BTW the shape of the foil wrapping bears an uncanny resemblance to a leg with the hose emerging from the big toe.
Harry > >From: Harry Veeder <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 2:46:55 PM >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi report uploaded > > >Sigh. The quality the report leaves me with the impression that it is an >elaborate hoax. Perhaps they will come clean on April 1st when they unveil the >1 >MW version? > >Harry > > >> >>From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 1:46:40 PM >>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi report uploaded >> >> >> >>On 01/24/2011 01:27 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: >>Wait a minute: >>> >>>My eyeballs scanned the following paragraph: >>> >>>Page 6: >>> >>>Conclusions >>> >>>The amount of power and energy produce during both tests is indeed >>>impressive and, TOGETHER WITH THE SELF SUSTAINING STATE REACH DURING >>>[caps mine] [TEST 1] could be an indication that the system is working >>>as a new type of energy source. The short duration of the test >>>suggests that is important to make more long and complete experiments. >>>An appropriate scientific program will be drawn up. >>> >>>... >>> >>>Ah yes, "...could be an indication..." >>> >>>Not unexpectedly, the information strikes me as being coached in super >>>conservative scientific -speak, not that I'm complaining. Under the >>>circumstances I'd probably do the same thing too! >>> >Personally, under the circumstances, I'd have included the data in the report. > >If nothing else I'd have included scales on the graphs, and I'd have >photographed the monitor straight-on, with the camera horizontal, and I'd have >corrected the color, brightness, and barrel distortion afterwards so the >graphs >could actually be read. (It's not hard -- it's what I've done in the past >when >presenting data, and heck, I'm just an amateur.) > >The only graph in the paper I can see which has tic labels is the one for >input >power. Incidentally, that appears as one graph in the paper, but it must >have >been constructed by pasting together parts of two other graphs, as Test1 and >Test2 took place almost a month apart, yet the graph shows them as being just >a >few hours apart. > >And I'd have made darn sure I didn't lose the temperature data from the second >run. > >(By the way, was "test2" the public demonstration, or do I have my dates >confused?) > > > >Regards >>Steven Vincent Johnson >>www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
