Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:38 AM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Mark Iverson wrote:

1) In Galantini's report, it is clear that he was looking at 
several different sensors.
2) I seriously doubt that the RH sensor would physically fit in the 
opening where the outlet

temperature sensor is located.


It fits in a different port. You can see it in some of the photos.

3) Thus, you are very likely mistaken when you state that he is 
removing the temperature sensor to

determine if it is dry.


He said he did this. Abd thinks removing it would wipe it dry, but 
the probes I have seen are tapered, with the plug that seals it shut 
being the widest part, so I do not think this would be a problem.


He didn't say which probe he used.


Did Galantini remove the outlet hose in order to make the RH measurements?

No, he fit the probe into a port in the hose.


In the hose? You sure?

In the hose, if there is overflow water, it would be atomized, my 
theory. There would be, near the E-cat, no coagulated liquid water, 
even if steam qualtiy is quite low, perhaps as low as 5%. 

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:04 AM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Essentially, depending on the thermometer being wet to inform the 
observer of the lack of water is foolish.


No, it isn't. Galantini knows what he is doing. The probe would be 
wet because these probes are tapered. The plug that seals it is 
wider than the probe itself.


Great. What happens when the probe is removed? Does steam spray out?

Jed, you have reliable information about the flowing water test? 
How do you know whether he left it alone or not?


I don't know if it is reliable or not, but here is what they told 
me. It lasted 18-hours, which is most of a day. They did not babysit 
it the entire time. They went home, leaving a video camera to watch 
the instruments overnight.


I understand the video was on the water meter. The rest could be 
recorded with the computer, I'd think.



Elsewhere you wrote:


Jed, if you could not see the boiling, how could you judge the level?


By the sound and temperature.


You can't tell the level from the temperature, until the water really 
runs out. Sure, you might become familiar with the sound, but how? We 
become familiar when we have an observation to match. I.e., we see 
the level, we hear the sound. Rossi would only have the sound.


Sure, you can speculate that he did this or that, so he knew. Maybe 
he did. But, Jed, this was to be a demonstration to show the thing. 
What did he show?


 I can estimate the water level in my miniature steam engine boiler 
by similar means. It has a window but when the water level is high 
or low you cannot see it. An experienced cook can judge the water 
level in a pot by sound, for example with a pot of vegetables being 
steamed, with just a little water at the bottom.


Granted, this is a complicated way of doing things. The Defalion 
reactors reportedly have a primary cooling loop with glycol or some 
other liquid with a high boiling point. Water going into the 
secondary loop in the heat exchanger boils.


Yes. I want to remind everyone that I do *not* have a belief that 
there is no excess heat in the Rossi device. I've come to a 
conclusion that he has exaggerated and possibly sometimes falsified 
his results, which might relate to unreliability, which is a serious 
problem. I simply have concluded that, for various reasons, the 
demonstrations and claims are not convincing. They could possibly be 
made convincing. 

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Iverson wrote:


1) In Galantini's report, it is clear that he was looking at several different 
sensors.
2) I seriously doubt that the RH sensor would physically fit in the opening 
where the outlet
temperature sensor is located.


It fits in a different port. You can see it in some of the photos.


3) Thus, you are very likely mistaken when you state that he is removing the 
temperature sensor to
determine if it is dry.


He said he did this. Abd thinks removing it would wipe it dry, but the 
probes I have seen are tapered, with the plug that seals it shut being 
the widest part, so I do not think this would be a problem.




Did Galantini remove the outlet hose in order to make the RH measurements?

No, he fit the probe into a port in the hose.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Essentially, depending on the thermometer being wet to inform the 
observer of the lack of water is foolish. 


No, it isn't. Galantini knows what he is doing. The probe would be wet 
because these probes are tapered. The plug that seals it is wider than 
the probe itself.



Jed, you have reliable information about the flowing water test? How 
do you know whether he left it alone or not?


I don't know if it is reliable or not, but here is what they told me. It 
lasted 18-hours, which is most of a day. They did not babysit it the 
entire time. They went home, leaving a video camera to watch the 
instruments overnight.



Elsewhere you wrote:


Jed, if you could not see the boiling, how could you judge the level?


By the sound and temperature. I can estimate the water level in my 
miniature steam engine boiler by similar means. It has a window but when 
the water level is high or low you cannot see it. An experienced cook 
can judge the water level in a pot by sound, for example with a pot of 
vegetables being steamed, with just a little water at the bottom.


