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?
Nothing at all. As was pointed out to you by several different people before, it is quite common to have a vacuum after the boiler for a variety of reasons.
Yes, I know it was water, but Rossi claimed it was steam. There was no steam anywhere in the circuit.
Except that the state inspector testified that there was. Do you think he perjured himself? Why would he? He was no friend of Rossi.
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.
That is correct. To understand which side is right, you have to have knowledge of thermodynamics, calorimetry, electrochemistry, instruments and experiments in general. You also have to read the papers several times, carefully. It helps to visit the labs and see the experiments underway.
None of this is easy. A person who does not have this kind of knowledge or a person who has not taken the time and made the effort to evaluate these experiments should withhold judgement. He or she should say, "I cannot judge because I have not looked closely, so I don't know which experiments are right and which are wrong."
When you don't know, don't guess, and don't jump to conclusions. Don't try to reach any conclusion.
Except that the state inspector testified that there was.
A state inspector said there was a steam leak. As I said, that does not prove there was steam in the pipe. A pressure cooker will often leak steam, but there is no steam inside it. It ain't steam until it comes out. Because "pressure."
He describes the visit. He included photos
The smith reports looks like something put together by a high school student. And he obviously didn't care to google the translation of "dosierleistung" even though it was somewhat important for the calculations. Instead he invented his own translation that suited his agenda and paycheck. Smith is just a paid shill and incompetent moron. Not much more to it.
Back on topic:
Looks like we'll have the demo around 10am and the stream around noon.
Don't forget your ID!
Andrea Rossi
November 14, 2017 at 12:52 PM
TO ALL THE PERSONS THAT HAVE BEEN INVITED TO ATTEND TO THE DEMO OF NOVEMBER 24TH:
PLEASE BRING WITH YOU AN ID, BECAUSE THE SECURITY WILL CHECK THE NAMES OF THE LIST TO ALLOW TO ENTER.
PLEASE BE IN THE PLACE AT 9.30 A.M.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
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.
https://www.google.com/search?…7k1j0i131k1.0.l8BUpttt-U4
par·a·phrase
ˈperəˌfrāz/ verb verb: paraphrase; 3rd person present: paraphrases; past tense: paraphrased; past participle: paraphrased; gerund or present participle: paraphrasing
noun
noun: paraphrase; plural noun: paraphrases
1. a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.
synonyms:"this paraphrase of Frye's words"
I referenced a web page that gave you 3 other paraphrases of the same thing, all significantly pre-dating Sagan. I'd almost bet I can go back to Plato or Aristotle. After all, everyone knows that really wild claims are likely wrong, and solid evidence is needed to show otherwise. There's nothing new or unique about what Sagan said. He didn't coin the phrase, he paraphrased it. This is a misrepresentation you made, just like the following statement:
"This includes skeptical assertions that attempt to disprove cold fusion, which have been notably lacking in rigor. "
A pressure cooker will often leak steam, but there is no steam inside it. It ain't steam until it comes out. Because "pressure."
There is some steam inside it if the water is boiling. What do you think the gas is above the water? Do you think the water jumps up to the vent to relieve the pressure? LOL.
It will leak some steam but you can't see it. What you see and call call steam are water droplets from condensing steam.
And you go on about me not understanding basic physics......
Do you understand how pressure cookers work?
Frankly, your comment is appalling. If you do not understand how water might be liquid at a temperature exceeding 100 deg C, then not only are you incapable of doing junior high level physics, you do not even understand grade school level physics. The fact that water remains liquid under pressure is taught around the fourth grade.
Obviously you are clueless. Add pressure cookers to the things you don't understand.
A state inspector said there was a steam leak. As I said, that does not prove there was steam in the pipe. A pressure cooker will often leak steam, but there is no steam inside it. It ain't steam until it comes out. Because "pressure."
I do not recall him saying there was a steam leak only that there was steam. Recall they found heating tapes under the insulation on that side. A water leak could also produce steam when hitting a heating tape.
I do not recall him saying there was a steam leak only that there was steam. Recall they found heating tapes under the insulation on that side. A water leak could also produce steam when hitting a heating tape.
IF the pipes were full of water and there was a leak, most likely there would be a puddle on the floor.
IF the pipes were full of water and there was a leak, most likely there would be a puddle on the floor.
perhaps, perhaps not. We don't know (that is the problem with all this, too sloppy to know much of anything). It could be just a small drip with most of it going into the insulation and then evaporating next to the approximate 100C pipe. Since Rossi threw out the IH people and prevented examination, destroyed evidence,.... we will never know. Better to focus on the next demo.
