If Rossi did use three cores (assuming he didn't before): The energy output may increase, but we'd still still be without any method to acually measure it, because of his calorimetry. The energy consumed would have tripled, too, with a zero-net-gain possibility still on the table.
The October 6th test only needed proper calorimetry by independent observers. That's it. I seriously question Rossi's claims because this should be easy to demonstrate. They appear to be intentionally convoluted. Furthermore, his history should give us pause, and ample justification for caution. His efforts with biodiesel (Petroldragon) and thermoelectric generation (LTI) were both instances of taking real science, and claiming breakthroughs, sometimes orders-of-magnitude better, than everyone else. Keep this in mind. It is not much different than taking a few watts claimed by Piantelli, and claiming thousands. P&F have NOTHING to do with my skeptical view of Rossi. Rossi and his weak demonstrations have everything to do with it. I sincerely hope than Ni-H will match the claims the aggressive claims that have been made. It would create a new industrial revolution, where cheap energy makes desalinization, industrial farming, and so much more, possible. The evidence just isn't there for Rossi's claims. David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > >It is unfortunate that Mr. Rossi did not use all three cores of his ECAT for >the October 6, 2011 test. The results would have indicated at least 2 times >the observed energy production. >I have completed an extensive review of the data collected during that October >6 test and it is apparent that we missed the big show. It is not clear as to >why Rossi chose to limit the ECAT to the 1 core test case, but I suspect that >it was part of his plan to dazzle the world with the October 28 demonstration. >It is possible that the control of the 1 MW system was more difficult than >Rossi anticipated which led to the decision to throttle it back to 470 kW. In >my opinion, the demonstration of the system at the reduced power level for the >extensive period of time was not a major failure. It would have been >surprising if the test had achieved all that Rossi expected since many unknown >problems often arise with complex systems such as this. >The worst issue that we face is the continued barrage of criticism on this >list that mainly is a result of the skeptic’s total disbelief in anything >related to cold fusion. I wonder if they would have been swayed had the data >demonstrated the dramatic excess energy that I calculated with 3 cores. I >have a feeling that something else would have given them reason to complain. >Dave