Granted, this is a complicated way of doing things. The Defalion 
reactors reportedly have a primary cooling loop with glycol or some 
other liquid with a high boiling point. Water going into the secondary 
loop in the heat exchanger boils.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Mark Iverson]

Abd wrote:
"You are, however, assuming that Galantini could tell that the chimney had no 
liquid water in it at
the level of the thermometer, because he withdrew the probe and "observed that 
it was dry." 
[deleted sentence]
"Has it occurred to you that steam doesn't come out of the thermometer port 
when the thermometer is
removed? Do you realize what this is telling us about the internal details 
there? This port must be
designed to seal, I'm suspecting. It will "wipe off" the thermometer when it is 
removed. Even if it
did not do this, the thermometer is above boiling, and is designed not to hold 
water, I suspect, the
water will not remain on it, it will be at most a very thin film and it will 
immediately vaporize
when removed, before the hot thermometer can cool."

That might be valid reasoning IF that is the sensor that Galantini was 
referring to, HOWEVER, I
doubt it was... 

1) In Galantini's report, it is clear that he was looking at several different 
sensors.
2) I seriously doubt that the RH sensor would physically fit in the opening 
where the outlet
temperature sensor is located.
3) Thus, you are very likely mistaken when you state that he is removing the 
temperature sensor to
determine if it is dry.  However, he would NEED to check for condensation on 
the RH sensor, as I did
when testing my RH sensor at home... This also verifies that the water level in 
the chimney has not
risen.

CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THE FOLLOWING:

Did Galantini remove the outlet hose in order to make the RH measurements?
   (from which he gets the g/m^3 measurement for mass of evaporated water).
If not, then where did he insert the RH probe?

-Mark

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:39 PM 8/9/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jouni Valkonen 
<jounivalko...@gmail.com> wrote:


When Galantini observed the test, they had large version of E-Cat that
can store large quantities, perhaps several liters of water, before it
starts overflowing.


When I am cooking, I can stop a pot from boiling dry whether it is 
large or small. It is not difficult at all.


Jed, if you could not see the boiling, how could you judge the level?




This also means that ictu oculi is very unreliable
way to make reliable confirmation.


He withdrew the probe and looked at it. It was dry. It would wet if 
there was water flowing through the machine.


How do you know this? Have you considered the nature of the 
thermometer port, do you know how it is constructed. And what would 
the temperature of the thermometer be? Wouldn't it be above ambient 
boiling. When the pressure is relieved for any water on the surface 
of the thermometer, my expecation would be that it would immediately vaporize.



 This is very reliable; anyone can see if an object is wet or dry.


Sure. By the time he looked at it, it was dry. Jed, you have the 
imagination of a slug.


Am I certain that I'm right about a thermometer like that? Of course 
not! But it's what I'd expect. I'll try something tomorrow and tell 
you about it.


I'm worried about the thermometer port. Pulling the thermometer out 
while the E-cat was running lots of steam, if it doesn't have some 
way of closing itself, would very possibly scald the one pulling the 
thermometer out. Nobody has reported steam coming out of the 
thermometer port. I think it collapses, closes, when the thermometer 
is withdrawn. I was worried that if there were overflow water, it 
might come out that port. But apparently it, and steam, don't.

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:47 PM 8/9/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jouni Valkonen 
<jounivalko...@gmail.com> wrote:


And if we look Rossi's presentation when he did "calculations" he 
treated Krivit's audience like he would assume that Krivit was doing 
journalism to some tabloid news paper(!).



That is nonsense. The calculations were perfectly correct. They were 
straight from any chemistry or physics textbook. There was nothing 
odd about them. They were not simplified, if that is what you mean.


There are two problems I know of with those calculations: the 
assumption of full vaporization, which is almost certainly off by 
about 5% and which could be off by much more. And he used the wrong 
voltage. Standard is 230 V, not 220. Really, it should have been measured.


I do not know why you put the word "calculations" in quotes, as if 
this is somehow incorrect. You could include more terms to compute 
the heat balance with more precision, but the method Rossi used was 
a good first approximation. There has been a lot of speculation here 
that you have to include a measurement to ensure the steam is dry, 
but according to every expert and every textbook, that is incorrect. 
No such term is needed; it is safe to assume no more than 10% wetness.


Normally. Overflow water completely whacks that assumption. I'm also 
willing to bet that one could design a boiler that would produce very 
wet steam. I'd think 50% would be easy to reach, and probably over 95% wet. 

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:01 AM 8/9/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The "overflowing water" hypothesis does not apply to the flowing 
water test, and it is definitely wrong for the tests observed by 
Galantini. He removed the probe and observed that it was dry. So 
Rossi can control the water level in the cell and keep it from 
overflowing. That does not surprise me. I can do the same thing 
easily in the kitchen, at the speed the water level changes with these systems.


