Posted on 05/24/2013 6:35:28 PM PDT by Kevmo
I’m not saying this guy is a fraud. I don’t know him.
***It is 7 scientists who tested the device. Rossi wasn’t even in the room. I saw a reference that he wasn’t even on the same continent.
No workee......
I can’t cut and paste them because they are active links on my computer. Unfortunately they don’t work...never have..
Do you recall what I said the forth time you posted that same phrase or one like it..?
I said it does not matter that he was there or not there.
The test people put their stuff right where they were said to be able to put it. They had the camera at a low angle, a couple of simple metered thermocouples, CT pickups on the line side of the control box.
Their laptop did the rest....I have hired guys like this a dozen times to monitor a process or a machine that requires certification. I know what they do, they do it for a living and they do exactly what they are asked to do or in some circumstances they tell you what they need to do to be certified.
I always asked them to do a bit more than required because I wanted bearing temperatures and rise times on temperature sensitive stuff for maintenance records.
But they don’t analyze subjective stuff, like “did it work” or is it cold fusion. They only report what their instruments told them. And I don’t question what their instruments told them. I question what they measured! I question if what they measured is what the inventor says it is.
And I don’t question what their instruments told them. I question what they measured! I question if what they measured is what the inventor says it is.
***They measured heat. They read a thermometer. They measured input power, using multimeters and clamp ammeters. For Rossi to be able to squib those results when he isn’t even in the room he’d have to be the greatest magician alive. You sure have a high opinion of that man. My opinion of him is much less: lousy scientist, crappy demonstrator, Edisonian inventor, probably just lucky.
There is always the cylinder inside the cylinder.
***What a bunch of hooey. You’re giving the calculation LESS volume rather than more volume, so that the energy density observed would be 20,000 times more dense than gasoline. What you wanna be doing is going in the opposite direction, trying to come up with some way that the cylinder observed is only appearing 1/10th as big as it actually is. Again, such a neat trick would make Rossi the best magician on the planet.
But what his people are doing or did with this test
***his people??? It was 7 independent scientists.
leads one to conclude that they are not being very forthcoming
***No, it leads one to conclude that after going round & round with aggressively skeptical ‘humans’, you just come in at the tail end and do exactly the same bowlsheet that they all did. You’re goin’ round and round the same tree, just wider circles. I should have seen it sooner.
It’s time to take the mod’s advice and ignore you.
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
WW, here is how the dialog gets poisoned by the overly aggressive skeptical ‘humans’ (OASHs). You get to the point that a poster acknowledges certain evidence, so you move onto the next evidence. But they never answer the question nor consider the evidence, because the OASHs start peppering the thread back & forth with the same old falsehoods and lies. So the poster decides not to investigate. Ignoring the OASHs doesn’t help, in fact in this case it contributes to the problem. Truly anti-science behavior from the OASHs. Damage done, as intended.
It is noticeable that you keep avoiding those 14,700 replications.
So, you had said that you accept these measurements. These 7 scientists are simply measuring fakery, according to you. Then what about the 14,700 other times the same kind of measurements generated very similar results? Were all those faked? Is it a giant conspiracy?
Read more closely. At one point they "did" cross check the camera with a direct sensor (thermocouple) measurement. The thermal camera is simply the fastest and easiest way to get a overall profile of the whole reactor without needing a mass of spaghetti hooked up to a zillion thermocouples.
I repeat, the whole emissivity issue is a giant red herring, and your "dirty window" scenario is simply bogus.
I have to admit you have a very active imagination at thinking up possible reasons thing might be wrong. Unfortunately, all of those reasons have already been discussed, debated, and disproved by prior tests or analysis, of which you are simply ignorant.
"Yesterday when I read the PDF I noted another anomaly with the control test. In addition to it not being painted (if I read that right) They did not even put the end caps on it!"
The pictures of the reactor I saw had endcaps, and at least one writeup describes not only the endcaps, but how they were joined to the reactor.
"But I can say without much reservation that what they did will not be nearly enough to satisfy many people..maybe a few dreamers..."
And I can say without reservation that you haven't done enough homework..the vast majority of your objections have already been addressed in other experimental and/or theoretical papers on these and other tests done on Rossi's reactors.
And, of course, there are some people who will NEVER be satisfied, no matter what amount or kind of data is presented....that's why they are called "pathological skeptics" (which handle, please note, I am NOT applying to you....or at least not yet).
This was examined to death in commentary on one of the prior tests (not "Hot Cat"), in which one commenter "did" list a huge number of reactive compounds, and their possible theoretical energy releases. Alan somebody or other. Been done.
And the "modified waveform" is possibly what is needed to help trigger and control whatever quantum effect actually drives the reaction. Brillouin (another company working on a commercial LENR approach) claims precisely this, and they call it a "Q" pulse.
Of course, what the waveform is is irrelevant, as they are measuring (by multiple different means) the INPUT currents and voltages INTO the drive circuitry.
You should keep this garbage on Vortex where it belongs, and where you are surrounded by true believers. It would also give you more time to learn how to post a link in HTML.
Cold Heat is obviously more qualified to do electrical measurements than you or Rossi's gang of 7 incompetent and corrupt academics.
Is that why the morons left the ground wire unattached?
And these aren't skeptic tests. They are demonstrations intended to dazzle suckers so they will buy distribution rights to something that will never exist.
Following Wall Street is how I developed my fraud detector.
Kevmo and Warthog should try it, so they won't ignore the numerous red flags that Rossi puts out.
Since we're posting pictures, here's one of Rossi and his "independent" lead author taken in 2011.
It’s time to take the mod’s advice and ignore you.
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
"This is not a religion forum caucus thread. People can post as they wish within forum guidelines."
The caps for the inner cylinder and the reactive charge were both not in or on the dummy.
Read it your self...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.