Statement only slightly more ridiculous: The most energetic thing that they could put inside is a fission reactor. A fission reactor produces the most energy, because if it didn't, nuclear power stations would use something else. And since we can't fit all of the necessary safety controls in such a small space, the only remaining explanation is nickel-hydrogen fusion. Compare to the rocket-fuel analysis below. Discuss.
Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: >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
