Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Which liquid water test are you referring to? Rossi's October 6 was > objected to in multiple ways, including thermocouple placement, lack of > blank calibration, and possibly hidden sources of heat. > Sure, but these objections are nonsense. Anyone can "object" but that does not make the objection valid, as you see in the 9/11 denier campaign, for example. Levi's experiment was undocumented or improperly documented . . . > It was not documented at all. If it were not for Lewan, me and a few others, you would not have heard about it. Rossi and Levi would have preferred that. . . . and he refused multiple requests to repeat it even though such a > repeat would have been easy and cheap for him. > Yup. And he has good reasons for doing that, too. Political, not scientific. Which tests were liquid phase and did not have other problems, please? > The 18 hour test had no actual problems, only imaginary ones. Several other private tests were with liquid water. > I don't know about you but I never believe trade show demonstrations > unless they have definitive proof either there or elsewhere. > Yes, but that does not make them "suspicious." A product brochure or specification such as the ones at Defkalion are not proof anything either, but they are not suspicious. They are informative. No one says they should be trusted in lieu of an independent test. That would be absurd. > Please do not claim that Ampernergo's tests were not independent. . . . >> > > It's not just frustrating. It's also non-determinative of anything and > not credible in the slightest. That is because Ampenergo has no known > factory, and no known staff except the people who provide a single > interview, it's web site is nothing but a single uninformative page . . . > I do not find any of these characteristics suspicious or "non-determinative." This is a start up company. That is what a start-up company looks like. I think you are suspicious because you do not know much about business. , and they have never shown anything to anyone who talked about it except > maybe you and you're vague and reluctant about it. > > They are as credible as Defkalion which is not in the least. > That is a matter of opinion. It depends on how much you know about Defkalion. That is, how much so-called "reliable inside information" you have. Granted, that term is often an oxymoron, there are some details about Defkalion, such as the ones I described last month, that do give them considerable credibility. It seems unlikely to me that they are running a gigantic fraud staffed by a bunch of people who appear to be top-notch scientists. I doubt they have found a group of actors who are so good they can spend a week fooling professionals into to thinking they are scientists. I do not take such scenarios seriously. I understand some of the reasons Defkalion on is keeping a low profile. I think it is too low. It causes problems. It causes you to think they have no credibility, but that is not a problem for them. They don't care you think. They care a little about what I think, which is why they authorized the discussion I had last month. - Jed
