Hold on boys. Essen and Kullander didn't do any testing. They were passive observers. They brought no equipment. They also reported a lot of things told to them by Rossi as fact, of which they had no direct evidence.
Check out their report. They report the power input as 500 Watts in their energy calculations. Why? Because the band heater was imprinted with "500W". Their report did not consist of a carefully presented set of facts and statements, but inferences and and heresay. Their subsequent statements in interview were just as informal and imaginative. On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > At 06:26 PM 7/12/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> [KRIVIT] Professors Sven Kullander, retired from Uppsala University, and >> Hanno Essén, with the Royal Institute of Technology, endorsed Rossi’s >> claimed technology in a news story on Feb. 23, 2011, before they had seen or >> inspected the device. Essén is the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics >> Association, a nonprofit education group well-known in academic circles. >> > > Krivit's statement is astounding. It is either terribly confused or an >> outrageous lie. What could he be thinking?!? >> > > Krivit thinks? > > Seriously, Krivit is just doing what Krivit has long done: do some kind of > investigation, form an opinion, then report from the perspective of that > opinion. It can then affect his wording and what he says in ways that he > might not notice, since he believes his own story. > > Jed, it's not "terribly confused," it is just a "possible" error. Lots of > people have made mistakes about Rossi. It's a set-up for making mistakes! > > Nevertheless, this report from Kullander and Essen could be interpreted > quite in line with what Krivit is claiming: > > http://www.nyteknik.se/**nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/**article3111124.ece<http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3111124.ece> > > The issue would be whether or not this report was an "endorsement." > > Some people might claim that E&K did not do adequate testing, or that >> their methods were not good enough to support their conclusions. That is a >> legitimate difference of opinion. But it is clear that they themselves think >> these tests are sufficient to support the level of endorsement they made in >> NyTeknik. It is 100% clear that they did the tests first, then endorsed. >> Their endorsement was not unconditional. They left plenty of wiggle room for >> themselves in case Rossi turns out to be wrong. As they should; as any >> academic scientist would. >> > > What I see is Kullander and Essen believing what they were told, and > reporting it as fact. It's quite possible that they hedged their comments, > but Lewan didn't report that. The February 23 article cited can be seen as > showing "endorsement" prior to their visit March 29. > > Scientists are not accustomed to thinking someone might be telling them > things that are grossly distorted. So, for example, the factory is reported > as a fact, without attribution, "according to...." > > I'm puzzled by something, by the behavior of Kullander, Essen, and Lewen. > There have been some serious objections to their prior reports, such as the > apparent assumption that a relative humidity meter can be used to measure > steam quality, and the neglect of the possibility that water overflow would > be occurring, could actually be expected -- unless some feedback mechanism > is operating, which involves varying power to exactly match the allegedly > constant water flow -- but they have not responded or clarified their > observations or possible errors. > > The silence of Kullander and Essen is then used by Rossi, who is claiming > that these "university professors" have validated his work. > > Are they being silent? Or have I just missed more recent comments? >
