On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > > >> It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine. >> Everyone needs to understand that. He is using misdirection to his >> advantage. >> > > 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. > Either that or it had a short-lasting hidden extra source of energy. > 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. > Would you be convinced by 0.08 milliwatts? The purpose of running a convincing demonstration is to back up your claims. Rossi claims a tabletop fusion reactor that produces typically 10 kW continuously with 1/6 the power input and no fuel charge for 6 months or more. Running for three hours or so at reduced power is not convincing. And that's before you get to all the argument about measuring the enthalpy -- arguments which Rossi could easily squelch and hasn't. > The duration was also long enough to satisfy any rational demand for > proof. 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. She > sets arbitrary goals, and then whenever Rossi meets one of those goals, she > sets another. There is no technical justification for demanding higher > power or a longer run. > It's what Rossi claims he can do easily, for cripe's sake! The justification need not go beyond: Rossi said he could do it. Well OK, let's see it then. > 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. > > 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." > This is another weird analogy. Rossi is no Wright brother. If anything he's more of a Wrong brother (if that's too sarcastic, consider it withdrawn). What Rossi claims isn't the equivalent of a Wright Flyer. It's more like a 747 or an F18. And he can't even prove conclusively that it ever left the ground.
