Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
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?
Yes, I meant the test with flowing water. This showed that the steam in
the first test must have been dry.
It is conceivable that Galantini measured it wrong but he got lucky and
it was dry anyway.
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.
I do not see how they contradict Galantini.
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.
It wasn't exactly private. Or I guess I should say it wasn't supposed to
be. Lewan and I got a report of it. We were hoping and expecting more. I
might not have described it at LENR-CANR.org if I had known that no
further details were forthcoming. The interview with Levi in Query today
discusses it. I disagree with his assertion that a far more compelling
test is needed, and much more time. If I had a few days with flowing
water tests, or even one day, I think I could do a more compelling job
than they have done so far.
You have already acknowledged being convinced by "private
information." That's fine. For you. It's not adequate for the rest of us.
Yes. It is very frustrating for me, but I cannot do anything about it.
Believe me, I am trying. In the larger sense, I have been trying for
years to persuade cold fusion researchers to publish more. I have had
mixed success. I have thousand of pages of papers and information I
cannot upload. Most of it is unimportant, but some would go a long way
to clearing up these misunderstandings.
- Jed
