a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> You still do not give actual figures nor cover the unknowns. > Rossi gave the figures, in the interview with Lewan. If you don't believe him, you don't believe me, and you don't believe I.H. . . . Who *do* you believe? As I said, I am not free to give the details, but I and other people who are way better at calorimetry than I am went over this carefully. We did not jump to conclusions. (They have a lot more data than I do.) > I think it better to wait before coming to a conclusion, but you have > already made your bed. > I don't need to wait because I have the data. I am sure this is Rossi's data from his instruments, because the numbers are the same as the ones he quoted in the interview. It is not fake data foisted on me by I.H. You need to wait because the only thing you know so far is that the temperature was just at boiling. How likely do you think it was that the pressure was no more than 1 atm? By the way, if Rossi wanted to cheat, and little antifreeze would do the trick. > ff the output really was zero you are saying Rossi, his team, Penon and > the customer have all engaged in fraud. > Yes. That is my conclusion. As I said, there is clear evidence of that: Rossi refused to let anyone see the customer site. You have that from Rossi himself. I believe the data indicates other reasons for thinking it was fraud, which I cannot discuss. - Jed
