How about "wrong kinds of instruments", how much of Rosis results are mad with tis error?
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:53:19 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: wrote: If he have his instruments wrong calibrated as in the Uppsala test there may be no exes energy at all or at least not much of it. The Uppsala test failed because the glue was not set. Rossi agreed that it failed. The test I quoted from above was performed on September 6, 2012 in Bologna. This test failed to produce excess heat. Rossi thought it was working because he was using the wrong kinds of instruments to measure input power. Not because of a calibration problem, although a calibration would have helped. The test was observed by independent observers from the Technical Research Institute of Sweden and other organizations. After the test, Rossi continued to assert that it had succeeded, but the observers all agreed it had failed. Rossi had a "control" reactor in this test, but it was quite unlike a real reactor, so the observers did not consider it a valid control. Lewan describes what happened next. The Swedish experts and investors lost interest in the test. Lewan says the "investors seemed to believe that Rossi was a rascal or at least incompetent." (I say, who can blame them?) Later: "Hydrofusion wrote a short Press statement that ended: 'Hydrofusion cannot at this stage support any claims made, written or other, about the amount of excess heat generated by the new high temperature ECAT prototype.'" Another lost opportunity. Links: ------ [1] mailto:[email protected]
