On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:35 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is unfortunate that Mr. Rossi did not use all three cores of his ECAT > for the October 6, 2011 test. The results would have indicated at least > 2 times the observed energy production. > I have completed an extensive review of the data collected during that > October 6 test and it is apparent that we missed the big show. It is not > clear as to why Rossi chose to limit the ECAT to the 1 core test case, but > I suspect that it was part of his plan to dazzle the world with the October > 28 demonstration. > That ineffective and unwitnessed demo dazzled the world? Exactly how? It was a leaky device powered it seems from a diesel generator. Nobody invited was allowed to witness a single measurement. The data were provided on three dirty sheets of paper in hand writing. Dazzling is it? > It is possible that the control of the 1 MW system was more difficult than > Rossi anticipated which led to the decision to throttle it back to 470 kW. > In my opinion, the demonstration of the system at the reduced power level > for the extensive period of time was not a major failure. It would have > been surprising if the test had achieved all that Rossi expected since many > unknown problems often arise with complex systems such as this. > The worst issue that we face is the continued barrage of criticism on this > list that mainly is a result of the skeptic’s total disbelief in anything > related to cold fusion. > Nonsense. The reason for the "barrage" has been discussed many times and has nothing to do with cold fusion at all. It has to do with a failure of Rossi to provide the necessary evidence for anything extraordinary at all. I am dismayed by the barrage of misinformation and speculation about an entirely unproven supposed "technology" Rossi claims to have. The projections and concern about what the world will do with all the energy Rossi is about to provide is bordering on hilarious. Talk about counting chickens before the eggs hatch! > I wonder if they would have been swayed had the data demonstrated the > dramatic excess energy that I calculated with 3 cores. I have a feeling > that something else would have given them reason to complain. > The basic problems of too short runs, too little total energy, uncertain possibilities of faking the output, bad measurement methods --all would remain with three cores. What would solve the issue for skeptics and believers alike are tests by a university. Any idea why Rossi doesn't have them done? They can be done without risking his confidentiality and secrets. How long has it been since he's been making claims and lousy demos?
