Whatroughbeast
Let's assume 2 hours to test a potential catalyst. After all, you have to load the treated nickel, button up the hydrogen line, connect the initiating heater (connected, of course, directly to the nickel), close up the coolant system, verify the instrumentation, pressurize the hydrogen, activate the heater, monitor the coolant flow, and wait to see what happens. Whether the compound works or not, you then have to reverse the whole procedure, and then you try again. And none of this addresses the time and effort required to treat the nickel samples with each compound in the first place.
This is prime example of a false premise, much like your earlier assertion about the geometry of the resistive heating elements.
WHAAAT?
After all I went through to corner your weasely ways about the heaters, you've now gone back to your original position?. You do remember your last post on the subject, right?
dude .. seriously you need to let this go... you are wrong about this. I will admit that your original argument would be much less foolish if the auxiliary heater was never energized (lol).
It seemed clear that you had no effective response but weren't willing to admit it, and I figured I'd be a nice guy and give you a break, and let the matter drop. Hah. So let me repeat the questions which preceded your "dude" moment.
So now will you do the following (in the Swedish Report)?
1) Quote the statement which establishes that the auxiliary heater is directly connected to the reactor capsule. Note that the statement "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." does not establish this, unless you appeal "to the supremacy of the patents". And of course you would never, ever, do that. And I know that because you said so. I believe the phrase is "is without merit".
2) quote the specifications for the auxiliary heater,
3) quote the statement which refers to observing the application of power to the auxiliary heater rather than the main heater,
4) quote the statement which establishes the power level applied to the auxiliary heater.
Answer the questions or admit that you were wrong.
But let's return to your original statement.
This is prime example of a false premise,
No. As a researcher, you ought to recognize this as a starting point for a useful rough calculation. It's only a false premise if it's, you know,
false. I eagerly await your demonstration that it is, in fact, untrue.
As a professional research scientist I get paid to devise ways of testing 10000 variations on a material combination without building 10000 prototypes. In the case of this device all Rossi would have to do is determine an appropriate variable to measure (e.g. nanoparticle dimension, hydrogen loading etc.) and then devise a quick way of measuring that variable. Rossi could then choose the most promising material and use that to refine his prototypes. While interesting, your calculation is not a good example of Rossi being inconsistent.
No, you've once again tried to twist a statement. In my original statement, I only assumed one prototype, which has to be charged with a nickel/catalyst sample, then characterized. The input variables are hydrogen pressure and sample temperature, and the only output variable is power. But here's the thing - how do you propose to test different catalysts without loading and unloading the apparatus? By the nature of the test, the specimens have to be loaded into a pressurized chamber, and trust me on this: dealing with a test chamber pressurized with
hydrogen is not done quickly or casually. The safety issues are major.
Yes, "all Rossi would have to do", and "Rossi could". And your evidence that "Rossi did" is .............. ?
And the whole issue of catalyst testing brings up the detail which first made me suspicious of Rossi. It is so major an omission that at first I thought it must be a mistake, but it turns out it isn't.
Go look at the pictures of the 4 E-cats in the Swedish Report. Is there anything missing which jumps out at you? No? Is there anything missing from the description of the test? No? Well try this.
Where is the thermocouple which measures the reactor capsule temperature?
No thermocouple? Why in God's name not? It would provide the most direct sort of indication that the reactor was, in fact, reacting. It would be the most useful measure of the startup behavior imaginable. It would allow fast startup by allowing the system to start with no coolant flow. It is such a fundamental piece of instrumentation that its absence can only be considered, in my opinion, damning.
Rossi has demonstrated a tendency to make contradictory statements and has a history of questionable behavior.
The difference between us is that I would paraphrase the above as: Rossi has demonstrated that he is a habitual liar who can't even be bothered to keep his lies straight. But each to his own.
Levi, Focardi, the swedes, Leonardo Technologies, etc. do not. ?
And when it comes to Focardi and LTI, Rossi has been contradicting them. Why is it that you accept his word over theirs?
Rossi has been demonstrating his devices since 2008 according to his US partner Ampenergo. Ampenergo is run by experienced energy contractors with DOE credentials and a multi-million dollar energy consulting business. Are you saying that these people were taken in so easily that they failed to account for the superficial inconsistencies and questions that even a child could come up with, like controlling the input power?
Sigh. Crawdaddy, have you ever dealt with a con man? One with real charisma? For that matter, have you read about Petrol Dragon?
The revelation that Rossi has credible partners doesn't mitigate your misgiving even slightly?
Yes, actually, it does. Slightly. The problem is that I keep discovering new contradictions, new inconsistencies, and new signs of buncombe. And I find myself unable to discard them.
My estimate of 25% probability of legitimacy is heavily weighted by the fact that Rossi lacks credibility. If he had good credentials my estimate would be significantly higher. If Rossi was a saint, what would you think about this device then?
As a working hypothesis? Mental illness. I would be less inclined to bring up all of the issues I do. Some years ago, in IASFM, I read a remark from Isaac Asimov in which he responded inappropriately to a question from a reader. I resisted the temptation to write him, twitting him for not remembering a column he wrote which had answered the very same question. Six months later he was dead, and his failure of memory was clearly linked to his declining condition. I've always been glad I didn't write the letter.