Jed, you make hosts of assumptions and don't seem to be aware of 
them. But first, let's get one thing out of the way.


What "overflowing water hypothesis"? That there is water flowing. Of 
course that applies to the "flowing water test," it's *all overflow 
water.* But what you mean is that it doesn't account for the reported 
heat, because there is, in the 18-hour test, not enough heat to raise 
the temperature of the water more than about five degrees. It's a huge flow


The "overflow water hypothesis" is merely that there is, even in the 
steam tests, some water overflowing that isn't vaporized.


This is distinct from the wet steam issue. Steam could be quite wet 
from processes inside the E-cat, that's a huge unknown. I'm 
unconvinced by any of the "expert" argument on this, because 
"experts" sometimes will speculate and not tell you the nature of the 
speculation. They may state as a fact some assumption from their 
experience, which can be normally sensible, but which will break down 
when circumstances are different than they expect.


But "overflow water" does require that the water level in the E-cat 
reaches the outlet.


You are, however, assuming that Galantini could tell that the chimney 
had no liquid water in it at the level of the thermometer, because he 
withdrew the probe and "observed that it was dry." Perhaps you recall 
that the temperature was above boiling at ambient pressure. Has it 
occurred to you that steam doesn't come out of the thermometer port 
when the thermometer is removed? Do you realize what this is telling 
us about the internal details there? This port must be designed to 
seal, I'm suspecting. It will "wipe off" the thermometer when it is 
removed. Even if it did not do this, the thermometer is above 
boiling, and is designed not to hold water, I suspect, the water will 
not remain on it, it will be at most a very thin film and it will 
immediately vaporize when removed, before the hot thermometer can cool.


Essentially, depending on the thermometer being wet to inform the 
observer of the lack of water is foolish. There is a much simpler 
way, but they didn't do it.


Since Rossi was able to keep the thing from overflowing when 
Galantini observed the tests, why do you think he was unable to do 
this when Krivit was watching the test? Do you think he let it 
overflow deliberately? Why would he do the test two different ways?


He didn't. You are assuming that the tests were different. 
Galantini's observation is not reliable, it was naive. Do remember, 
Jed, he is apparently *not* any kind of expert in steam.


During the flowing water test he was able to leave the cell alone 
without adjusting the output because overflow was not an issue.


Jed, you have reliable information about the flowing water test? How 
do you know whether he left it alone or not?

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Joe Catania]

Galantini's observations are of little consequence if he did not observe the
very forceful flow of steam out of the E-Cat that would be necessary to
correlate with numbers Rossi gives for heat production.  No such
observations have been made wrt the vidoes presented. In fact, the
emanations look extraordinarily weak.

- Original Message - 
From: "Jed Rothwell" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when 
others are indisputably real?




Jouni Valkonen wrote:


I guess, you missed my point. When Galantini observed ictu oculi, the
E-Cat was not yet overflowing, because it may take several tens of
minutes if not hours before water level rises enough to start
overflowing . .


Ah. I see what you mean. However, he says he checked several times. So we 
can be sure that during the times he did check, it was not overflowing. It 
was also producing excess heat during those times. So if it produces real 
excess heat when it is not overflowing, there is no reason to think it 
would not produce heat even if it did, later, overflow, or during a 
flowing water test.


I do not think it overflows, but even if it does, that does not preclude 
real heat. I suppose it would reduce the amount of heat, as Abd says. It 
would also prevent steam from coming out of the end of the hose, as Storms 
says. Therefore I doubt it is happening.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

Anyways, I see that it is absolutely impossible for Rossi to control
> anomalous cold fusion reaction so that it would match exactly with the
> water inflow rate, because I think that even 5% variation in heat
> output would cause drastic change of steam temperature . . .


No, it would just reduce or increase the steam production by about 5%. The
temperature is always the same at 1 atm.

The only difficulty is knowing how full the container is. Since Rossi has
been working with these things for years I expect he can tell by the sound
and temperature, just as an experienced cook can estimate how much water is
in a pot of boiling water.

With an old-fashioned steam locomotive, the engineer would increase and
decrease production of steam by opening dampers or stirring the coal. Rossi
can apparently tweak the power level with analogous methods.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/8/9 Jed Rothwell :
> I do not think it overflows, but even if it does, that does not preclude
> real heat. I suppose it would reduce the amount of heat, as Abd says. It
> would also prevent steam from coming out of the end of the hose, as Storms
> says. Therefore I doubt it is happening.
>
It depends on the ratio of vaporized steam. As I have guessed that
rational ratio for steam and hot water is around 60-80%. With this
vaporization rate, it may take up to two hours before E-Cat is
starting to overflow.

