Adrian, Actually, people asked AR if the process was endothermic and he said "Yes." When later asked if the heat that was not used was collected in water, he responded "Yes."
People should consider that they are engaging in crowd sourced excuse making for him. He just has to sit back and wait for someone to suggest a possible explanation. Imagine how the response (or non-response) may have been different if an open ended question had been asked (e.g., what took place in the customer side with the heat?). In the case of the actual questions that were asked, a "Yes" can lend itself to future contradiction. For example, "Oh, I must have misunderstood the question. Language differences. he, he, he" Jack On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:10 PM a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a statement > like that. Rossi said that the customer's process was endothermic and the > excess heat beyond that was vented. He didn't add how much was by air or > radiation and how much through cooling water going to the drain. > > > On 8/14/2016 8:34 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > > Daniel, > The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the heat > is dumped. This is basic thermodynamics not sophisticated arguments about > Coulomb barrier shielding and so on. > Rossi claiming that the energy was used by chemical reactions and > therefore this why it didn't leave a thermal signature is bs. > Plain bs. No field of expertise needed. > > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> What field of expertise? This kind of argument is also used to "show" >> that cold fusion is bullshit. >> >> 2016-08-14 19:35 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com>: >> >>> I have a PhD in Physics so I understand the basics of energy, >>> >> > >
