On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If he had actually pre-heated it, the skeptics would all be screaming that > he magically "stored up" the heat in advance. > Well yes, that would have to be taken in to account. There's nothing magic about storing heat. But there are limits to the storage of heat, and if the output exceeds those limits, which would be automatic, if it exceeded the energy content of an equivalent mass of chemical fuel, then it would still be a useful demo. > It is better to do the whole test, from start to finish, in the presence > of the observers. Anyone who thinks 4 hours of heat after death is > insufficient would not be satisfied with 40 hours or 4 years. > That's what I call irrational. We all admit to limits for heat storage. Yours estimate is obviously far lower than the skeptics'. Four hours of heat in the Oct 6 test was the equivalent of a paltry few kg of alcohol, at most, but the ecat weighs 100 kg. But clearly once the energy of a mass of chemical fuel equal to the entire ecat is exceeded, then everyone would have to be satisfied. And that would be reached in a matter of days or weeks, depending on the actual output power (which would have to be measured more carefully). But in a matter of months, even the careful measurement would not be necessary, and if it lasted years, Rossi would be god. > You can't satisfy irrational people who set every-receding goals with no > technical justification. > > The goals are very well justified technically, and the only thing receding is Rossi's attempts at meeting them, and the standards his followers demand. The ecats are getting fatter, lower power, and requiring more input. Insisting the opposite is happening doesn't make it true.
