Replies

Once again I like what Jed Rothwell has to say

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Jed Rothwell
Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:16:41 -0800

Horace Heffner wrote:

> Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat?
>

So they say.

> If they saw inside some other device at some other time then that is
> irrelevant.
>

That one, as far as I know. It was tested before. It shows signs of having
been run many times, such as scale inside it.

> Levi has been an inside guy from the beginning has he not?
>

No, only since December 2010. He only became an "insider" because he saw
proof that the reaction is real. If you're going to criticize anyone who
believes Rossi and accuse him of being an insider there will be an ever
widening circle of people you consider persona non grata. It will be like a
giant game of sardines, where you lose.

> I see no difference between him and Rossi in regards to this issue. For
> that matter Defkalion is or will be selling similar devices, true?
>

So they say.

> What is important, obviously, is access by independent observers.
>

Defkalion is independent of Rossi. Quite independent -- he has broken off
relations with them. As I said, you are setting up a gigantic game of
sardines here. First Rossi is suspect because Rossi makes the claims. Then
Defkalion the suspect because they make the same claims. Now I suppose
George Miley is suspect because he saw the same thing. How long are you I
keep this up? When 100 different labs replicate this are you going to say
everyone of them is part of the conspiracy and there are no independent
observers? Anyone who agrees it is real is automatically guilty of
conspiracy and fraud.

> 2. In previous tests observers dumped out the water from the vessel after
> the run and measured the volume. There is no space unaccounted for in the
> vessel. There is no place to put concrete.
>
>
> These are meaningless words. I specified *inside* the 30x30x30 cm inner
> box. What happens outside that box is obviously immaterial. Why would
> you bring such a red herring into the discussion?
>

See: displacement; Archimedes.

> 3. The previous cylindrical reactors were easy to see inside of. There was
> no concrete in them. It makes no sense to claim that the previous reactors
> were real and this one is fake.
>
>
> This is nonsense, and yet another red herring. You are digging pretty
> deep to respond! 8^) The calorimetry for those devices was entirely
> different. They were not designed by Rossi to demonstrate "heat after
> death".
>

The previous reactors *did* demonstrate heat after death, on
several occasions. I do not know what you are talking about.

> No one has challenged this analysis. Besides, even if this is incorrect
> and half of the input power is being stored while the electric power is
> turned on,
>
> What do you mean half the input power is being stored? It is all being
> stored (except for leakage through the insulation) until heat shows up at
> the heat exchanger.
>

Yes, of course. How could it? After it does reach the exchanger, output
soon catches up with input. By the time heat after death began the balance
was about even. There was no stored heat, except the heat in the remaining
hot water of course. You can see from the decay curves that this would all
emerge in about 45 min. with no input power, and it would cool very rapidly
during this time. There is no way the temperature could have remained at
boiling for four hours.

> All you are saying here is the output energy is larger than the input
> energy. We can not know that without good thermocouple readings.
>

You can move the output line down to any plausible spot you like, or even
halfway down, which is preposterous and not a bit plausible. Output still
greatly exceeds input.

This is not inferable from a measurement. This is a rehash of old well
> trodden material.
>

However, it is still correct. You have not refuted it. You have not even
addressed most aspects of it, such as the fact that there is no concrete in
the previous cylindrical reactors and they also demonstrated heat after
death. For that matter input was so small compared to output, all of the
heat might as well be considered heat after death.

- Jed

---------------------------------------------------
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg54795.html

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Jed Rothwell
Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:27:07 -0800

Mary Yugo wrote:

How much fuel, and how is that fuel reacted? Please do say there was
>> something else hidden in the vessel other than the cell, and this other
>> object magically defies Archimedes' law.
>>
>
> Maybe someone else who's more of a chemist and electrochemist than I am
> can try to put together an exhaustive list.
>

You do not need an exhaustive list. The problem is much simpler than
that. All you need is the extreme. You find out what chemical produces the
most energy per unit of volume, and you figure out how much of that will
fit inside the reactor core. The answer is rocket fuel with an oxidizer.
The thing is underwater so it cannot be fed with air. We know the answer is
rocket fuel because if there was any chemical with higher energy density,
they would use that for rocket fuel instead of what they do use.

It is easy to determine that this cell cannot hold enough rocket fuel plus
the equipment you need to ignite it and control it.

Of course there is not practical way to put rocket fuel in this reactor. Or
gasoline, butane, or any other high energy density chemical. You would only
make a bomb. In real life, you would have to use something less energy
dense, producing much less heat. In other words, rocket fuel is the
theoretical maximum, and any real chemical would be much worse. Since
rocket fuel would not work, neither would anything else.

> I'd include, in addition to various sets of chemicals, issues of things
> that change state at moderate temperatures, adsorb to surfaces, and
> probably many things I have not thought of yet.
>

All irrelevant. The only question is, how much heat can you generate with a
chemical device of this size? Answer: Nowhere near enough.

> And I maintain that the interior volume available for cheating is
> unknown because nobody has recorded it.
>

They did record it, by Archimedes' method. Do you think that has stopped
working after 2200 years?

> What was that finned thing inside the device? You're sure it's only a
> heat exchanger with active core modules in it? And you know that how?
>

That's the cell, but who cares what that is? For the purposes of this
analysis, it does not make the slightest difference what that is. You can
estimate the volume of it by displacement, and you can see it is not big
enough. There is no electric power or fuel being being fed into it, and it
cannot hold enough chemical fuel. That's all you need to know.

> In any scam, it's the part you don't get that gets you.
>

Any scam must obey the laws of physics.

I suspect Rossi may be cheating but you're right -- I can't name the
> method or methods.
>

If you cannot name it, then no one can test it or falsify it. A thing that
you cannot name or specify cannot be part of a scientific debate. That
would be form or religion, or perhaps literature.

All propositions and assertions in a scientific debate must be subject to
testing and must be falsifiable, at least in principle. Asserting that
somewhere, someone might somehow know how to do this by stage magic . . .
means nothing. That is like saying there is an invisible unicorn or a lump
of concrete in the reactor but no one can see, detect, or weigh, and it
does not displace any water. If there is no way you or any of us can know
anything at all about this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in
the universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it?

> They may be different and multiple each and every time.
>

Stop multiplying entities. You violate Ockham's razor. Especially, stop
multiplying invisible entities that cannot be detected by any means, even
in principle. This is -- literally -- like debating how many angels can
dance on the head of pin. Until you specify a method of stage magic you
have proposed NOTHING.

Similarly I don't know how famous magicians do their illusions.
>

I do know. You can look it up in Wikipedia. When you look inside the
stage apparatus, the methods are immediately obvious. Not one is
sophisticated or mysterious. Some of them have been use for hundreds of
years; some go back thousands of years. If this the only proof you can come
up with -- that you personally do not know how stage magicians do their
illusions -- you have disproved your own point. Anyone who makes a casual
study of stage magic will know that the methods are dead simple and cannot
be used to hide a wire in Rossi's reactor, once you open it up.

- Jed