Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: My views on this matter are the same as they were one month ago. Still > waiting for new information. There is no new pattern here. There's nothing > that Rossi did in this test that he had not done before. >
So, you have no problem with hiding the customer equipment? You would pay $89 million without confirming there is industrial equipment back there that uses 1 MW of process heat? And you say this is nothing new? Do I have that right? > What I think crazy it is that you are bashing Rossi with much more > emphasis than in the other occasion. > I never had such clear-cut proof that Rossi is either stupid or fraudulent. In previous tests, he did not allow anyone to take any data or look closely. In this test, he could not prevent the I.H. people from looking, although he did stop them from doing the most important test of all -- examining the customer's equipment. > A blind test is important to avoid cheats. Like using a thermometer too > close to the junction of hot water/close waterl. Steam quality and issues > related to its measurement. Measuring AC currents and hiding extra power in > the form of a DC form. Calibration of a IR camera and its lack of > sensibility where sign is stronger. Changing powder in a rather dubious > way. If both sides see each other as a black box, with arbiter agreed by > both sides, Penon, to check if they are reading the same power > output/input, the chance of cheating decreases, since neither won't be able > to know how the change parameter in order to change reading. > Do I take you are using this word-salad blather as justification for hiding the customer's machinery? Is that what you mean? - Jed
