On 11-09-15 02:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:
I would get testy if people addressed me the way they have
addressed him. Also, if I were Levi I would have tossed Krivit...
I wasn't talking about the Krivit interview, which I haven't read.
I was thinking in particular of a response from Galantini I've
seen online in which he attempted to explain and/or defend his
conclusion. It was informative, but not in the way I'd hoped.
I think it is a mistake to judge someone's arguments by whether he is
testy or not, or by some other aspect of his personality. Arata is one
of most cranky, testy people I have ever met but with regard to cold
fusion is completely right and he has made some of the most important
contributions to the field, second only to Fleischmann and Pons.
I've seen nothing to indicate that any manufacturer agrees with
Galantini's conclusions about steam quality.
See:
http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347
It says it measures "enthalpy." The only way to do that is to measure
dryness.
Thank you for the reference. Unfortunately I'm no longer pursuing this
and don't have the time to dig into the probe specs. (I'm really sorry
about that.) If I'm wrong, I'm wrong; my conclusions are based on
analysis done months ago (when I had more time to spend). At this point
I'm just waiting for October, to see whether Rossi is a miracle worker
or just a man digging himself into a hole.
And as to my opinion regarding Galantini, when someone makes a
measurement from which he draws a conclusion which is obviously
incorrect, and then refuses to either explain how he did it or
back down on the conclusion, yup, IMO that makes his testimony
(about *anything*) worthless.
Anything? Would you not trust him to tell you whether it is raining
outside?
It would depend on whether there was any money riding on the result.
Just because you disagree with his measurement that does not strike me
as a reason to condemn him as a person unable to recognize drops of
water when he sees them.
My concern is actually rather different.
My concern is that I suspect he knows perfectly well what the flaws were
in his analysis, and realizes that the steam wasn't dry.
And that, in turn, leads me to question any testimony from Galantini.
