On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Berke Durak <berke.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd be happier when you guys come up with real arguments and not silly "I > don't > like his handwriting!" arguments. Sure. The argument against the October 28 test is that the customer is anonymous and who Fioravanti works for is also unknown. If the customer is, as I suspect, a fabrication, then Fioravanti works for Rossi as a part of a scam. Or, it's possible that Fioravanti has no idea about the potential errors involved in measuring enthalpy by using only the heat of vaporization of water. Frankly, I find that unlikely but it is possible that if Rossi could scam Kullander, Essen and Lewans, he could also scam Fioravanti with the same ruse. Of course, that would assume there is a customer which I find very doubtful, admittedly, so far, on subjective information mainly. Nobody who was able to report about it saw the meter readings. When you cite energy in and energy out, you are simply quoting Rossi and Fioravanti. For those who think this was a legitimate demonstration, I'd like to ask you why the invited guests, consisting of reporters and scientists, were never shown any of the measurements? You don't suppose a remote display of all relevant data, including the generator output during the test, could have been shown to them? Exactly why were they there other than to lend some wobbly credibility to Rossi's claim?
