Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It’s ridiculous to suggest that the people who wrote that very clean and > clear set of legal claims are fools, that they don’t know the ropes, and > have not done their homework with the data with competent help. > Regarding the technical claims, they could well be wrong. Look at Defkalion. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf Lawyers cannot judge such things. > The idea that some ‘license HVAC or otherwise’ is what defines the > intellect to be able to process the simple energy data on the mega E-Cat is > simply preposterous. > Not a bit. As I said, look at Defkalion. If you set up a boiler without preventing backflow there is no telling what your instruments will show. They can be wrong by any factor. That's the mistake made by Defkalion (assuming it was a mistake). There are dozens of other ways to get it wrong. That is why boilers sometimes explode and people are killed. That is why HVAC engineers have to pass rigorous examinations, and they have to follow carefully defined procedures. I have seen those examinations and I am pretty sure that if I tried to operate a large boiler manually, or if I tried to test one, I would blow myself up. There are a lot of ways to get it wrong, just as there are on a small scale doing laboratory bench calorimetry. Penon and Rossi's previous attempts to do calorimetry were dreadful. - Jed
