Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote: Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1) it only > deals with one test . . .
I have dealt with the other tests, separately, as have others. Some of them are also definitive. The last one was not! > and (2) it assumes a configuration with no fraud, no chemical energy being > provided . . . Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of stage magic is not falsifiable. I have dealt with chemical energy by pointing out that in my opinion it is impossible to make a chemical fuel system this small that puts out this much energy. You disagree, but do not accuse me of ignoring these issues. We have to agree to disagree on these issues. That does not mean I have "forgotten" anything. It just means that if you are right, I am wrong. . . . which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W between > time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes. > That estimate is far too low. The heat radiating from the reactor plus the heat captured in the cooling loop far exceeds that. Note. For some of the details I described here, I assume the cooling loop TC may be recording incorrectly but it does reflect the overall profile and relative heat output at different times. When the heat increases, the second TC shows a higher temperature. When the TC zero intercept is 40 min. away, that is how long it takes to cool down. Actually I'm pretty sure the cooling loop TC is correct to within a fraction of degree, but it does not matter. None of the instrument readings matter. That is fortunate, because Rossi' instrumentation is lousy, as we all know. - Jed
