On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > During the 18 hour test in February, the machine clearly went out of > control. If I had something like that I would not run it as hot as it can > go. In this case, running with only one cell enabled produces a clear > signal. I do not see any advantage to running all three, if the purpose is > to do a convincing demonstration. People were not convinced by 8 kW will > not be convinced by 24 kW, or 24 MW for that matter. > Lewan claimed only 2 - 3 kW, and that was based on unreliable thermocouple placement. From the flow rate of the coolant, it could have been as low as 1 kW. But it's not just the power, it's the energy out vs the energy in, and so more energy out would obviously make it more convincing. > > The duration was also long enough to satisfy any rational demand for proof. > No it wasn't. It wasn't even long enough to satisfy many cold fusion advocates demand for proof. If what you say were true, Rossi's ecat would be on the cover of the NYT. > Mary Yugo and others keep saying the run was too short even though it was > 24 times longer than anyone needs to be sure the effect is real. > No. It was at least 24 times too short for any rational person to be sure the effect is real. She sets arbitrary goals, and then whenever Rossi meets one of those goals, > she sets another. > No. The goals have not changed, but Rossi's results have fallen further and further from meeting the goals. On the other hand, the advocates keep lowering their standards for Rossi to meet to satisfy their belief, as his ecats get fatter, produce lower power, lower COP, and require greater input. > There is no technical justification for demanding higher power or a longer > run. Both are far, far beyond what anyone else has accomplished, and far > beyond any rational doubt. There is not the slightest chance the > self-sustaining event can be explained with stored heat or chemistry. > Actually you can accomplish what Rossi does with a fat cat using a portable propane water heater, which weighs 1/5 as much, and requires no warm-up period. So yes, it is easy to conceive of ways to produce his results using stored energy or chemistry, and people have done it all over the internet. > I suppose if Yugo had watched Wilbur Wright's flight on Sept. 9, 1908 > lasting 57 minutes, 31 seconds, she would have said: "I will not believe he > can really fly until he goes for an hour!!!" Then, later that day when he > flew for 1 hour 2 minutes, she would say: "I will not believe it until he > flies for TWO HOURS." > > Bad example because at the time, powered flight was not possible by any other method, but of course heating water is possible without nuclear energy. A better example might be to compare the Wrights planes to gliders which were around at the time. So if they launched their plane off a cliff and it stayed aloft for 1/10 as long as a glider, that would not be impressive. And if the Wrights were Rossi, subsequent shows would stay aloft for even less time. (Of course this is hypothetical, since the Wrights could stay aloft for longer than gliders, but this would be a relevant comparison.) The bar has always been the same for Rossi: (1) produce more output energy than input, and (2) have the excess energy be larger than could be produced by storage or chemistry, and preferably more than could be produced by the devices weight in the best chemical fuel. Rossi has never met the first criterion, let alone the second.
