a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: No. I meant that if the ERV's instrumentation showed no heat, if the > instrumentation was proper and in good working order, there would be no > need to look further >
The expert wanted to give Rossi every possible opportunity to prove his point, so even though the instrumentation showed no heat, the expert wanted to see the customer site. In point of fact, as I.H. stated in their motion to dismiss, the instrumentation was not proper and not in good working order. Quote: ". . . inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices." In other words, using Rossi's instruments alone you cannot reach a firm conclusion, but the most plausible conclusion is that there is no heat. Rossi's conclusion seems untenable to me, and evidently the I.H. expert thought so too. > I note you now claim to have seen several million bits of data and Rossi's > analysis. Care to share that? > I have been claiming that for some time. But not several million bits. I have seen what I deem a reasonably representative sample suitably summarized in data tables and graphs, as it is in most technical reports. Rossi already shared part of it in the recent Lewan interview. I have the same numbers he gave, plus some additional details and information on the configuration. As I mentioned, the numbers seem suspiciously round to me. Judge for yourself. - Jed
