On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That is incorrect. Many people have looked inside these devices. The > photographs of the Ottoman size device instantly rule out any possibility > of a chemical or other conventional source of heat. > Only to your satisfaction. Not to anyone else's. The size of the inner-cell alone rule this out. You do not have to know > what it is made of. You can estimate the necessary volume of a chemical or > electrical source of heat sufficient to produce approximately this much > energy. It would be much bigger than this. > Nonsense. You can buy a 10 kW propane water heater from a camping store that weighs 10 kg. Nevertheless, we know from the volume and mass of the cathode alone that > the reaction has to be nuclear. > Nope. It doesn't even have to be chemical. Ordinary thermal storage (or phase change) is more than enough -- maybe that's chemical. > Mme. Curie new the same thing about her radium samples, for exactly the > same reasons. > Nonsense. Curie identified radiation first. Only later did she measure heat. And it was a very different experiment. No input energy needed at all. A small sample of radium salt simply remained warmer than its surroundings indefinitely. Days, weeks, months, years... See how that's not the same at all?
