The testers has no access to anything inside the reactor or any access to its IP. The opinion of the testers that these wires are Inconel could be wrong. The wires could well be tungsten or one of its alloys.
There is a boatload of assumption being made about this test that is detrimental to analysis. On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Robert Lynn < robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > It seems clear that the thermography is way off - because the built in > inconel heater wires would fail at <1350°C. (The peak temp from > thermography is 1412°C). And the wires would necessarily be much hotter > than the external surface of the reactor - if they are wound tightly around > an inner core with little or no conductive contact with outer shell then > that outer shell will only be around 1000°C and there will have been little > or no LENR output. > > Until or unless that can be explained satisfactorily the rest of the test > results are nothing but castles in the air. > > On 14 October 2014 09:06, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> >>> Ø The previous message I quoted from you was definitely an accusation >>> of fraud in the calorimetry: "No one would ever use an IR camera in this >>> situation unless they have the intent to deceive." >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course I meant it - in the context that they received intense >>> criticism for doing this in the previous report, and yet they went ahead >>> and did it anyway without any additional concern for the accuracy – as was >>> clearly the problem before. >>> >>> >>> >>> Callous disregard for the truth is tantamount to intent. >>> >> >> Oh, okay. Now you are back to saying the calorimetry was callous >> disregard for the truth tantamount to fraud. I thought you agreed with >> Brian Ahern and his expert friend. Okay, that was 6 hours ago and you have >> flip-flopped again. >> >> >> >>> As for libel, I would love to enter “discovery” with this Levi and his >>> group. Bring it on. >>> >> >> I meant that libel here is bad form. A million people on the Internet >> attack Rossi and Levi with unfounded BS. But we are not supposed to do that >> here. Especially not when you have zero evidence he has done anything >> wrong, and no reason to think he would do anything wrong -- other than your >> own private scientific theory that his results are impossible. >> >> I have been hearing people say "this is impossible so it must be fraud" >> since 1989. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Ø By the way, as far as I know Rossi had no say in design of this >>> experiment. The decision to "use an IR camera in the situation" was made by >>> Levi et al. >>> >>> >>> >>> And do you know that Levi has received no financial remuneration or >>> promise of future funding from this work ? It would be a huge surprise if >>> he had not. >>> >> >> Ah, so he is on the take. And when Levi destroys his own reputation by >> putting in fake ash, or using an IR camera knowing it is the wrong choice, >> this will help Rossi and Levi . . . how again? Never mind. I am sure you >> have an elaborate conspiracy theory. We don't need the details. Anyway, in >> 6 hours you will have a different theory. >> >> >> >>> In short - all you really know is that you want this grossly deficient >>> paper to transform into rock-solid proof of LENR, whether it is compromised >>> or not… >>> >>> >>> >>> This isotope analysis stinks, and if it goes down, so can the rest of it. >>> >> >> Ah, so the calorimetry is fraud -- again -- because you are convinced the >> mass spectrometry is. Or no, it isn't fraud, but the "rest of it" um . . . >> "can go down." Because if Rossi committed fraud with fake ashes that means >> we cannot trust the calorimetry performed by other people when Rossi was >> absent. Because . . . because . . . we can't! We just can't. Rossi has >> magical ESP and he can change IR camera readings in the dead of night from >> another continent. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
