> However calorimatric criticism is not relevant, because Rossi has > never forbid for observers to do accurate calorimetry and check all > the necessary calibrations with their own instruments. Therefore bad > calorimetry is not likely source for the cheat, because that cheat > would depend on incompetent observers. > >
Rossi does seem to choose his observers with some care and they tend not to be the most careful. And look what happened when he chose Krivit! And according to Krivit, NASA and one other big company sent representatives in September and the device "did not work" those days. That could be true or it could be simply be convenient. Maybe Rossi won't run his machine in front of people who ask the right questions, and are equipped and determined to test it properly. I've always been surprised at the softball questions asked to Rossi during post demo press interviews, for example in the October 28 run. Nobody asked him why they couldn't see instrument readings, and about the other issues I mention below. Rossi's guests have been too polite! Jed says they asked but Rossi didn't answer. Some people may have asked Rossi difficult questions but not in any published interview or demo that I've seen. When Rossi is asked tough stuff on his blog, he either refuses to publish it or he gives a tangential and uninformative response, usually that it's secret. The main problem with the calorimetry, in my estimation, is the lack of blank runs. Because an electrical heater is part of the system, it would extremely easy, almost trivial to do. A blank run, in one swoop, would remove all the issues and concerns about losses, thermocouple placements, incomplete vaporization of water to steam, and many others. It is so obvious a requirement, it's sort of telling that it has not been done. Yes it doubles the run time of the experiment. But so what? If Rossi had done things right once, he wouldn't have to do any additional tests in public. Jed maintains that HVAC and boiler engineers don't run blanks but those people don't have to prove that a new, almost incredibly powerful technology really exists! The other tell is, as you and NASA's scientist note, the short run. It boggles the imagination that a device supposedly designed to run six months without refueling was stopped after 4 or even 8 hours for some purported convenience. It makes absolutely no sense. Most people would be willing to baby sit an E-cat for days or weeks if necessary in shifts. The excuses just don't wash.
