This one covers the Feb. 14-hour test with flowing water:
> Part 4) > http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=0vYJIG3ymOk<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vYJIG3ymOk> > Continuing in part 5: Part 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=LbDgeAz91VM<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbDgeAz91VM> He mentions briefly that he has a flow meter, which he called a flux meter. He also mentions the large heat burst and said it worried Rossi. Krivit was kind of a jerk. I understand what Levi meant. He was reporting observations, suitable for a lab notebook, not a full experiment suitable for a peer-reviewed paper. Levi is saying what I said, which is that summary numbers are nearly as good as time series data given the quality and type of instruments used in this test. Levi said: There is no credibility on the level needed for a peer-reviewed scientific paper, but plenty of credibility for an honest observation of an event. It would take 3 months to design a proper experiment. Krivit makes it sounds like Levi did something wrong. For me, it is no different from Mizuno describing his massive heat after death event which he did not and could not record properly. (See his book.) Krivit described this in his report as if Levi thinks the data is worthless and he will never publish it for that reason. I think this is an absurd distortion of what Levi said. However, I have to thank Krivit for releasing this video, giving us the original comments. We can judge for ourselves with this. - Jed
