On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is another comment from Mats Lewan > > As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a > possible explanation in itself.You simply would need an additional heat > source inside to have water boiling after 4 hours with cold water added > continuously (I heard and felt the water boiling), hot water leaking and an > external surface still at 60-85 degrees centigrade (I measured that with my > own thermometer). It's not clear to me. Ten or 20 kg of firebrick heated to 1000C could produce a kW for 3.5 hours. And that could have been hidden in that 100-kg device. And that's enough to heat the water coming in to boiling. At 60C, with low emissivity foil (below 10%), it would only radiate 50 W or so. And phase-change storage (molten lead, or some other compounds) gives much higher storage density still. But it should be enough to dismiss the demonstration if the possibility of storage is even within an order of magnitude. > A blank calibration poses some problems as once you have run the reactor > with hydrogen, and that had certainly been made previously, you always have > hydrogen loaded in the nickel even without pressure (if that is what’s > inside) and because of that you cannot exclude that the reaction starts (if > there’s a reaction). In any case a blank test wouldn’t exclude a fraud as > you in theory could choose not to start the magic heat producing fraud > technology in the blank test and then start it in the ‘real’ test. In that > sense a blank test wouldn’t change anything. > But if you could ensure that the energy going in during the blank was legit, that would mean the energy measurement of the fraudulent source would be more meaningful, and so the comparison to chemical energy density would be more useful. But a better control would be to have several ecats, and let a skeptic choose which ones to charge, and which ones not to. Then compare the outputs. And in particular, increase the electric input of a blank to match the claimed lenr output of a real device, and see if the output is the same. > But all sorts of improvements could of course have been made in the > measurements. Lots of them. They have been pointed out several times. Just > to have the thermocouples in contact with the water flow, have them well > calibrated before the test, and have data logged on an sd-card in the > display unit would have been a fundamental improvement. > Agreed. > > Possible explanations as to why Rossi didn’t do this have all been > presented – either he’s sloppy, either he wants to hide a fraud, or he’s > basically not interesting in doing a proper test in order not to reveal too > much. We cannot prove neither of them at this point. > I don't think sloppy fits. It's too easy to improve the demo. So it's almost certain that he deliberately makes things uncertain. The simplest explanation is to hide fraud, but some sort of devious reverse-psychology, fear of competition, secrecy motive could be contrived as well, I suppose. > I suppose you have seen the analyses of October 6 by Heffner, Higgins and > Roberson: > > There is not really enough data (by design, presumably) to do a serious analysis, and Roberson's is more like a fanboy's endorsement than an analysis.
