No matter what is said, Yugo and others will distort the comments to
agree with their belief. If we accept Rossi, we are stupid and
deceived. If we criticize Rossi, this is used to show that Rossi is
wrong. They do not even attempt to understand what part of a claim may
be real. They simply reject all claims that CF is real.
The method of evaluating the energy described in the paper may be
correct. However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would
have expected a thermocouple would have been placed on the device to
check the measured temperature. I would have hoped the device would
have been placed in a container from which the total power generated
could be measured. These are not difficult or complicated things to
do. Why are half measures repeatedly used? Why must we have to debate
details that are easy to eliminate as issues?
Maybe the NAE is not cracks. Nevertheless, something must be produced
in the material that is not in normal material. Creating this
condition must follow the laws of chemistry and be stable at high
temperatures. You claim that Yiannis has told me what condition is
required to form the NAE. He claims the surface structure of the Ni
is the required condition. This does not make any sense because that
structure in not stable and it has not been shown how it can host a
nuclear reaction, yet you accept this claim without question. Why?
You reject cracks without knowing anything about their stability or
how they can be managed. How do you know that cracks might not be
present in the surface structure proposed by Yiannis. In short,
deciding who has identified the NAE is premature. I suggest you keep
an open mind.
Ed Storms
On May 20, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Ed,
Your arguments here have great success, our dear Mary Yugo is using
them in her comments for annihilating this report.
I think you as NAE expert are focusing on the second idea.
1- is true indeed. The total emissivity changes as evrything changes
but how great must be these changes in order to invalidate
completely the results, so we can say NO excess heat, the authors
are in total error? Very improbable
they are so unskilled that they hve not realized this.
I have tried long ago to convince you that at high temperatures the
mortlity of the NAE is high but their natality is also high. LENR+
works this way at
high NAE density in direct opposition with LENR with preformed NAE
many of
them inactivated. I had a moment of truth when I have seen that DGT's
active core worked well over 650 C- this is a different process!
Yiannis has tried to tell you where are the NAE located and what's
their nature, they are
not cracks. And this is fine because cracking is essentialy
unmanageable
This Report is far from perfect but its conclusions are certain:
lots of excess heat.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Date: May 20, 2013 9:11:57 AM MDT
To: c...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered.
1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. The
amount of heat being radiated depends on the value of the
effective total emissivity of the surface. This value will change
with time and temperature. Therefore, the value needs to be
determined as a function of temperature both before and after the
hot-cat was heated. Details about how the temperature of the
surface was determined also need to be provided. A detailed
description of the test is required before these claims can be
accepted.
2. How long does the hot-cat function at such high temperatures?
This time will determine whether the device is a practical source
of energy. The extra energy may be real, but if it only lasts a
short time before the NAE is destroyed, the value of the design is
limited.
Ed Storms
On May 19, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "CMNS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
