Daniel Rocha wrote: "My views on this matter are the same as they were one month ago. Still waiting for new information. There is no new pattern here. "
There is no new pattern, but the previous patterns have been elucidated. One too many cards were added to the house of cards, and now it is falling. No longer can one rationally attribute his behavior to being an eccentric inventor. If his reactors work, he need not be shy about allowing any measurement instrument or test. If his patent is accurate, his IP is protected. But as we have seen, there is no high quality or repeatable evidence that his formula works at all based on the patent. On the contrary, hundreds of experiments say it doesn't work at all. What is more likely, that he is hiding some secret ingredient or method or that it doesn't work? Let's consider a scenario. Say you come to my basement lab to see an experimental device that I say is generating 10kw of electricity from 1kw of input. I show you a power meter on the output that reads 10kw. While I walk upstairs to get you a drink, you hook up your own meter and it shows 800w of output. Which meter do you believe? The best explanation is that his behavior is planned and intentional to create the image he wants to project and prevent any objective analysis. This can extend all the way down to salting comments on his blog (and other blogs) to ask questions he wants to answer or to manipulate opinions. It is painfully obvious once you are looking for it. It is a sad thing. There are so many sincere people wishing for a good outcome that could change the world. I'm with them on that, but the solution will not come from an electric heater locked up in Miami or an inventor with devices that are shy about being measured. Jack On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:26 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My views on this matter are the same as they were one month ago. Still >> waiting for new information. There is no new pattern here. There's nothing >> that Rossi did in this test that he had not done before. >> > > So, you have no problem with hiding the customer equipment? You would pay > $89 million without confirming there is industrial equipment back there > that uses 1 MW of process heat? > > And you say this is nothing new? Do I have that right? > > > >> What I think crazy it is that you are bashing Rossi with much more >> emphasis than in the other occasion. >> > > I never had such clear-cut proof that Rossi is either stupid or > fraudulent. In previous tests, he did not allow anyone to take any data or > look closely. In this test, he could not prevent the I.H. people from > looking, although he did stop them from doing the most important test of > all -- examining the customer's equipment. > > > >> A blind test is important to avoid cheats. Like using a thermometer too >> close to the junction of hot water/close waterl. Steam quality and issues >> related to its measurement. Measuring AC currents and hiding extra power in >> the form of a DC form. Calibration of a IR camera and its lack of >> sensibility where sign is stronger. Changing powder in a rather dubious >> way. If both sides see each other as a black box, with arbiter agreed by >> both sides, Penon, to check if they are reading the same power >> output/input, the chance of cheating decreases, since neither won't be able >> to know how the change parameter in order to change reading. >> > > Do I take you are using this word-salad blather as justification for > hiding the customer's machinery? Is that what you mean? > > - Jed > >
