Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from IH Fanboy

@sig,

Check out blockchain technology if you want to grok immutability. In a future time, all truth will be encoded on a blockchain. Then you won't have to reference the rarified space between my ears for your serving of hard truths.

Hmmm, block chain head. That _does_ have a nice ring to it!

Greenyer's committed to using it, I see, for posterity's sake.

Probably a good idea.

And while I agree that _some_ truth will be encoded on a blockchain, much error will be as well. Discernment remains essential. And certainly not _all_ truth, given our finiteness and limited capacity for expression, no matter how brilliant or wise our cumulative and collective insight.

It will provide proofs, such as proof of existence. From that, greater truths can be secured. But yeah, you're right, I was taking some liberties in that statement: discernment will still be required for some things. Other things not so much. One of the amazing things about an immutable ledger is that you can cut out traditional institutions of trust and let decentralized technology be the ultimate arbiter of truth. IOT and everything else will eventually tie in to a public, permissionless, immutable ledger. Hashes of documents (e.g., think for example the quarterly reports of the GPT) will be put on a blockchain so that existence at a certain time can be easily proven.

The people will eventually demand that government budgets and the flow of money across agencies be encoded on a public blockchain so that they can be transparently audited. You'll still get your grants, but there will be more accountability (not that I doubt your integrity when it comes to spending public funds--it's just that the OIG has reported trillions of $s of government spending has gone unaccounted for... that kind of behavior will eventually be stopped).

Not to be a nuisance on the the steam leak idea, but....

If the pipe was entirely full of water (even just some water), and under a bit of pressure, but above 100.1 C, and there was a pinhole leak somewhere in the water part of the pipe, the water would turn to steam the instant it reached atmospheric pressure, on the outside of the pipe.

If the pipe was full of only steam at atmospheric pressure, there would be no reason for it come out of a pinhole leak at all. The pressure would be the same on both sides of the hole. Imagine a pinhole in a toilet paper tube. Maybe a big hole might waft some steam out... But no hissing. Cold air would have to leak back in at the same rate the steam came out in order to leak steam with atmospheric pressure on both sides of the pipe.

If the pipe interior had lower pressure than the atmosphere (i.e. condensing), then outside air would be "sucked" in, (pushed in by the weight of the atmosphere) and no steam would escape.

@para,

Not sure where the hissing came into the conversation. Maybe something PIH made up. The state inspector never mentioned a hissing sound (that I recall). He simply testified that he saw steam leaking. And the suggestion was made by someone at the time (probably PIH) that that would be impossible. It isn't impossible, because pipe sections can have imperfections (e.g., bends, small imperfectly shaped holes, tabs, flanges, etc), any of which could potentially "scoop" the steam as it passed by and cause a leak even if the steam in the pipe was around atmospheric pressure. PIH howled and scoffed at such a possibility. But it nevertheless remains a possibility.

Like a whistle?

Actually, I am thinking more like French horn. How much steam is rocketing through that Pt sponge drier soaker anyway?

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Priceless. See page 1.

"This author has not yet been able to inspect the E-Cat site in Florida."

Strange though it may seem I was talking about the report YOU linked.

That is the first report. He wrote the second report after he visited the site.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

At the time he wrote it he has not seen the plant. He didn't find anything wrong with Penon's report

He found many things wrong with the report. So did I, and I never visited the site. Rossi also found something wrong with the report. That is why he made up the lie about the invisible heat exchanger in the mezzanine. Everyone who reads that report finds it is wrong, except you and a few other true believers who do not know basic science such as the fact that water under pressure does not boil at 100 deg C.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

You are rude and clueless. The pressure was not high enough for it to be water.

It wasn't at least 4 psi for water going into an ordinary truck radiator? That's a miracle! Oh, and how do you know this? The pressure is listed as 0 bar on every page of the report. That's a vacuum. I don't think that's right. Do you? Was this experiment conducted in outer space?

Quote from JedRothwell

I suggest you get off the floor and read what Melich & I wrote. What Laplace said was quite different from what Sagan said. We agreed with Laplace but disagreed with Sagan. Why is that funny?

Of course I already did, but you always want to try to promote the idea that your critics don't, don't you? I could write a long post about the mistakes you make in your 'Melich and Jed' text, but I shall apply the Palladium Rule, and spare the other forum members the pain and agony.

Just one point - you said "It was coined by Carl Sagan". That implies he originated it. He didn't, he popularized it without crediting the originators. Probably so as to not lessen the 'dramatic impact'.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Water spurting from a pin hole would not be in contact with the pipe.

