Peter Heckert wrote:
Had he documented the airflow and temperatures in a credible way or had he used an industrial cooler that has known calibration data, then the energy would have been proven almost irrefutable.
He documented the water flow. The water was vaporized. The temperature was well over 100 deg C. Fioravanti and all other experts in steam say this proves it was dry steam, fully vaporized. For that matter, even if it was wet steam or magically hot water in liquid state, there was massive anomalous energy. If you believe that Fioravanti honestly reported input power, the flow rate and the temperatures you do not need any other proof. If he was honest, this is not "almost" irrefutable; it is utterly irrefutable. It is ridiculous to raise any questions.
On the other hand, if you do not believe he is honest, then you cannot believe these results. There is no middle ground and nothing to quibble with. The fact that you cannot see the steam is irrelevant.
Stop making up silly reasons to doubt this. You need only say that you do not trust a person you have never heard of from an unnamed company. That is reasonable. That is a perfectly valid objection. Demanding to see the steam and complaining about the quality of the pressboard is not reasonable. You have a valid reason to doubt this, so stop inventing silly, childish reasons.
- Jed
