Debunkers will say water flow calorimetry conceals a trick. Harry
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:31 PM, David L Babcock <ol...@rochester.rr.com>wrote: > There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the > big thing here is, why bother? > > They get a torrent of heat, *easily* shown by IR to be far, far more than > any that accepted science can explain away, and you want that last decimal > place? > > The question that was answered is, *is it real*? The answer is binary, > two-state, accuracy is not a factor. > > But I think what you are really saying is that somehow hot water trumps > IR, in the gut perhaps. It's not separated from common sense basement > engineering by several exponential equations. And I think you are right in > this, at least for a portion of the (persuadable) critics. > > Ol' Bab > > > > On 5/20/2013 12:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > But the main issue - why they did not perform water flow calorimetry? > That is a major question that needs to be answered after all of these > months. Instead of removing doubts, which they could have done with water > flow - they merely added more doubts. > >