But my guess is that it will also be full of "holes". Those gray boxes look big enough to hold 4kW hr of stored energy so at the claimed 25W output, they will need to run about a week to be sure there is not any stored chemical energy.... unless they are opened and the chemical nature of the oil is checked before and after.
I also doubt he will allow examination of the pumps and measure their input power. You can hid a lot of wires in a dark oil tube.
Couple of things to keep in mind while you guys fight it out. This is all guess work, as Rossi dismantled the external plumbing to hide the incriminating evidence...aah, I mean to re-purpose them.
And, as OG said, there was a heating strip on the pipes that even Rossi (he called it a heating cable) reluctantly admitted to. It's purpose was never explained, except Bass (JMP's only employee) thought it had to do with the product...but as it turned out, there was no product. So it is still a mystery, and will stay one as the heating strips are gone along with the plumbing. It is odd though, to need a heating cable when you have 1MW heat available.
Also, West, IH's man on the scene, electrician, said rust and leaks were a big problem. The rust coming from the BFs (Big Frankies) was so bad, he doubted the validity of the test.
Long story short, Doral was a mess. Nothing of value can be deduced from the data. The only thing definitive, is that it could not have produced anywhere near 1MW.
I referenced a web page that gave you 3 other paraphrases of the same thing, all significantly pre-dating Sagan.
No, they were not the same thing. I quoted one of them in my original statement, and pointed out the differences. You say they are the same, but I showed they were different. Sagan's variation was unscientific.
No, they were not the same thing. I quoted one of them in my original statement, and pointed out the differences. You say they are the same, but I showed they were different. Sagan's variation was unscientific.
I appreciate your trying to make me rich by allowing that I could copyright the Palladium Rule, but in reality, I know better.
The Laplace, Hume, Truzzi, and Sagan quotes say the same thing. You didn't do anything but read your own mistaken definitions into them (as usual). All four quotes are saying that crazy claims need an extra large body of proof to be able to believe them. End of story.
I guess I understand now why you could claim my mathematical analysis of Storms' data was 'not rigorous'. You must have redefined what 'rigor' is.
The proper test for the validity of the LENR reaction is the existence of transmutation of elements. If this test criterion is accepted, then LENR is already proved to be valid since there are many examples of transmutation produced in a multitude of experiments. MFMP has video showing unambiguous transmutation in many forms. Excess heat is an unreliable criterion for proof of the activity of the LENR reaction.
IF the pipes were full of water and there was a leak, most likely there would be a puddle on the floor.
I have heard there were puddles and filth everywhere. The pipes and reservoir were also filthy.
The Laplace, Hume, Truzzi, and Sagan quotes say the same thing.
I advise you not to try translating or editing. As Mark Twain might have put it, you fail to distinguish between lightning and a lightning bug.
You anti-cold fusion crackpots tend to lump dissimilar things together as "the same thing." Morrison once said "if palladium deuteride works, why shouldn't heavy water ice?" Apparently he thought they were the "same thing" at some level, in some mysterious way. McKubre and others hearing this remark were taken aback.
You also make distinctions were none can be found. For example, you say that a metal object that remains too hot to touch for days is "not a heater." Because . . . um . . . you don't want to say it is a heater, I suppose.
While we're discussing history, was it ever determined whether the invariant pressure readings of 0 bar reported during the "1 year test" were
a) Zero bar gauge pressure
b) Zero bar absolute pressure
c) Readings given by a faulty or non-connected sensor
d) Something else.
Not that it matters; it's just something niggling at me.
TIA for any answers
Display MoreWhile we're discussing history, was it ever determined whether the invariant pressure readings of 0 bar reported during the "1 year test" were
a) Zero bar gauge pressure
b) Zero bar absolute pressure
c) Readings given by a faulty or non-connected sensor
d) Something else.
Not that it matters; it's just something niggling at me.
TIA for any answers
The Penon Tests Plan specified a sensor, including part number, that would report absolute pressure values. It was also not rated for the temperature of the steam. There could have been some sort of extension pipe that may have allowed the sensor to run cooler... in theory (I wonder if that just makes steam condense there).
The actual pressure sensor used does not seem to have been photographed (or at least there is no public version).
QuoteYou anti-cold fusion crackpots
I believe that by that, Jed means most currently working scientists.
