a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't find unofficial third party reports on a case this large to be > very convincing. > I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press release: "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success." I asked them what that means. They said it means the machine did not produce excess heat. > Why would IH show it off to Woodford if it were just a sham? Why would > Rossi sue IH knowing that the details would come out in court? > I know nothing about these issues. I do not think they are relevant to calorimetry. This dispute is about calorimetry and *nothing else*. > Why would IH wait a year and not just shut it down if it didn't work? Etc. > I have no idea. However, long before the test ended, I heard that I.H. was not happy with the calorimetry. There are just too many unknowns to jump to conclusions, particularly when > we will have more data in a month or so. > There is one thing known for sure. I.H. says it does not work, whereas Rossi says it does. I can judge which side is probably right, based on their track records. I am not jumping to conclusions. I think that I.H. has credibility and expertise. Rossi has zero credibility and his calorimetry up until now has ranged from bad to abysmal. The fact that the machine is large and the apparent heat is 1 MW does not rule out a mistake. People can make stupid mistakes on any scale. - Jed
