Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: How much fuel, and how is that fuel reacted? Please do say there was >> something else hidden in the vessel other than the cell, and this other >> object magically defies Archimedes' law. >> > > Maybe someone else who's more of a chemist and electrochemist than I am > can try to put together an exhaustive list. >
You do not need an exhaustive list. The problem is much simpler than that. All you need is the extreme. You find out what chemical produces the most energy per unit of volume, and you figure out how much of that will fit inside the reactor core. The answer is rocket fuel with an oxidizer. The thing is underwater so it cannot be fed with air. We know the answer is rocket fuel because if there was any chemical with higher energy density, they would use that for rocket fuel instead of what they do use. It is easy to determine that this cell cannot hold enough rocket fuel plus the equipment you need to ignite it and control it. Of course there is not practical way to put rocket fuel in this reactor. Or gasoline, butane, or any other high energy density chemical. You would only make a bomb. In real life, you would have to use something less energy dense, producing much less heat. In other words, rocket fuel is the theoretical maximum, and any real chemical would be much worse. Since rocket fuel would not work, neither would anything else. > I'd include, in addition to various sets of chemicals, issues of things > that change state at moderate temperatures, adsorb to surfaces, and > probably many things I have not thought of yet. > All irrelevant. The only question is, how much heat can you generate with a chemical device of this size? Answer: Nowhere near enough. > And I maintain that the interior volume available for cheating is > unknown because nobody has recorded it. > They did record it, by Archimedes' method. Do you think that has stopped working after 2200 years? > What was that finned thing inside the device? You're sure it's only a > heat exchanger with active core modules in it? And you know that how? > That's the cell, but who cares what that is? For the purposes of this analysis, it does not make the slightest difference what that is. You can estimate the volume of it by displacement, and you can see it is not big enough. There is no electric power or fuel being being fed into it, and it cannot hold enough chemical fuel. That's all you need to know. > In any scam, it's the part you don't get that gets you. > Any scam must obey the laws of physics. I suspect Rossi may be cheating but you're right -- I can't name the > method or methods. > If you cannot name it, then no one can test it or falsify it. A thing that you cannot name or specify cannot be part of a scientific debate. That would be form or religion, or perhaps literature. All propositions and assertions in a scientific debate must be subject to testing and must be falsifiable, at least in principle. Asserting that somewhere, someone might somehow know how to do this by stage magic . . . means nothing. That is like saying there is an invisible unicorn or a lump of concrete in the reactor but no one can see, detect, or weigh, and it does not displace any water. If there is no way you or any of us can know anything at all about this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in the universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it? > They may be different and multiple each and every time. > Stop multiplying entities. You violate Ockham's razor. Especially, stop multiplying invisible entities that cannot be detected by any means, even in principle. This is -- literally -- like debating how many angels can dance on the head of pin. Until you specify a method of stage magic you have proposed NOTHING. Similarly I don't know how famous magicians do their illusions. > I do know. You can look it up in Wikipedia. When you look inside the stage apparatus, the methods are immediately obvious. Not one is sophisticated or mysterious. Some of them have been use for hundreds of years; some go back thousands of years. If this the only proof you can come up with -- that you personally do not know how stage magicians do their illusions -- you have disproved your own point. Anyone who makes a casual study of stage magic will know that the methods are dead simple and cannot be used to hide a wire in Rossi's reactor, once you open it up. - Jed