Of course it is in contact with the pipe! How could it get out without touching the pipe? Of course it boils the moment it reaches the air.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I liked the idea that if you heated a pressure cooker full of water to 100.1 C and then relieved the pressure, it would all turn instantly to steam.

It does not all turn to steam. Some of it turns to steam for a few seconds, then the boiling stops.

Have you ever actually seen or used a pressure cooker? Or a steam engine?

Here is a video of a pressure cooker being opened. As you see, some of the water turns to steam, but not all of it:

Oh, and do you still think the pressure inside the reactor was 0 bar (a vacuum)? That's what Penon said. You see nothing wrong with that?

Quote from kirkshanahan

Just one point - you said "It was coined by Carl Sagan". That implies he originated it. He didn't, he popularized it without crediting the originators.

As far as I know, he wrote that sentence. He wrote the whole script. If, as you say, he only "popularized it" then who wrote it? Who should he have given credit to?

What he said was quite different from what Laplace and others said before him. He said the proof should be "extraordinary." I say that's wrong: the proof should be ordinary. In my opinion that is what Laplace and the others said.

I pointed out other problems with this formulation. "Extraordinary" mainly describes the state of mind of the observer. What is extraordinary to one person is ordinary to another. So, you cannot qualify it.

The LENR debate will go round and round endlessly. One side will say all failed tests were perhaps due to errors in the replication attempts. The other side will say all positive test results were due to measurement errors, artifacts, misinterpretations, etc... An individual needs to have a scientifically provable criteria to decide whether these results are real or not. My criteria is that the mass of the produced transmuted material, the quantity of produced neutrons, and, in certain chain reaction cases, the number of photons generated, all match what is expected for the amount of claimed excess energy produced.

The counter to this will be that there could be some unknown fantasy process which has gone undetected for all these years. This process generates excess heat without any byproducts and only needs low input power.

The petty squabbles about things like a quote from Carl Sagan or how much Italian Krivit knows are a sign of the times. These days, if you disagree with someone about something, then you should endeavor to disagree with them about everything. That seems to be working real well so far in the big bad world.

Quote from JedRothwell

As far as I know, he wrote that sentence. He wrote the whole script. If, as you say, he only "popularized it" then who wrote it? Who should he have given credit to?

I'm so happy I get to claim the "Palladium Rule" as my own. I'll have to copyright it ASAP and get it put on Post-It notes...

Quote from kirkshanahan

[Who wrote it?] I'm so happy I get to claim the "Palladium Rule" as my own. I'll have to copyright it ASAP and get it put on Post-It notes...

In other words, you are not going to tell us who wrote that. You claim it was someone else, but you won't say who, and you will ridicule me for asking.

Got it. That's how you roll. You say that a large metal object that remains hot for days is "not a heater," and it is "wishful thinking" to say it is. When I ask why it isn't a heater, and what else could it be, you change the subject. You say that a "DoE website" claims that bucket of water will evaporate overnight at room temperature. What web site? No answer -- you change the subject. You blather on and on, but when anyone asks what your nonsense is supposed to mean and where it came from, you change the subject, refuse to answer, or ROTFL. You have no answers. You just make this shit up. You are not fooling anyone.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I read the report you linked. Contrary to what you said he had not visited the plant when he wrote it.

Do you speak language? The SECOND REPORT says he wrote it after visiting. He describes the visit. He included photos.

First report, BEFORE the visit (as is says -- and as you pointed out):

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0194.01_Exhibit-1.pdf

Second report, AFTER the visit:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/252-05-Exhibit-E.pdf

Why do you argue about things that any 5-year-old would understand? What's the matter with you? Why on earth do you write "contrary to what you [Jed] said . . ." when I very clearly did not say that, and neither did Smith? What's the point? The first report was before the visit. The second was after the visit. Why are you arguing about this? How can that be confusing?

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

You wrote: “It wasn't at least 4 psi for water going into an ordinary truck radiator?” That was water.

Yes, I know it was water, but Rossi claimed it was steam. There was no steam anywhere in the circuit.

(The truck radiator I refer to was in Rossi's pretend customer site.)

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Ps. You really are dim if you didn’t understand my sarcasm about a pressure cooker.

I doubt you were being sarcastic. I expect you thought all of the water flashes into steam. More to the point, the fact that some of it does flash into steam explains exactly why water that is over 100 deg C leaking from a pipe turns to steam in the air, yet there is no steam in the pipe. A steam leak from a pipe does not mean there is steam in the pipe. You fail to understand this. The pressure cooker shows how it happens.