On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You used a thermodynamic argument in one location to reject a measurement > at a different location. This is a rejection of a measurement based on > an implausibility, > rather than on deficiencies of the instrumentation. > Not a rejection of a measurement, a rejection of the claim that the water is all vaporized, based on an implausibility that has nothing to do with his claimed reaction. > > I think he did such a dramatic demonstration for his customer's reps. > The measurements were just a formality. Other people at the Oct 28 > demonstration were not allowed to experience the drama up close, so > all we have to go on are some measurements contained in a short > report. > But that short report contains implausible interpretations of the thermodynamics that, once again, are completely independent of the claimed new heat producing reaction. > > I already agreed with this. If Rossi's reactions depends on new physics > to > > produce heat from nickel and hydrogen, then so be it. My objection in > this > > instance was not that. It was that the observations he is basing the > claim > > on depend on *other* implausibilities. The new physics is presumably in > the > > H-Ni, but that shouldn't change the way water gets heated by the hot > > conduits it flows through. > > Those are still implausibilities, and IMO the truth of a claim should not > be > assessed against them or any other implausibilities. A claim should be > assessed against > the evidence. That's what I'm doing. They're the ones who aren't. They are claiming that all the water is being vaporized, but there is *no evidence* presented or even suggested to support that claim. Based on the evidence, it is mostly liquid. > Where measurements provide evidence they should be > be taken at face value unless it can be shown that the instruments > are unreliable, or rigged or misplaced. > Right. Take the temperature at face value. But they didn't measure the pressure. So, we don't know the phase, yet they claim it is dry steam. Take the stability of the temperature at face value. That suggests a mixture of phases. Yet they claim, contrary to this evidence at face value, that it is pure steam. Take the time it takes to heat the ecat up to the onset of steam at face value. That's about 2 hours. To get dry steam, you need 8 times that power. The ecat is claimed to produce about the same heat as was used for the warm-up, so it should take about 8 times as long to reach dry steam, or about 16 hours. Taking the evidence at face value, there is no way you can get to dry steam from the onset of boiling in 5 minutes. So their interpretation is directly *contrary* to the evidence taken at face value. > > Heat is still heat, surely. > > Maybe not. > > > What if the temperature read 90C at atmospheric pressure, and he claimed > > complete vaporization. [...] Would you then say that this is a new > phenomenon, > > and so we don't know what temperature water boils at when the heat comes > > from a Rossi reaction? > > Rossi's reaction might be boiling water by > removing cold, rather than by adding heat. > > OK, I can see this is a waste of time.
