Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Jed, > > Excuse me for joining the discussion, however the choices are > simple something or nothing, excess heat or NOT excess heat- zero, nada, > niente nihil etc. > In the moment you accept that it was a small excess heat you are accepting > implicitly that by adequate means it can be increased.. no compromise here. >
You misunderstand. I have been over this several times, but I will repeat what I said about this. As I.H. said, Rossi uses "inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices." His data and configuration notes bear this out. The test setup is a farce. Because the test is so poorly done and so crude, the margin of error is gigantic. I suppose the COP might be somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 if you take the numbers at face value. However, as a practical matter I am sure the COP is less than 1. That is the most plausible interpretation of the data. Just because the instruments are so bad they could indicate practically anything, that does not justify the assumption that they indicate an anomaly. I am working with Rossi's own data. I.H. says they are confident there is no excess heat. I presume this is because they have additional data that they collected themselves. I have not seen this data, but I take their word for it there is no heat, and I am sure they have better proof than Rossi's own nonsensical numbers. Anyone could set up instruments to measure the heat properly, with reasonable accuracy. I assume I.H. did this. Rossi fought to prevent them from doing it, but I suppose they finally were able to do it. You could answer all questions about the calorimetry by visiting the pretend customer site next door, because that is where the fluid is cooled down. Rossi fought to prevent that, as well. Given that this pretend customer conducts no business, has no employees, pays no taxes and has never had any equipment inspected, my guess is that there nothing more in the customer site than a radiator and fan that removes ~15 kW of heat. I cannot describe the details, but let me illustrate what I mean with an unrelated example. I have a blood pressure meter that had a weak battery. It registered something like 180 systolic over 60, then 210 over 140, then 90 over 20. The latter would mean I am dead. Since I am alive, it was clear the instrument was malfunctioning. In Rossi's case, the malfunctions are even larger than this. The instruments were selected and then installed in ways that makes it impossible to get a meaningful answer. This is either extremely stupid, or deliberate fraud. Since Rossi does not seem stupid to me, I assume it is fraud. - Jed
