“If someone assumes
there's continuous output from a 'heater' in the bucket, they can argue for
whatever water temperature they like.”
Exactly, so when one
is examining the ramifications of that, one must use more than a very narrow
band of temperatures. Ditto for other
important parameters like air flow rate, relative humidity, etc.
“When you assume there is no continuous heat output in the bucket,” …
Completing that
thought:
…you assume there is
no LENR. Yes, that is correct, that
assumption means no LENR, but of course you would still not explain the
anomalous results doing that. Now,
assuming no LENR is ONE set of test parameters in determining the span of
evaporation rates, but it is not all the possibilities
“a line in the
'water-temperature' sand is immediately drawn by nature. You could, if you
wanted, and were able, calculate where this line is. It's somewhere below 30C.
You[r] failure to understand this, even now - as evidenced by your above
statement, despite several very simple explanations - is blatantly ridiculous,
and leaves you open to some well deserved ridicule. “
I don’t ‘fail to understand
that’ Zeus. You fail to acknowledge what
I have written in the multitudinous posts responding to your and JR’s silly
statements about what I have written.
Try getting with the program.
“Everyone's allowed
the occasional howler, and apparently yourself more than most, but if you
repeatedly make the same mistake, in my book, that's the very definition of
dumbness. It's not an ad-hom to say this - it's fact - and should be pointed
out, if only for your own sake.”
I think you’ve got the
wrong book there Zeus. I see no mistake
being made here by me. All I see is you consistently
(and seemingly deliberately, since I have told you this many times)
misinterpreting what I have said. I
really can’t make you stop doing
that, all I can do is tell you your messing up.
But as I said, I think
it is pretty much clear you are doing this deliberately. Why I can’t say. So let me be as clear as I can regarding this
whole kerfluffle. This will be my last
word on the subject.
a.)
The Mizuno bucket
incident was never replicated, so no valid scientific conclusion can be drawn from
it.
b.)
The reported results
are anomalous. This is interesting. It may stimulate some people to action, i.e.
experimentation. That’s their choice.
c.)
In attempting to
understand the reported results, it is clear that evaporation is a key process.
d.)
Equations exist to allow
computation of said evaporation rates.
They serve as a starting point for discussion.
e.)
Key variables in said
equations were not documented in the reported results. Specifically missing are relative humidity,
air flow rates, water temperature, and full details of cell temperature
readings in the lab during the incident.
f.)
Likewise missing is
any information about what was done to verify the few temperature readings
reported.
g.)
Of course, assumptions
can be made about the missing key variables.
h.)
The assumed values
need to be ‘reasonable’.
i.)
It is clear different ‘definitions’
of what is reasonable exist.
j.)
Given the above, a span
of missing parameters should be examined to see what is consistent and
inconsistent with reported results.
k.)
Getting more specific
now, the equations supplied by Zeus46 are identical to those used by
kirkshanahan.
l.)
The span of parameters
used by Zeus46 and kirkshanahan are not equivalent, kirkshanahan’s span is
larger.
m.) Some sets of parameters used by kirkshanahan
produce evaporation rates consistent with reported results, and those sets of
parameters imply an elevated water temperature for some period of time.
n.)
Some sets of
parameters used by kirkshanahan produce evaporation rates inconsistent with reported
results, but consistent with what a ‘bucket of water’ sitting in an ‘unventilated
room’ might be expected to show.
o.)
Given n, m, k, e, and
most importantly a, it is pointless to expect a resolution to the anomalous
results.
p.)
However, for some
unknown and unexplained reason, Zeus46 and JedRothwell (and bocijn) seem to disagree
with o.
q.)
Zeus46, JedRothwell,
and previously, bocijn refuse to understand a-o.
“Basically, you repeatedly ignore nearly 200 years of science all to protect
your own ego. This makes me laugh, and that spills over into ridicule. Yes, I
know this doesn't exactly help you from an ego standpoint. But you need to let
go of that, if you ever plan on attaining nirvana - or just appearing competent,
really.”
Recognizing point q
above, this comment is ridiculous, and is nothing but a personal attack.
