Dear Jed, nothing about the details- it is an essential question: Is the excess heat different from zero Yes or No?
Forget instruments, good or bad Forget the suicidal setup. peter On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Jed, >> >> Excuse me for joining the discussion, however the choices are >> simple something or nothing, excess heat or NOT excess heat- zero, nada, >> niente nihil etc. >> In the moment you accept that it was a small excess heat you are >> accepting implicitly that by adequate means it can be increased.. no >> compromise here. >> > > You misunderstand. I have been over this several times, but I will repeat > what I said about this. > > As I.H. said, Rossi uses "inoperable reactors, relying on flawed > measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices." His data and > configuration notes bear this out. The test setup is a farce. Because the > test is so poorly done and so crude, the margin of error is gigantic. I > suppose the COP might be somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 if you take the > numbers at face value. > > However, as a practical matter I am sure the COP is less than 1. That is > the most plausible interpretation of the data. Just because the instruments > are so bad they could indicate practically anything, that does not justify > the assumption that they indicate an anomaly. > > I am working with Rossi's own data. I.H. says they are confident there is > no excess heat. I presume this is because they have additional data that > they collected themselves. I have not seen this data, but I take their word > for it there is no heat, and I am sure they have better proof than Rossi's > own nonsensical numbers. > > Anyone could set up instruments to measure the heat properly, with > reasonable accuracy. I assume I.H. did this. Rossi fought to prevent them > from doing it, but I suppose they finally were able to do it. > > You could answer all questions about the calorimetry by visiting the > pretend customer site next door, because that is where the fluid is cooled > down. Rossi fought to prevent that, as well. Given that this pretend > customer conducts no business, has no employees, pays no taxes and has > never had any equipment inspected, my guess is that there nothing more in > the customer site than a radiator and fan that removes ~15 kW of heat. > > > I cannot describe the details, but let me illustrate what I mean with an > unrelated example. I have a blood pressure meter that had a weak battery. > It registered something like 180 systolic over 60, then 210 over 140, then > 90 over 20. The latter would mean I am dead. Since I am alive, it was clear > the instrument was malfunctioning. In Rossi's case, the malfunctions are > even larger than this. The instruments were selected and then installed in > ways that makes it impossible to get a meaningful answer. This is either > extremely stupid, or deliberate fraud. Since Rossi does not seem stupid to > me, I assume it is fraud. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
