On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:06 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
Eric. There is not the faintest question that if Rossi had one tenth of > what he claims, he could eventually persuade Tom Clarke and any scientist > with any integrity through a series of rigorous tests. > > AA. Oh yes? Fleischmann and Pons produced excess heat and that is not > acknowledged to this very day. > Fleischmann and Pons were talking about small COPs. Rossi has claims of a COP of anywhere between 2.6 and 50. There's a world of difference there. Pons and Fleischmann, even with their more modest claims, were able to persuade the likes of Julian Schwinger and Brian Josephson to take a look. I am less pessimistic than you are about Rossi's prospects before a jury of fair-minded scientists, if he has anything near what he claims. > Eric, we have hints that there is a case that he sought to defraud IH. > His not allowing IH's expert to see the customer area will not look good to > the court. If anyone is able to substantiate his claim that IH signed away > the right to see that area, that would add substance to this particular > question. > > AA. How many times do I have to repeat it? It should NOT be necessary to > see where the generated heat is dissipated in order to measure the output > of the 1 MW plant. The ERV was the independent judge and you ignore him. > Remember it was Rossi that took IH to court not the other way around. > You are free to repeat anything as many times as you like. It doesn't make it any more reasonable. Jed's point is manifestly cogent. You ignore it to your own discredit. As to the matter of the ERV and his report, this is ultimately a legal question rather than a technical question, given what we know of the absurd circumstances of the test. And my bets are on Jones Day with regard to any legal questions. Eric
