I am trying to figure out how Rossi could have faked it just as you mention.
We should be able to achieve that goal by using scientific logic, at least that
is my assumption.
Perhaps the fact that I leave open the possibility that he may be telling the
truth is where we differ. I am much closer to believing that he performed some
type of magic trick than that his system is delivering 1 MW but, until all the
evidence is presented I refrain from passing final judgement.
It is obvious that you and Jed are totally convinced of malice, but I would
hope that you and the others of that persuasion understand folks like me that
want an ironclad case.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 3:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
David, you are doing the equivalent of using a physics model to predict
whether airplanes should have knocked down the WTC.
Back in the day, a lot of people slammed FEMA for not doing exactly
that, and for, instead, using a parametrized model to figure out how the WTC
collapsed.
In the case of 9/11 they used the parametrized approach because it was
already screamingly in-your-face obvious that airplanes hit the buildings
and then they fell down and they were trying to figure out how, not whether,
they collapsed.
The same goes here. From the lack of gigantic heat sinks sticking out
of the roof of the "customer site", we know beyond a reasonable doubt that
there was no 1 MW of heat. So a detailed analysis of the data should be
directed toward determining how the heat was faked, not whether the heat was
faked.
Your approach is to analyse the details in an attempt at determining
whether the heat was faked. But we already know that.
It's like you've watched a magician make a woman turn into a tiger, and
you're trying to analyze everything you saw him do while he was on stage in
an effort to determine whether she really turned into a tiger. Seriously,
that's not going to lead to anything of much value. Trying to figure out
how he faked it would be a lot more useful.
On 08/26/2016 03:24 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 08/26/2016 02:04 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi might be able to show
gauge readings that imply that 1 MW of steam is being delivered while
not being an accurate assessment of the real power.
I assumed that the information published by Engineer48 in
E-CATWORLD.com is accurate.
Why?
The readings which were recorded are extremely implausible, to the
point of being impossible. So why would you assume they're correct?
It's a very reasonable guess is that the readings, as recorded, were
entirely bogus -- the actual values were not what was written down. And
once you've admitted that detail, the rest of it falls immediately -- a
tiny inaccuracy in recording the pressure, plus another inaccuracy in
recording the flow rate, and you're done.
Who are the hoard of witnesses that attested that the data as
recorded was exactly as the gauges read?
At this point all I can say is that we need more data before we
can prove that Rossi is not being truthfully.
Bosh. Go back to the discussion of where the 1 megawatt of heat
was dumped. There was no megawatt of heat dumped on the "customer site".
Rossi claimed there was. What more proof do you need? The rest is just
details. The details may be interesting, but they follow the proof in
this case, they don't provide the proof.
