> > Does anyone seriously doubt that if Fioravanti is telling the truth, there > can be any doubt the 1 MW reactor is real? Are you seriously suggesting > that a measurement using standard industrial techniques, performed by an > expert, showing 66 kWh input and 2,635 kWh might be in error?!? You can't > be serous. If that is the last remaining argument you have against cold > fusion, you have jumped the shark. >
I like that expression "jumping the shark". Does it mean the same as "screwing the pooch"? Whether or not Fioravanti is telling the truth is certainly the first important issue. I suspect he may work for Rossi and there is no other client. Anyway, I wasn't talking about the megawatt October 28 test because it all depends on what that guy reported. Nobody else saw data being taken so the entire test is worthless for evaluation of the reality of Rossi's claim. And, as you said yourself, a single independent and properly conducted test with a small device even at or below a one kilowatt level would be easier to evaluate and better than a *shudder* megawatt one. I was writing about October 6 and previous tests that used evaporation of water and inadequate measurement of steam quality. In the October 6 test, people complained about thermocouple placement on the output heat exchanger and about other things. I know computer simulations were made but would it not have been so much better to have a blank calibration run? That would show exactly how well the output power was being measured, it would provide the time constant of the system, and it would allow accounting for all losses. Why guess at those critical factors when you can simply take a few hours more and measure them accurately? The same reasoning applies to all the runs which used evaporation of steam. No need to argue about how much water flowed through the system or about the quality of the steam. Again, measuring the performance of the output measurement system would account for any measurement errors from virtually any cause. It's so obvious a thing to do considering all the controversies about output power measurement that it is astounding that this was done immediately after it was first brought up and suggested. Finally, none of what I write is, in any way shape or form, an "argument against cold fusion". I have always refused to give an opinion about that issue as a whole because I simply don't know. I do know quite a bit about Rossi's claims and how they have been tested and to me it stinks -- badly. All of it. And that has nothing to with the claim that it's some form of cold fusion or LENR.
