On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > > >> Why the relatively short test? >> > > That, I know the answer to. Rossi stopped the test because the people > observing it asked him to stop it. They wanted to look inside. Also, it was > late in the day and they had to go. > That's too funny. For want of dinner, the creates discovery in a century was aborted. First, I have not seen evidence that anyone asked him to stop the demo. I think you made it up, but if you have evidence, don't hold back. Second, what's to stop him from doing the pre-heating overnight, and getting started at 7 am. These guys are professionals; they won't mind getting up early. It's true, you might want a witness to measure the input energy, but if it runs long enough to exclude chemical fuel, then storage is excluded too. Then if they ran it self-sustained until 7 pm, you'd have 12 hours. Still too short, but a lot better than 3 1/4 hours. Third, I'm pretty sure you could get people to stay around for a few days, observing in shifts. Surely Rossi has at least one trusted deputy he could leave there when he got his sleep. Fourth, if he had stuck with his smaller ecat, it wouldn't take as long to exclude tricks. Notice that to get longer (public) runs, he had to build a bigger and much heavier ecat. And still it's just a few hours. > > In his blog I think it was, Rossi said that this particular version of the > machine can only self-sustain for about six hours, max. if that is true, it > was close to the limit after 4 hours. > That's not really self-sustaining then is it. If the thing needed a similar warm-up period every 6 hours, then you're right, running longer wouldn't mean anything. And, if that's the case, then that means Rossi not only *didn't* prove the ecat, but he *couldn't* prove it.
