Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> You have no evidence they were taken in. They are smart people and they >> have been doing experiments for decades. >> > > Not of this type. Of this type exactly. > No, *many people* have examined the results and came up with problems that > were overlooked by Essen and Kullander. Who? Where did these people publish reports? I recall a lot of blather here but I have not seen any reports showing errors in the techniques. > Yes, Krivit pulled all of this together, but he didn't invent it. Krivit measured nothing and found nothing. His report is hot air. This has been discussed to death on Vortex. That does not count. Where is there an authoritative report by someone who knows calorimetry showing errors in the calorimetry. > > > Several people, such as the NASA group, said the tests did not work the >> day they saw them. It was obvious the thing was not working. >> > > Which, as you know, only means that the thing wasn't working. You are missing the point. If the thing is fake, why wouldn't it be a totally reliable fake? Who would make a fake system that often appears to do nothing? It often fails at critical times when a lot of money is at stake, as it was during the NASA visit. If this is fraud, it could not be conducted more ineptly. > You've already come up with one reason. I have not. Rossi was counting NASA's evaluation. The failure was a disaster for him. > Another would be very simple: it's not reliable and it wasn't working on > the day they showed up. A fake system would be reliable! It is not difficult to make a fake system. It is impossible to make one that E&K, Focardi or Levi would not instantly see is fake. The only person who could be fooled is Krivit, because he made no observations at all. But if you made a fake system it would work as reliably as any movie prop. > Rossi developed a technique vulnerable to a certain illusion. You state that is if it were a fact. There is no evidence for that at all. There are no illusions at all. When the thing works, it is obvious, and when it failed -- on several occasions -- that was equally obvious to the observers. No one was fooled into thinking it was actually working. > There is a reason why we want to see independent replications. They are > *much* harder to fake, and it's also harder to make an innocent mistake, to > be fooled by an artifact. The thing was independently tested for a week or two when Rossi was on another continent. That is as good a confirmation as an independent replication. Calorimetry is calorimetry; the same everywhere. The only reason I want to see independent replications is so that other people can manufacture it quickly. That is why Rossi does not want to see independent replications, and why he will do all that he can to prevent them. He has no IP. > Okay, scientists could be fooled by the unexpected presence of overflow > water. They could assume that a single look at the outlet hose would be > adequate to show that there was no overflow water. This makes no sense. They independently measured the flow coming out of the machine. > No, the hose would have to go into a bucket to show that, and the hose > would have to be well-insulated and short. As you know, that was not the > experimental setup. Overflow water, when quantity of water boiled is the > measure of heat, is fatal to accuracy. > I was talking about the flowing water tests. The steam tests are a little more complicate but not by much. The enthalpy of steam has been well known for over a century, despite comments posted here. > Kullander and Essen also attempted to use a humidity meter to measure > steam quality. That meter is intended to measure steam quality, according the specs. > That was as much of a bonehead error as were Pons and Fleischmann's > neutron results. No, it wasn't. Anyway, the enthalpy is pretty much the same even if you don't measure it at all. The blather here about wet steam was nonsense. > But the proof of it, that they accepted, was clearly defective. >>> >> >> Says who? >> > > I say so. I reviewed that evidence, and that's my conclusion. Where did you publish? Did E&K review your work? Did they publish a rebuttal? Have you done calorimetry with a similar system, and did you demonstrate how an error might be made? Unpublished speculation from the peanut gallery is not science. You don't get a free pass. If you seriously think there might be an error, you need to write up your reasons and perform calorimetry with a similar, conventional system (an electric heater). Then you need to run your work by E&K. - Jed
