On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote:
I can't easily read the document, but the fact professional
techniques exist is irrelevant. When and where were these
techniques applied to Rossi's experiments?
On Feb. 10, during the 18-hour test. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
I don't see where the calorimetry is documented there. I don't see
where an overall energy balance was taken. Also, it was only a 6
hour test - pretty useless for due diligence.
I cannot imagine what you have in mind when you say that Levi's use
of industry standard professional techniques is "irrelevant." What
is that suppose to mean?!?
If you look again at what I said, you should be able to see that I
did not at all refer to Levi's use of *anything*. What I said is
your providing links to standard techniques is irrelevant. What is
important is the actual technique applied. I see no evidence any
standard technique was applied to the output water/steam.
A standard technique that described by regulations is obviously
best. It is most convincing. There is no need to come up with a
novel technique when we have one that all professionals already use.
The issue is not what technique is best, but the credibility of the
whatever technique was supplied. What was supplied in the demos I
read about were a joke.
Well, aren't you snide today?
Chalk it up to the Randi in Boise effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise
You will get a similar response if you go around telling HVAC
engineers that their techniques are "amateur" "shabby" and a
"Barnum and Bailey act." They will tell you what I told you, only
with stronger language and less patience.
- Jed
That might be true if I actually said any such thing about any HVAC
engineer, which I did not. You are applying logical fallacies left
and right. You must have a very weak case.
I still see no documentation of calorimetry techniques applied. Did
I miss something?
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
