On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Berke Durak <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The problem is that I know of a storage mechanism that doesn't involve > Rossi, > Focardi, etc. conspiring to deceive and developing specific technology for > that. > > How one can accidentally store 1 GJ in the modules and release it nicely > over a > period of 5.5 hours? > Heated fire bricks will do the trick as I said before, and who said anything about accidentally storing energy; I'm sure it's deliberate. Fire bricks are not a new technology. There's plenty of room for them, and a wide temperature range possible. I suppose that could be called deception, but I think Rossi could successfully claim otherwise, admitting there is storage, but having been honestly mistaken as to the total claimed output energy, which may exceed the possible storage (depending on what's actually in there). So, I don't think skeptics have ruled out (and probably suspect) some kind of deception. >From a strictly scientific view, we don't care about motivations, only that the results do not unequivocally require nuclear reactions to explain them. > > Especially given that Rossi talks of the reactor cores not exceeding 500 > degrees. He has also talked about 1500C, but I don't think he's committed to any definite temperature. > There isn't supposed to be any phase-change material in there. > I don't think he's committed to that either, but whatever, he's said things that turned out wrong. It's possible is all that matters. > > Joshua Cude also wrote: > > Finally, the input power does not include any energy added by chemical > > reactions between the hydrogen and nickel, which could be substantial, > and > > would not be considered "excess" energy. > > The report states that 1.7 g of H2 was used. How do you want to produce > substantial energy with that? > You're right. To produce substantial chemical heat from H-Ni, he would have to be deceiving us in the amount of hydrogen in the cell. If the core was already pressurized with hydrogen, then opening the valve to the bottle could consume only a small amount more. I'm kind of skeptical of the hydrogen weight measurements anyway, because in one demo, the bottle actually got heavier. I think concealing a weight on the bottle to compensate would be pretty easy. But again, the observations can actually be explained without chemical heat. > > Claiming that the energy comes from that amount of hydrogen is equivalent > to admitting nuclear reactions. > I only claimed part of it might come from there, and if he snuck in more hydrogen than he claimed, it is still possible.
