Jed wrote: "One side or the other is definitely, drastically, 100% certainly wrong. One says the device produces 80 times input, and the other says it produces 1 times input. As I said, I cannot imagine why anyone here thinks Rossi is likely to be right, given his track record of making terrible technical mistakes."
Yes, and the null result is the most likely. You could easily find 1000's of scientists who would assert the same without even seeing the report. Some may argue that is the wrong approach, but it is the most likely to be valid in this case (or in fact any case of apparent excess heat). Therefore, you must take extraordinary measures to make sure the results are valid. That includes actually calibrating the plant (running it under the full range of parameters without the fuel - flow rates, temperature ranges, input and output powers). Does anyone here want to go out on a limb to assert that the test was likely properly calibrated? Of course we don't know for sure, but we do know calibration is not standard practice for any Rossi-involved test. This is not the first time a major investment has been lost for large errors. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/10/nyteknik-reports-on-halted-swedish-investment-in-hydrofusion-following-tests/ On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:15 AM Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Craig Haynie <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this >>> prevents the application of common sense... >>> >> >> But I think we agree that 'common sense' does not necessarily mean that >> either side would have the option to opt-out if they didn't like the report. >> > > You misunderstand. The issue is not "they didn't like the report." Likes, > dislikes and preferences play no part in this. The issue is whether the > report is technically correct. In a court case over a technical dispute of > this nature, expert witnesses are brought in to render an opinion on the > analyses from Rossi and I.H. If the expert witnesses convincingly show that > one side or the other is correct, that is how the judge will rule. > > No judge will compel I.H. to pay if several HVAC engineers certified and > licensed by the state of Florida testify that the Penon report is wrong; > Penon's methods do not meet boiler inspection standards (calorimetry) set > by the state of Florida; and the device did not produce eighty times input, > or even 6 times input. > > Suppose you commission a contractor to build a house in the state of > Florida. Six months later they say it is finished and they demand their > money. You go to the site and you find a hole in the ground and a pile of > rotting lumber. No judge will say "you signed a contract, they say it is > finished, so you have to pay." Penon has worked for Rossi in the past and > he obviously works for him now. No matter what the contract says, if > experts testify that Penon is wrong, I.H. will be released from it. > > One side or the other is definitely, drastically, 100% certainly wrong. > One says the device produces 80 times input, and the other says it produces > 1 times input. As I said, I cannot imagine why anyone here thinks Rossi is > likely to be right, given his track record of making terrible technical > mistakes. > > - Jed > >
