Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: Hats off to Jed. I have to admit, in someways the Defkalion news is > heartening in that it shows you are credible in your ability to accurate > predict who is real and who isn't. You've been warning us al about > Defkalion for quite awhile. >
I cannot take credit for this. I have no special insight. Soon after the demonstration, I heard from various people that the flow rate may not have been measured correctly. Questions were being raised about it, by experts from NI and by others. John Hadjichristos himself acknowledged this. I think he said the flow rate was "inaccurate." He did not say they measured a flow rate of zero as as 1 L/min. That is way beyond "inaccurate." As I recall, I heard the flow rate was too low for the rated capacity of the flow meter. That is a common problem. As you see in the Gambarale report, the rate was low, but the problem was a backflow. I also heard they did not confirm the flow rate by another method, such as collecting liquid water or sparging steam. That's a red flag. I reported some of this here from time to time. I was not keeping it secret. But I did not know the details, and I did not have a definitive report such as Gambarale's. Anyone who would do this test without independently checking the flow rate is either deliberately deceptive or grossly incompetent. I am not going to speculate which applies to Defkalion. Note that the people visiting Rossi always did collect the flowing water to measure it. In one case they used a carafe as I recall. That is inaccurate but the point is to do a reality check, not to make an accurate measurement. If the flowmeter shows 1.16 L/min and you get some number between 0.9 and 1.3 you are good to go. If you collect only 0.5 L, or you collect no water at all (or with steam output you sparge the steam and the temperature of the water in your bucket does not rise) then you know the flowmeter is not working. It is that simple. > If you were right about them, perhaps you are right about Rossi. > > Let's hope so. > I sure hope so. And we have good, objective reasons to think so. The tests performed by Levi were pretty good. People say "Levi is Rossi's friend." He wasn't originally. They became friends *after* Levi confirmed the results. So the friendship does not count. The unpublished tests performed by Ampernergo were also pretty good. I think ELFORSK's tests were excellent. The only weakness was in the input power measurement. Last year they told me they would address this, and I have heard they did. (That's the only thing I have heard about the present tests.) One other reason to have confidence in Rossi's tests -- crude as they are -- is that they have often failed to show any excess heat. They were not false positives. They were flat-out true negatives. Defkalion's test was a false positive. - Jed
