On 7 December 2011 21:51, Robert Leguillon <[email protected]>wrote:
> A lot of responses have already been kicked up by JC and MY, but I'd > like to continue, if I may, to Jed. > This is a long reply, and was in discussion of using the primary of the > October 6th test in any considerations as to test validity. > Thank you Robert, that was a sensible and dispassionate summary that I agree with. While I am convinced that Ni H is working at commercially useful 1-10kW/kg output levels based on results from Piantelli, Ahern, Arata, Miley, Patterson et al as well as Rossi, Rossi has not conclusively demonstrated that he is operating at the significantly higher 100kW/kg power levels that he claims, and may have initially fooled even himself due to his bad latent-heat-of-water based calorimetry. As time passes and we get more back-story from the failed demos being done for potentially big investors (who could have answered his financial prayers but unfortunately for Rossi demanded proper experimental technique), Rossi's ongoing bluster, delaying tactics and diversionary behaviour do nothing but reinforce my impression that he is trying to hide an inability to match his claimed performance - eg it only works reliably for a few hours at a time, or only works at substantially lower power levels. In short he may have found himself trapped by his earlier excessive claims that he now finds were in error. It so it would be a pattern repeated from other ventures in his career.
