Nothing to disagree with there. I think there is something fishy going on, like the MW reactor supplying heat 24/7, but Rossi is choosing to pick the best 8 hours of the day to calculate his reactor's performance. With that kind of thinking (and I am just speculating), a set of rechargeable batteries could show a COP > 6. So, we need to see the real data and how the average was calculated.
To me it seems like deja-vu all over again. Didn't Defkalion claim that they didn't pay Rossi because he couldn't make the reactor work reliably? I don't think Rossi argued that point, he just dissolved the contract. Could that be the problem here too? (Failing to meet the contract terms for reactor reliability.) I also think Rossi only gave IH technical "crumbs" and never gave IH the key to making the bread and butter eCat work. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a good > paper. In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states: > > "This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater > wire emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are > unknown." > > I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the > experiment was not reported. > > Bob, > > First, here is Clarke’s take on the first Penon report and it isn’t pretty > : > > > https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2989-The-August-2012-Penon-Hot-Cat-report/?postID=16547#post16547 > > As for Lugano, because of the “impossible to quantify” problem - this is > clearly not admissible in court. You can see one of many reason why a > jury will never hear about a test like Lugano, never hear about imaginary > COP of 60 and not hear about the year-long testing either – due to > evidentiary rules and the fact that Penon is completely unqualified. > > Then, we have the problem of anomalous gain, which would violate the > “known laws of physics.” I hate that as much as you do, but that is the > way the legal system works. Few if any experts can get qualified by a > Court who will testify that it can work – much less that it did work. They > might have to fly McKubre in from NZ. J > > In short, Rossi has almost no chance to win a jury trial even if his > sordid background and criminal history cannot be introduced, in order to > prove a continuing pattern of fraud. A trial is looking like a no-win > situation for Rossi, especially up against squeaky clean All-American > types who clean up the environment, instead of pollute it. > >