Anyways, I see that it is absolutely impossible for Rossi to control
anomalous cold fusion reaction so that it would match exactly with the
water inflow rate, because I think that even 5% variation in heat
output would cause drastic change of steam temperature, if E-Cat would
produce 100% quality steam. But core must always be completely filled
with liquid water, and if this is the case, steam temperature is
always at the local boiling point. This means that water inflow rate
must be higher than average steaming power of E-Cat. There is just
absolutely no way to overcome this issue.

The heating element in water boiler must always be filled with water,
and because water inflow rate is fixed, this means that it must be
adjusted beforehand at the level that is more than average steaming
power. Therefore we must use different means to deduce the real heat
output, and as I have suggested, assuming large amounts of steam to be
cause for over pressure inside E-Cat is the most sound assumption, and
it may lead reliable calculations, because temperature measurement is
accurate.

- Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen wrote:


I guess, you missed my point. When Galantini observed ictu oculi, the
E-Cat was not yet overflowing, because it may take several tens of
minutes if not hours before water level rises enough to start
overflowing . .


Ah. I see what you mean. However, he says he checked several times. So 
we can be sure that during the times he did check, it was not 
overflowing. It was also producing excess heat during those times. So if 
it produces real excess heat when it is not overflowing, there is no 
reason to think it would not produce heat even if it did, later, 
overflow, or during a flowing water test.


I do not think it overflows, but even if it does, that does not preclude 
real heat. I suppose it would reduce the amount of heat, as Abd says. It 
would also prevent steam from coming out of the end of the hose, as 
Storms says. Therefore I doubt it is happening.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/8/9 Jed Rothwell :
> Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
>
>> This also means that ictu oculi is very unreliable
>> way to make reliable confirmation.
>
> He withdrew the probe and looked at it. It was dry. It would wet if there
> was water flowing through the machine. This is very reliable; anyone can see
> if an object is wet or dry.
>

I guess, you missed my point. When Galantini observed ictu oculi, the
E-Cat was not yet overflowing, because it may take several tens of
minutes if not hours before water level rises enough to start
overflowing, depending what fraction of inflow water is vaporized.
Therefore ictu oculi is not reliable method in 45 min demonstration.
But it needs other supporting evidence. And we have absolutely none.

This does not mean that it supports that E-Cat is a fake. No, it only
means that ictu oculi is scientifically irrelevant observation here,
and it tells next to nothing what fraction of water was vaporized.


>> [speculation] My interpretation for the June E-Cat is that Rossi did
>> not show Krivit a working E-Cat, but only version where was only
>> electric heater active(!).
>
> Assuming the machine works, why
> would he bother to construct a fake machine?

It is not a fake machine, but normal E-Cat turned off. Perhaps Rossi
just did not want to go all the efforts to set up working E-Cat just
for a 15 min demonstration for a journalist. Would you? In specially,
if you have doubts that particular journalist is a snake? However this
was not the case with Mats Lewan, whose E-Cat worked as it should. And
it produced around 2kW excess heat.


> What would be Rossi's motive?
> Not only is there no conceivable advantage to showing a fake one, it could
> easily cause problems. Krivit or some other observer might detect a fake
> machine, after all.

Thats the point of this speculation. Rossi wanted to discredit
himself! Because he set up a dummy demonstration for very critical
observer. And for sure, Rossi has followed more than 22 years cold
fusion research, he knew everything how scientifically rigorous Steven
is, and Rossi was absolutely sure that Krivit will rise huge complaint
about the claims. But here we can only guess the real motive for
Rossi.

> The calculations were perfectly correct.

Point was how the calculations were presented. Correctness here is
irrelevant not least, because they were based on various non-measured
assumptions such as that the voltage was assumed to be 220V (although
it probably was more close to 235V).

- Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> And if we look Rossi's presentation when he did "calculations" he
> treated Krivit's audience like he would assume that Krivit was
> doing journalism to some tabloid news paper(!).


That is nonsense. The calculations were perfectly correct. They were
straight from any chemistry or physics textbook. There was nothing odd about
them. They were not simplified, if that is what you mean.

I do not know why you put the word "calculations" in quotes, as if this is
somehow incorrect. You could include more terms to compute the heat balance
with more precision, but the method Rossi used was a good first
approximation. There has been a lot of speculation here that you have to
include a measurement to ensure the steam is dry, but according to every
expert and every textbook, that is incorrect. No such term is needed; it is
safe to assume no more than 10% wetness.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> When Galantini observed the test, they had large version of E-Cat that
> can store large quantities, perhaps several liters of water, before it
> starts overflowing.


