Steven Krivit's 2012 video of Rossi demonstrating the E-Cat

  • Not enough information to tell what? The velocity of the steam?


    Yes. As I said. You are simply speculating. You could be right, you could be wrong. We will never know, Ie. useless argument, unless the aim is to create an environment of uncertainty of course.

  • Yes. As I said. You are simply speculating. You could be right, you could be wrong. We will never know, Ie. useless argument, unless the aim is to create an environment of uncertainty of course.


    Perhaps you'd like to substantiate this claim? I'm sure something can be determined about steam velocity and (more importantly) flow rate from a video - though less sure it will be useful here. Still, the attempt to do this is virtuous and while negativity may be correct, I feel that negativity with not one tiny shred of rationale is unhelpful.


    In fact it is precisely you who are creating an environment of uncertainty by asserting without evidence that further information cannot be got from this video. In these posts you have consistently trumpeted the impossibility of concluding anything much from publicly available information. So it is pot calling kettle black for you to accuse Bruce_H of this.

  • Yes. As I said. You are simply speculating. You could be right, you could be wrong. We will never know, Ie. useless argument, unless the aim is to create an environment of uncertainty of course.


    You don't think that one can use the video to estimate the velocity of the steam emanating from the hose? You surprise me. There are always errors associated with such estimates, of course, but I don't think that this particular estimate has to be all that accurate in order to lead to some insight about what is going on here.


    For instance, do you think that entrained water droplets that we see emerging from the hose are initially travelling at more than 10 m/s when they come out?

  • Perhaps you'd like to substantiate this claim? I'm sure something can be determined about steam velocity and (more importantly) flow rate from a video - though less sure it will be useful here. Still, the attempt to do this is virtuous and while negativity may be correct, I feel that negativity with not one tiny shred of rationale is unhelpful.


    In fact it is precisely you who are creating an environment of uncertainty by asserting without evidence that further information cannot be got from this video. In these posts you have consistently trumpeted the impossibility of concluding anything much from publicly available information. So it is pot calling kettle black for you to accuse Bruce_H of this.


    You are correct in that I don't reduce uncertainty since I do not have any real new information to add. So tell me, how could I? All I'm doing is to state the fact that it is uncertain and that the video to not include enough information to prove anything, which is hardly controversial and I don't really need any evidence for that. A proof of there being nothing to prove ... Your a funny guy... ;)

  • There are always errors associated with such estimates, of course, but I don't think


    Exactly. But I don't really care what you "think". Your are the one supposed to bring the evidence, not estimates or speculations. Go there , and make the measurements. That is the only way.

  • You are correct in that I don't reduce uncertainty since I do not have any real new information to add. So tell me, how could I? All I'm doing is to state the fact that it is uncertain and that the video to not include enough information to prove anything, which is hardly controversial and I don't really need any evidence for that. A proof of there being nothing to prove ... Your a funny guy... ;)


    It seems to be happening a lot today but again I must point out that you are subtly but crucially changing the meaning of your own comment.


    You said, in response to Bruce-H's question:


    We will never know, Ie. useless argument, unless the aim is to create an environment of uncertainty of course.


    That is not just a statement that you cannot work it out - fair enough. It is a more definite statement that no-one can ever work it out. And one that I'm sure on reflection you realise was unjustified. You of course need very solid evidence to be sure there is no evidence, as you claim. In fact since it is a technical question, where others are likely to have more expertise than you, your statement was foolhardy.


    Instead of putting your hand up and recanting you attempt here to redefine your previous comment into a personal statement of uncertainty: I do not have any real new information to add, whilst perpetuating the implication that it is more than that: [I] state the fact that it is uncertain and the video do not include enough information to prove anything.


    Either you are properly stating personal uncertainty, in which case it is open for someone else to make more progress, or you are unwisely stating that no-one can do this. Conflating the two will not get us anywhere helpful...

  • Exactly. But I don't really care what you "think". Your are the one supposed to bring the evidence, not estimates or speculations. Go there , and make the measurements. That is the only way.


    The only way? Simply not true. Would you tell astronomers to stop estimating the angular velocity of asteroids and other interesting things in the solar system because the only way to estimate such things is to go there?


    I contend that the video does contain evidence of velocity. For instance, the steam emanating from the hose is clearly emerging very slowly ... at about 1 cm/s.

  • I think we also have bad news for postmortem teams such as the one that took a look at the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger; or, indeed, any police detectives investigating a crime. They will want to know that the modeling and reconstruction of events they regularly engage in is without basis.

  • Ascoli65 Cool! Or rather... hot AND energetic, very much unlike Rossi's ecat.


    Tony

    Quote

    Go there , and make the measurements. That is the only way.

    ROTFWL! You may not be aware of this but Jed Rothwell, some scientists he had assembled, and I were prepared to meet in Italy in 2011 and to examine Rossi's steam ecat by sparging (condensing) the steam in an insulated, temperature-metered bath and noting the temperature rise. This is a simple and accurate way to deal with steam which is of unknown "dryness". The steam is not measured, the energy (enthalpy) is. IIRC, we also planned to verify unequivocally that input power was properly accounted for and measured. Rothwell, at that time, had good communications with Rossi until he told Rossi about the nature of the proposed test. After that, Rothwell was just a clown or a snake to Rossi.


    JedRothwell If your recollection is different, please make corrections.


    When faced with proposals for accurate and independent measurements of his claims, Rossi refuses, denigrates the proposal (in some instances he called such tests 'unnecessary" because he already "knew" (could predict) the result!) and usually he manages to insult the proponents of the tests. This is not how someone with a legitimate claim to prove acts... except maybe in your world, Tony?