Crawdaddy,
This will be a long post, but it can't be helped.
whatroughbeast
Where have I conveyed that.
We'll get to that one later.
whatroughbeast
My arguments meant to about facts. My initial exchange with you was about the heater configuration in the small model e-cat. You made an argument from a false premise and I pointed it out. Would it have been more "skeptical" of me not to?
Let's examine the record, shall we? Your charge was
The calculation of reactor cooling under 30L/hr flow rate is deeply flawed. A cursory examination of the published data and patent application shows that resistive heating is applied directly to the nickel reactor core. The temperature of the core is much higher than 60 or 100C when resistive heating is applied. It is fully possible to cool the reactor with 30L/hr.
It takes 5 minutes to come up with this information....
My response was
Yeah, but how long does it take to come up with _true_ information?
From xxxx://pesn.com/2011/04/07/9501805_Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Validated_by_Swedish_Skeptics_Society/
"This new model of E-Cat consists of a stainless steel reactor vessel which is placed inside of a copper pipe. Water flows between the copper pipe and the steel reactor vessel... The reactor is activated by current flowing through a resistor which is wrapped around the outside of the copper pipe. "
Now, both of us were rather snippy with each other, but I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. Keeps things interesting.
You then responded
If you examine the figures in the pdf you quote you will find a suspicious set of wires labelled auxilliary!
In the PDF report (not the BS blogspam page... why not link directly from rossi's website?) the experimenters write:
At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of control.
The articles referenced in the pdf document provide even more information about the high temperature heating required initiate the reaction.
Therefore I stand by my original statement with regard to the flawed cooling measurement.
And this is where I stopped paying close attention.
1) The e-Cat under test is clearly different from the patent application.
2) The article clearly states that the main heater is wrapped around the copper tubing.
3) The article clearly states that the main heater initiates the reaction.
4) I had already mentioned the existence of the auxiliary heater in my OP.
5) The PDF says nothing about the capabilities of the auxiliary heater.
6) The PDF specifically states that the main heater is switched on, and says nothing about activating the auxiliary heater.
I did give you an answer, though.
That said, you have entirely missed my point. You criticised my cooling calculation by referring me to Rossi's patent application. Unfortunately, according to the article I referred to and quoted, the demonstration unit DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE PATENT APPLICATION. In the application the nickel coats the inside of the tube (in which case your criticism would be possibly valid - heater power would be applied more or less directly to the nickel, and its temperature could indeed be much higher than the cooling water). In the demonstration unit, the nickel is contained in a stainless steel capsule suspended within the tube. Now the heater heats the pipe, the pipe heats the water, and THEN the water heats the nickel. The article is clear about the construction, and the section I quoted is clear about the thermal path. The nickel is NOT heated directly by the heater.
The article I quoted describes the Rossi reactor as it exists, not as is described in the patent application, and its information must take precedence. And I will note that the Rossi site does not criticise the article as inaccurate. As long as the article stands, so does my calculation.
So you responded
If you examine the pdf document, linked in the incomplete blog site post, the pdf is the actual document written by the swedish skeptics, you will find the quote that I originally posted.
here is the link to the pdf
xxx.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%83%C2%A9n+(pdf
Of course, your link was corrupt and unusable.
At this point, further argument seemed pretty futile, since you adamantly refused to accept the possibility, even when based on direct evidence, that the test device did not correspond to the patent application.
And finally, in your next post, you confirmed my opinion
Horatius,
I agree that he can disclose his catalyst if he chooses if he has already filed a second patent. I imagine, if he has filed a second patent then the catalyst is likely disclosed using language that obfuscates the true nature of the catalyst. I read patents all the time that disclose things without disclosing them.
Even if Rossi was not a fraud would it be in his interest to disclose the catalyst, if he already has an offer to license the tech? Personally, I would never disclose even patent protected information about a product I have worked on, why encourage people to steal your IP?
No one answered your last, hopefully rhetorical question, so I'll do it now: because that's how patents are supposed to work. You give out all the necessary information, and in return you are protected.
Crawdaddy, just as a friendly argument tip - don't appeal to the supremacy of a patent, and then casually remark that patents often obfuscate. It's like invoking papal inerrancy just before you call the Pope a liar.
So, to make a long post short, I never withdrew my calculation because you never actually showed that my assumptions were wrong, and indeed you sabotaged your own argument by suggesting that your preferred information comes from a source that may not entirely honest.
