On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > The total amount supplied during the warm up phase is easily measured. It is > the total amount of electricity supplied.
Maybe it's easily measured but in fact it wasn't continuously recorded in most if not all of Rossi's tests. And Rossi was seen goosing the heater during an experiment in the infamous video in which he said the immortal words "stable! stable!" with a facial expression like a deer in headlights. If you've not seen that video, I'm sure I can find the link. That raises the issue that Rossi adjusts the power when nobody is looking. > The amount that came out after > that is disputed, but it can be estimated with reasonable accuracy. That's what much of the dispute is about. It's what could have been settled easily with proper methodology, something Rossi has consistently refused to do. > We know > how much heat a body of this size and surface temperature radiates. That > alone was much more than the total that went in. I don't think we have the necessary measurements to calculate heat loss by radiation. With the obvious insulation, I doubt it was anything like the total that went in. > You can ignore the heat > exchanger. You can see how quickly the system cooled after input power was > cut when there was no anomalous power. You can see the same slope after > anomalous power was cut. It is obvious that the thing would cool down to > room temperature in ~40 min. > I don't know about that. Again, Rossi refused the methods needed to confirm your assertion as he did any definitive testing. > We know the upper limit for the thermocouple error. It was 0.1 deg C by the > only serious analysis -- but even if it was more it would not be enough to > negate this conclusion. If by thermocouple error you include thermocouple placement, it could be a lot more than that. But again, we could know and we don't because Rossi won't allow the proper testing method that would clearly tell us about all such potential errors (and more). ... > There is no way input could have been even close to output. There is no way > a body inside the reactor could have been secretly heated to a very high > temperature -- for example. Of course there is. There could have been an exothermic chemical reaction. Combined with measurement errors and heat storage from the initial warmup, perhaps in a deliberately placed thermal mass, all those factors could account for the appearance of excess heat in all of Rossi's experiments. We would know if the right tests had been run. Rossi SPECIFICALLY wouldn't allow those tests, giving lame and inappropriate reasons for his consistent refusal in his blog. I'm sure everyone getting supper on time is more important than running a cold fusion experiment longer than 4 hours. > I have already argued them. Not just me. I have discussed this with real > experts outside this forum. Not one of them disagrees. I guess you didn't talk to all the experts Krivit spoke to. They disagree. > Also, people who know > something about steam have no doubt that Rossi has 95% dry steam in all > tests. Skeptics here may imagine they have proposed believable hypotheses. > They may even think they have disproved the results. But they will not find > any real experts in calorimetry who take their ideas seriously. > I think anyone who does calorimetry and has any degree of suspicion about Rossi's honesty will recognize that Rossi refused any test (controls and duration) which could have conclusively ruled out hidden sources of energy and mis-measurements. The NASA experts who reviewed this issue basically said the same thing, focusing on duration --remember the slides? > I realize that a few skeptics such as Yugo claim some expertise in > calorimetry, but I have no idea who Yugo is or what she has published, and > she has not made any technical assertions that allow us to judge her > knowledge of this subject, so I cannot confirm her expertise. My education and experience is no more issue here than yours. The issue is that Rossi could have done almost definitive testing and didn't. The only truly definitive test would have been independent. But even with Rossi involved, the experiments could have been vastly better and Rossi deliberately undermined and refused those improvements for no valid reason. That's why I think he's cheating. It doesn't require much expertise in calorimetry to reach that conclusion. > In any case, I > have sent some of the skeptical hypotheses to experts. The experts dismiss > them as amateur blather. Sorry to be unkind, but they do. > As some others noted, you may need some sharper and more skeptical experts. Did any of them ever explain why Levi's test using excellent methodology was never repeated under proper observation and with adequate controls and documentation? I bet you're going to say Rossi and Levi didn't have the time and didn't care to persuade anyone. Likely story.
