Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: *i have just been writing my answer to this assertion:* >
Who made this assertion? > *Announced a year ago this could be an argument but even then how could > Rossi depart from the test plan; how many reactors were "inoperable" and in > which sense?* > The 1 MW reactor is inoperative. I do not know about any other reactors. > * Flawed measurements have to be reported immediately . . .* > Where did you hear this? Does the contract say flaws have to be reported immediately? In any case, the flawed measurements were clear to the people from I.H., and they were clear to me as soon as I saw a sample of the calorimetry. > *. . . and what unsuitable measuring instruments were used- for a long > year for temperature, pressure, flow- seismometers, dynamometers, > microscopes?* > The choice of instruments used in the calorimetry were not suitable. "Seismometers, dynamometers, microscopes" are not used. (I suppose this was sarcasm, but perhaps not.) > *Now post-factum after 4 reports of the ERV, after alternative > measurements by IH employees. such arguments are dead.* > I do not understand this sentence. I cannot comment on the ERV, but the sample of calorimetry done by Rossi was clearly wrong. (Maybe it was done by Penon.) The methods, instruments and data were ridiculous. "Unsuitable" is putting it politely. I did not see calorimetry measurements by I.H. employees; I can only judge by the sample from Rossi. I am sure it was from Rossi because the numbers were the same ones he quoted in the Lewan interview. - Jed
