Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> With some tests of the eCat we can rule this out. It seems unlikely to me >> that it works in some tests but not others. >> > > When we don't have prior experience, we have no basis for prediction. > You are multiplying entities unnecessarily. The "overflowing water" hypothesis does not apply to the flowing water test, and it is definitely wrong for the tests observed by Galantini. He removed the probe and observed that it was dry. So Rossi can control the water level in the cell and keep it from overflowing. That does not surprise me. I can do the same thing easily in the kitchen, at the speed the water level changes with these systems. Since Rossi was able to keep the thing from overflowing when Galantini observed the tests, why do you think he was unable to do this when Krivit was watching the test? Do you think he let it overflow deliberately? Why would he do the test two different ways? During the flowing water test he was able to leave the cell alone without adjusting the output because overflow was not an issue. Elsewhere you wrote: "Almost certainly, though, there has been some exaggeration, at least." No, this is not "almost certain." There is not a shred of evidence for exaggeration. On the contrary, the estimates are conservative. Rossi makes no effort to account for heat radiated from the machine. Rossi is a flamboyant person. I think he was shooting off his mouth yesterday, claiming that Deflaion has never operated a cell. I don't think they would be quarreling over money if Defkalion had never tested a cell, because there is no chance Defkalion would be building a factory or holding a press conference with the Min. of Energy and Rossi himself in attendance claiming they are testing cells if this were not true. Many of Rossi's experimental claims are contradictory, such as his statements about transmutation. However, I do not know of any cases in which he exaggerated claims about calorimetry, and I do not think he has made large errors or misstatements about calorimetry. Skeptics here believe he has, but they are wrong. He knows more about calorimetry than they do. His methods are, of course, crude. The results are an approximation. He says so himself. The demonstration he did for Krivit might easily be faked, with a hidden wire or something like that. I doubt it is fake, because in previous tests Levi and others made certain there was no faking, and I can't imagine why Rossi would fake a test when we know he can do a real test and produce real heat. Still, this test was not proof of anything. However, Rossi's analysis during that video on the large piece of paper is correct. - Jed
