At 04:38 PM 6/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I have no idea what Galantini is expert in. Do you know?
Yes. The second test proved beyond any doubt that he is an expert in
identifying dry steam, and it proved that all of the objections
raised here are bunk, including yours.
Jed, I've asked this before. What second test proved what you show?
Are you referring to the Levi test that increased the flow rate? How
would this show that Galantini was correct?
Or are you referring to the results of Kullander and Essen? Those
results appear to contradict Galantini, though, to be sure, we don't
have Galantini's results, so how can non-existent results be
confirmed, or contradicted, for that matter.
What we have is an *implication* from Levi, in his January report,
that Galantini addressed the steam quality issue. No results were
given, i.e., an actual measure of water per whatever, neither mass
ratio nor volume. (The meter will apparently provide a mass/volume
number, but it appears that this is mass of water vapor per volume of
gas, which would be a number which would depend only on the
temperature and pressure, if what we have is only steam and water
present, and the temperature is at boiling, as is the case here. The
mass/volume is not actually measured by measuring mass and volume, it
is, instead, inferred (calculated) from relative humidity,
temperature, and pressure, which is what the meter actually measures.
In science, you are supposed to answer questions by doing another
experiment, and measuring the effect with a different method. That
eliminates the possibility that the first method was mistaken.
That's what Rossi did. So there is nothing more to talk about,
unless you believe (as some people apparently do) that he measured
the temperature and flow rates wrong by some large factor (up to a
factor of a 1000 according to some). I don't believe that.
Jed, you are completely confused here. It looks like you are
confusing confirmation of heat generation, in very rough numbers,
with confirmation of steam quality. You are mixing public
demonstrations with private evidence, as with the "second test,"
i.e., by Levi with high flow.
The claim that I'm making, which is echoing concerns from many, not
just from "pseudoskeptics," is that the public demonstrations,
because of issues with steam quality and/or possible liquid flow out
of the device, aren't convincing. That claim is not affected by
whatever private evidence Levi has seen, at all.
You have already acknowledged being convinced by "private
information." That's fine. For you. It's not adequate for the rest of
us. From the information I have, I can't tell how much energy was
generated. From the bulk of the evidence, and a tendency to believe
testimony unless controverted (a legal principle) I suspect "some."
But I can't prove it. Note that when I believe testimony, what I'm
believing is a careful report of what was actually observed. When a
witness doesn't state what they observed, but only their conclusions
from what they observed, there is nothing to believe in the way of
primary, objective evidence.
There is only opinion, which may or may not be expert opinion, and
even experts make mistakes. Which is why we expect formal reports
from experts to contain lots of details of the evidence from which
the expert derived their conclusioins.
I am not proceeding from a pseudoskeptical position, Jed. The
"different method" approach is valid; in this case, though, that
different method does not in any way confirm the accuracy of the
method used by Galantini to measure steam quality.
Basically, Galantini could be right as rain or quite wrong, and that
Rossi -- especially privately, with only Levi -- shows excess heat
with some other test method has no impact on that, and there are lots
of reasons for this.
Missing in all this, Jed, is an actual report of what Galantini
found! Do you have that information, is it on-line somewhere?
