Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote:
> DGT, is an enigma, as far as it is publicly known, except that their only > test surpasses in quality by far anything Rossi did on live, with COP>20. > Rossi's live tests have not been very good, but DGT's tests were worse. Even Hadjichristos eventually admitted that the flow rate was not measured properly. The results are meaningless. The tests done by ELFORSK were better than Rossi's and far better than DGT's. You are the first person I have heard from who thinks DGT has technical credibility. They claimed they have glowing reviews from the experts who visited them. The experts were all under NDA but some of them have told me a little. They were unimpressed. They said the tests proved nothing. I assume that is why DGT never published a review. Maybe DGT improved their work since the ICCF video. I wouldn't know. They have never published a technical paper, just a lot public relations blather. It is difficult to judge from a video alone. As far as I can tell they have nothing. I cannot imagine why you think they have done a good job. I think it is up to the group doing the experiment to make the case, with a properly written paper. Since DGT has never published a paper, that means they do not want to make the case. If they have something, I guess they do not want people to know about it, or believe it. That is their prerogative. But neither you nor they should be upset when I don't believe them. They have given me NO EVIDENCE. - Jed
