That sounds like the old Eliza: same core algorithms, it's the dictionary that is somewhat different.
2013/5/28 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > > Jed:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> You left out the more important part of my posting:**** >> >> “And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used >> 3-phase power in their tests… the second test was SINGLE phase power, so * >> *JC is misleading people**…” >> > > I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he did not notice that? > Let us see if he now acknowledges the second test was with single phase > power so this is not an issue. > > (Not that it ever would be an issue, since the meter works with 3-phase > power.) > > > Some of these people refuse to take "yes" for an answer. The discussion, > if you want to call it that, goes like this -- > > Skeptic: I will not believe this until they do it with single phase power. > > Response: They did. > > Skeptic: I will not believe this until they confirm that the IR sensor was > correctly calibrated. > > Response: They did, by comparing it to a thermocouple and with standard > emissivity materials. > > Skeptic: That's still not enough! I demand they look for DC! > > Response: They now say they did. > > Skeptic: I want to know what the cable and the waveform looks like! And > the powder! > > Response: Why? That cannot possibly effect the outcome. > > Skeptic: I say it can! Besides, it isn't enough to confirm the heat. I > demand a theory! A theory I can believe . . . > > Etc. etc., ad nauseum. > > - Jed > >
