[Moonman62]

So the complaint is that it did not run 8 hrs (it only ran 5 1/2 hrs). So what are we going to be able to tell in the additonal 1 1/2 hrs that we were not able to tell by running it 5 1/2 hrs. I dont understand the logic here. Is 8 hrs some kind of break point that would eliminate a certain technology? If so, what?

For the small ecat eight hours is needed to show that it's self sustaining. Three or more days is needed to show that the source isn't a chemical reaction. The eight hour figure probably comes from the three or more hours that the ecat needs to be hooked up to a power source for it to warm up.

[muawiyah]

Let’s hear the excuses directly from NASA. They claim superior knowledge in this field ~ so tell us all. We’re taxpayers. We can take it!

[taxcontrol]

Ok, so I am thinking here that science has a pretty good idea of chemical reactions, amount of energy produced over time given a certain volume / mass.

That being the case, there should be a finite solution here. Which chemical reactions are capable of being stored in such a small space? And capable of producing that much heat? And able to sustain that production rate for 5 1/2 hrs.

My guts are telling me that there cant be a whole lot of known chemical reactions that would meet the criteria. If there is no known chemical reaction that meets that time line / curve ... then we should give the guy a bit more opportunity to present his evidence. But, once he can prove he is outside the curve, then he has either invented a new means of extracting energy (a plus) or he has created a new chemical reaction (also a plus) or it is a type of process that is outside of the chemical realm (also a plus). But with all of these tests constantly coming up inconclusive and then being required to meet another goal post seems to be a bit disingenuous to both sides.