On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion > researcher. > That is a damning statement for the field of cold fusion. Now, if Rossi fizzles in a few years, that should mean there was never anything to cold fusion. There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable > by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent > despite the poor instrumentation. > Once again, cold fusion standards are pitifully low... > > You and the other skeptics have not raised a single objection to the proof > shown in the October 6 test, which is the fact that the water remained at > boiling temperature for four hours with no input power. > Wrong. You just ignore them, and then claim they don't exist. The thing weighs 100 kg, and it gets heated for several hours beforehand. If it's losing heat at 1 kW, 30 kg of fire brick heated to 500 or 1000C would have no problem holding the temperature at boiling for 3.25 hours. And 1 kg of alcohol could do it too. Live with it. You yourself have not even addressed this issue. You talk about the > position of the thermocouples -- which is irrelevant > It means you can ignore the power calculation based on that, meaning the best guess is (once again) from the primary fluid, which can be as low as 1 kW. you do not even understand steam at one atmosphere never gets much hotter > than 100°C. > Oh god, you're relapsing. Steam can be heated to any temperature you want at 1 atmosphere. Don't you know anything?
