Jed. "The results are quoted by Rossi right here in the interview! What
do you mean you do not know them? You can't read?
Daniel Rocha did the analysis of the numbers from the interview. He
showed the temperature is just above 100°C. The data sample provided by
Rossi to Lewan, to me and to others shows exactly the same thing, except
the numbers are listed directly, without extrapolation. The temperature
is listed at just over boiling. Actually it is just below boiling, given
the pressure and other factors.
I know not to spout firm controversial judgment.
What could possibly be controversial about the boiling point of water
for crying out loud!?
I am sure you know. I am less sure of you judgment, based on your
vague bak up of your statements
What was vague about Rossi's adamant refusal to allow people to see the
customer equipment? What do you find vague about that what possible
justification can you think of for it.
This is not vague. This is the clearest evidence imaginable, in words
directly from Rossi himself, showing that he was engaged in fraud. There
is no other plausible explanation. Or if there is, you have not provided
it and neither has he.
This has nothing to do with me. This is now based entirely on what Rossi
himself said in the interview. If you cannot see that you are incapable
of elementary analyses and you do not even understand the boiling point
of water."
AA. That is still not enough. What was the actual temperature (just
over 100C doesn't hack it), what was the pressure, was there a steam
trap or other device to take out the condensate?
I find it difficult to believe someone as qualified as Penon wouldn't
understand the possibility of water in the steam line. Also, there were
periodic reports to IH: surely they would have spotted something as
basic as that?
