Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.
[mg] On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > R. W. Emerson wrote: > > >> "Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you >> that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you >> to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and >> follow it to an end requires courage......Do not go where ever the path >> leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. ....Ralph Waldo >> Emerson >> > > Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not select a method of > calorimetry where is no path! Select a conventional method. The most boring > method you can find, with off-the-shelf instruments and textbook techniques > that no HVAC engineer would quarrel with. > > Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with. > > - Jed > >
