Jed, I agree with all you say except thinking the first Levi test was good. It was better, but there was no adequate calibration performed. As such, it was wholly inadequate.
That is the common problematic thread throughout every ecat test. On Thu, Apr 7, 2016, 5:03 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What a naïve specious comment “an engineer will lose his license” the >> reality is that license revocations very very rarely happen. >> > > However rare it may be, that is the point of issuing licenses. It is a > method of guaranteeing the work is done correct, under penalty of the law. > What other kind of guarantee could there be? If there were no revocations, > the system would be meaningless. Engineers can lose their licenses for > negligence, incompetency, misconduct or unprofessional conduct. If an > engineer measured the Rossi device COP at 50 but it is actually 1 (no > excess) that would surely be incompetence, and the engineer would be in > danger of losing his or her license. > > file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/200583010610_886.pdf > > > >> Countless examples of bad engineering are rampant without consequences to >> the engineers. >> > > Perhaps, but the laws and regulations say there are supposed to be > consequences. You are saying the laws are not enforced. Samuel Florman say > these laws are enforced in civil engineering. He is a distinguished author > and head of a major construction firm. He has published six books and over > 250 articles on engineering, so I expect he knows more about this than you > do. > > > >> This is the problem with Vortex and other social media. They are great >> places for some good exchange of ideas but so clouded in bullshit that it >> makes it very difficult. >> > > I have cited specific regulations and distinguished experts. What have you > cited? > > > Where did the idea of civility disappear to. Those armchair peanut gallery >> denizens slandering and libeling Rossi here ought to be ashamed but of >> course the nature . . . >> > > Perhaps I.H. is slandering him, but I am not. I am reporting what they > said. In their latest press release, they claim there was no heat. We > cannot judge who is right until we see the report. But there is reason to > doubt Rossi. I have cited examples of his tests that produced no heat, such > as the NASA tests in which the device was plugged up but Rossi refused to > admit that. I cited tests so poorly done it was impossible to say what the > results were, such as the 1 MW test in Italy. I pointed to severe errors in > Penon's 2012 test, and similar errors at Lugano. The only test of a Rossi > device that seems to free of error is the first Levi test. That isn't much. > There have been no replications of his work as far as I know. You said > there were, but you did not offer any examples. > > So what evidence have you given us? I see nothing but invective so far. If > anyone lacks civility and a serious attitude here, it is you, not me. > > - Jed > >
