why do you come with cheap tricks and do not give a simple straight honest answer? As July 6- 23, 2015 for example. Why do myou mix in other things?
you could easily guess that I have already seen the exhibits, no 5 included. the data could not be the "same" for the whole year, I bet. peter On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jed, how much of Rossi's data do you have? >> Days; weeks? >> > > Exhibit 5 says the data is the same for all days and weeks, so you only > need a week or so to draw conclusions. Actually, one day is enough. The > flow rate is exactly 36,000 kg, the pressure is 0.0 bar and the temperature > is ~102°C every day, including days when the reactor was turned off. It is > remarkably stable performance! > > > >> How would you convince us that you have them indeed? >> > > I cannot think of any way to convince you. Evidently, you do not believe > Exhibit 5 or me. You will have to ask Rossi for the data. > > > >> I confess that after what you have told about knowledgeable people being >> those who know to cheat with an instrument I cannot belive anything you >> say without proofs. >> > > You now have proof that Defkalion and Rossi both cheated using flowmeters, > using different methods. See the Gamberale report and Exhibit 5: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E > > You also have the guide to flowmeters which describes the problems these > people deliberately induced to get the wrong answers. > > http://omega.com/prodinfo/flowmeters.html > > If you do not believe this proof there is nothing more I can give you. > > > Your statement was structurally dishonest. >> > > You mean Exhibit 5 is dishonest. Not me. > > You might consider the possibility that Rossi's data is dishonest, since > it shows enormous anomalous heat when the reactor was turned off. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
