Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: It would be if Rossi wasn't pouring power into the smaller E-cat > continuously . . . >
1. "Pour" has no technical meaning in this context. Perhaps you mean "supply a lot of power." If that is what you mean, you are wrong. Input power is much smaller than output, and there is no chance it might be confused with output. In many cases output is much larger than the highest possible input. For example, during the 18-hour run, the wires would have burned if the heat had been caused by input. 2. It is not continuous. He has demonstrated the reactor in self-sustaining mode with no input power. > and into the larger one for a substantial preheating period. > Only one test has had a substantial preheating period, and there is no doubt that all of that heat came out long before the self sustaining event. There was no energy storage; the effect was already exothermic. > And then the so-called self sustaining run is always short. > The Oct 6 self sustaining event was 4 hours. Ten minutes would have been long enough. In 10 min. you would have seen the boiling stop abruptly temperature decline rapidly. Four hours is 24 times longer than this. There is no doubt whatever that after 40 min. the reactor should have been stone cold. By that measure this run is 5 times longer than needed. It would not be more convincing in any sense if it had gone on a million times longer. There is *absolutely no technical reason* to demand a longer run. It is a distraction. I am sure that if Rossi ran for 8 hours, Yogo would still say "not long enough." Rossi already ran 18 hours and that wasn't long enough. If he ran for 100 or 1,000 hours she would then say that 5 kW is not enough, it must be 20 kW, and if he did this she would demand 50 kW. It will never be long enough or hot enough for her. The instruments and first principle proof will never be good enough. She will move the goal posts indefinitely. Rossi is 100% right when he says it is a waste of time trying to convince such people. Frankly, anyone who was not convinced by McKubre back in 1992 will never be convinced by any amount of scientific proof or by any prototype device. Anyone who does not understand McKubre is incapable of understanding Rossi. The difference in scale does not make McKubre harder to understand or less convincing. > It would be pointless except that a lot of people go round and round > about adequacy of the measurements and related issues. > The people going round and round are talking nonsense. Running running much longer would not answer any of the imaginary concerns they have raised. All of the proposed methods of "storing heat" would fail in 40 min. just as surely as they would in ten years of operation. Any method of secretly introducing electricity or fuel in a fraudulent system would work indefinitely. Running longer would not eliminate a fraud, or an instrument artifact for that matter. In any case, these people are sure to blather on inventing endless impossible scenarios until the day the mass media announces Rossi's device is real. They are incapable of thinking for themselves or doing natural science; i.e., understanding that a pot of hot water taken off the stove must cool down. > There'd be no issue about the measurements if the runs were much MUCH > longer. > Of course there would be an issue! If it is a measurement error (an instrument artifact) it will last forever. The reactor cannot actually remain above room temperature for more than 40 min. It cannot remain warm to the touch. So any observer can be certain it really was producing anomalous heat just by holding a hand nearby it. That is not subject to any artifact. That is why none of the skeptics will ever talk about the fact that it remains hot to the touch. They insist that the discussion be limited to invisible and impossible measurement errors instead instead of physical facts. > As it is, we're still arguing about the 8:1 error that can be due to wet > steam and the issue of where the thermocouples were in the October 6 > experiment. > Yes, of course. We are arguing about where the thermocouples were placed BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT MAKE A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE. It is a red herring; a distraction; an idiotic diversion from the real issues. Skeptics insist on talking about this red herring only. They will never talk about the actual physical facts, because the facts prove they are wrong. Their fantasies about how the thermocouples are also nonsense, but that does not matter; these fantasies are only intended to confuse the issue and divert attention from the facts. No one who understands thermocouples actually believes these are wrong by more than a fraction of a degree, and that would have no effect on the conclusion. The point is, you can argue about that in circles forever, whereas only an idiot would argue that a metal surface the burns someone is not hot. - Jed
