On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, do I need to keep arguing in favor of calibration > with a blank? Is there anyone else who doesn't get why it's desirable? > Even essential? I understand a blank may not be perfect because of the > hydrogen issue and I understand there are other reasons the demo may be > faked but the simple test I propose would remove a lot of not all of the > uncertainty about the output heat measurement. > I can certainly see the value of it, but I'm a little less enamored of it than you. It seems to me that if we got Rossi's cooperation to the point that he would do a blank run in a transparent and reliable way, then we could also get him to do the experiment in a way that would make it unnecessary. The claimed power levels really are easy to demonstrate, and temperatures are not difficult to measure. The two controversies about steam and thermocouple placement could be resolved by not using steam (as in the 18 h run), and by placing the temperature probes in the water. Then if there were no input power, and it ran long enough to exclude energy storage or chemical reactions, it would be a pretty good demo. I agree, some questions of storage and chemistry could be answered more quickly by comparing to a blank run, but I probably would want to see the output exceed the weight of the entire device in chemical energy to really be sure anyway. And with the claimed energy density, it should be easy, even if it might take some time.
