Peter Heckert <peter.heck...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Yes. Especially not, when the surface is 60-80° hot. This is so poor, that > I dont understand why did they isolate it at all. 1. Safety, to reduce the likelihood of people burning themselves. 2. To deliver more heat to the heat exchanger. > 80% means about 20% efficiency of the insulation. > (You mean ~80°C). > Without insulation the surface where about 100%. > How can you assume Rossi is a good engineer if he cannot do it better? Why should he do it better? What difference does it make with this test device? Okay, it would increase the heat delivered to the heat exchanger and make the results more impressive, but no skeptic would believe it no matter how good the results are, so why bother? In the past people made no effort to optimize electrochemical cold fusion cells to improve the ratio of input to output. They might have easily done this. They all know how to do it, for example by putting the anode closer to the cathode. But it was a pain in the butt and it would prove nothing so they did not bother. > A plumber does this better. Look at the drawings and photos of Edison's prototypes or the first transistor prototypes. You see they made no effort to optimize the devices. That was not the point. When you know that your example does not apply to the situation, you should >> start by pointing that out. You should write something like this: >> > I believed you might be in error about these facts. Fine. In that case, say so. Please do not ignore what the other person says as if the opposing argument has not been made, and if your statement appears to be a red herring. Why didnt you write: "I believe in the Rossi device, because observers have > noticed the surface heated up and because of this poor insulation it must > cool down over 4 hours without power. > Of course this assumes that Rossi did not use tricks with the input power, > but I dont see any possibility how to do this". > Because I have already said that numerous times and everyone knows that is what I have in mind. When you introduce a new point, such as the fact that extremely well insulated vessels can be used to cook food, you should not use this as a way to confuse the issue to imply that Rossi may have done that. I am suggesting that you and Yugo be a little more observant of the rules of academic discourse. This would be to your advantage. Your arguments would go over better instead of rubbing people the wrong way. - Jed
