Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote:
> How do you explain the very late reaction of IH? > It was not a late reaction. They reacted from the start of the test. > Couldn't they observe zero excess heat in few days after the strat of the > test? > Yes, they did. > Do you like Jed's tales about the flowmeter and pipes half full? > Please refrain from calling these "Jed's tales." This is a claim made by experts at I.H. in Exhibit 5, filed with the court. They have physical evidence for it. You do not believe this, but you have no reason to ascribe this assertion to me. > The problem is not so much what Rossi said it is what IH did not say in > time. > Rossi claimed the machine produce 1 MW of heat on days when Rossi himself claimed it was turned off. Why do you say this is not important? It is obviously a lie. Rossi claims that an endothermic process can make heat vanish. You now claim that heat can be hidden underground, as if it never radiates out. Both assertions are violations of the conservation of energy. That also matters. - Jed