When I am cooking, I can stop a pot from boiling dry whether it is large or
small. It is not difficult at all.



> This also means that ictu oculi is very unreliable
> way to make reliable confirmation.


He withdrew the probe and looked at it. It was dry. It would wet if there
was water flowing through the machine. This is very reliable; anyone can see
if an object is wet or dry.


[speculation] My interpretation for the June E-Cat is that Rossi did
> not show Krivit a working E-Cat, but only version where was only
> electric heater active(!).


I do not think there is any way he could have fooled Levi et al. with a fake
machine. They worked with it for a month. Assuming the machine works, why
would he bother to construct a fake machine? What would be the point? What
would be Rossi's motive? Either all of the demonstrations are fake, or they
are likely all real.

Not only is there no conceivable advantage to showing a fake one, it could
easily cause problems. Krivit or some other observer might detect a fake
machine, after all.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/8/9 Jed Rothwell :
> Since Rossi was able to keep the thing from overflowing when Galantini
> observed the tests, why do you think he was unable to do this when Krivit
> was watching the test?

When Galantini observed the test, they had large version of E-Cat that
can store large quantities, perhaps several liters of water, before it
starts overflowing. This also means that ictu oculi is very unreliable
way to make reliable confirmation. And as we already knew, Galantini
did not measure E-Cat's internal pressure, but he measured only the
room pressure.

It is obvious that Krivit's E-Cat was overflowing, if there was 7 kg/h
flow rate, because if all water would evaporate, temperature would be
more than 101°C due to steam pressure. But even more probable it is
that actual water inflow rate was something like 2 kg/h or even less.
Little pincer in the inlet hose can reduce the inflow rate, as pump
operates only in 300 kilopascal pressure.

[speculation] My interpretation for the June E-Cat is that Rossi did
not show Krivit a working E-Cat, but only version where was only
electric heater active(!). After all many people have requested a
control experiment, where E-Cat runs with electricity only(!). And if
we look Rossi's presentation when he did "calculations" he treated
Krivit's audience like he would assume that Krivit was doing
journalism to some tabloid news paper(!). So I would think that Rossi
has just twisted sense of humor(!). Perhaps he also wanted to
discredit himself, in order to be bothered by press so much.
[/speculation]

- Jouni

[Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> With some tests of the eCat we can rule this out. It seems unlikely to me
>> that it works in some tests but not others.
>>
>
> When we don't have prior experience, we have no basis for prediction.
>

You are multiplying entities unnecessarily. The "overflowing water"
hypothesis does not apply to the flowing water test, and it is definitely
wrong for the tests observed by Galantini. He removed the probe and observed
that it was dry. So Rossi can control the water level in the cell and keep
it from overflowing. That does not surprise me. I can do the same thing
easily in the kitchen, at the speed the water level changes with these
systems.

Since Rossi was able to keep the thing from overflowing when Galantini
observed the tests, why do you think he was unable to do this when Krivit
was watching the test? Do you think he let it overflow deliberately? Why
would he do the test two different ways?

During the flowing water test he was able to leave the cell alone without
adjusting the output because overflow was not an issue.

Elsewhere you wrote:

"Almost certainly, though, there has been some exaggeration, at least."

No, this is not "almost certain." There is not a shred of evidence for
exaggeration. On the contrary, the estimates are conservative. Rossi makes
no effort to account for heat radiated from the machine.

Rossi is a flamboyant person. I think he was shooting off his mouth
yesterday, claiming that Deflaion has never operated a cell. I don't think
they would be quarreling over money if Defkalion had never tested a cell,
because there is no chance Defkalion would be building a factory or holding
a press conference with the Min. of Energy and Rossi himself in attendance
claiming they are testing cells if this were not true. Many of Rossi's
experimental claims are contradictory, such as his statements about
transmutation. However, I do not know of any cases in which he exaggerated
claims about calorimetry, and I do not think he has made large errors or
misstatements about calorimetry. Skeptics here believe he has, but they are
wrong. He knows more about calorimetry than they do.

His methods are, of course, crude. The results are an approximation. He says
so himself.

The demonstration he did for Krivit might easily be faked, with a hidden
wire or something like that. I doubt it is fake, because in previous tests
Levi and others made certain there was no faking, and I can't imagine why
Rossi would fake a test when we know he can do a real test and produce real
heat. Still, this test was not proof of anything. However, Rossi's analysis
during that video on the large piece of paper is correct.

- Jed