going to criticize anyone who believes Rossi and accuse him of being an insider there will be an ever widening circle of people you consider persona non grata. It will be like a giant game of sardines, where you lose. > I see no difference between him and Rossi in regards to this issue. For > that matter Defkalion is or will be selling similar devices, true? > So they say. > What is important, obviously, is access by independent observers. > Defkalion is independent of Rossi. Quite independent -- he has broken off relations with them. As I said, you are setting up a gigantic game of sardines here. First Rossi is suspect because Rossi makes the claims. Then Defkalion the suspect because they make the same claims. Now I suppose George Miley is suspect because he saw the same thing. How long are you I keep this up? When 100 different labs replicate this are you going to say everyone of them is part of the conspiracy and there are no independent observers? Anyone who agrees it is real is automatically guilty of conspiracy and fraud. > 2. In previous tests observers dumped out the water from the vessel after > the run and measured the volume. There is no space unaccounted for in the > vessel. There is no place to put concrete. > > > These are meaningless words. I specified *inside* the 30x30x30 cm inner > box. What happens outside that box is obviously immaterial. Why would > you bring such a red herring into the discussion? > See: displacement; Archimedes. > 3. The previous cylindrical reactors were easy to see inside of. There was > no concrete in them. It makes no sense to claim that the previous reactors > were real and this one is fake. > > > This is nonsense, and yet another red herring. You are digging pretty > deep to respond! 8^) The calorimetry for those devices was entirely > different. They were not designed by Rossi to demonstrate "heat after > death". > The previous reactors *did* demonstrate heat after death, on several occasions. I do not know what you are talking about. > No one has challenged this analysis. Besides, even if this is incorrect > and half of the input power is being stored while the electric power is > turned on, > > What do you mean half the input power is being stored? It is all being > stored (except for leakage through the insulation) until heat shows up at > the heat exchanger. > Yes, of course. How could it? After it does reach the exchanger, output soon catches up with input. By the time heat after death began the balance was about even. There was no stored heat, except the heat in the remaining hot water of course. You can see from the decay curves that this would all emerge in about 45 min. with no input power, and it would cool very rapidly during this time. There is no way the temperature could have remained at boiling for four hours. > All you are saying here is the output energy is larger than the input > energy. We can not know that without good thermocouple readings. > You can move the output line down to any plausible spot you like, or even halfway down, which is preposterous and not a bit plausible. Output still greatly exceeds input. This is not inferable from a measurement. This is a rehash of old well > trodden material. > However, it is still correct. You have not refuted it. You have not even addressed most aspects of it, such as the fact that there is no concrete in the previous cylindrical reactors and they also demonstrated heat after death. For that matter input was so small compared to output, all of the heat might as well be considered heat after death. - Jed
