On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote:
> By the way, I meant all of this advice to apply to the big, 100 kW > reactor. Not the initial test of the single unit. As AG says, it would be > "hard to cock that up." It is a piece of cake. I love that sort of optimism. So do scammers. > By the way, during the Oct. 6 test, I could have ensured there was no > error in the thermocouple placement. I could have done that in 5 minutes. > In my sleep. That's another reason Yugo's question is dumb. Answer #2, who > COULDN'T do that?!? > Apparently Rossi and Lewan didn't seem to correct it. > I went over that issue with him before the test, e-mailing him advice from > various people about how to avoid any question about that, by using > multiple thermocouples. I was mad as hell at Rossi for not doing it, and > he got pretty upset with me for > telling him. That was another in a long series of sloppy mistakes on his > part. He has been doing stuff like that for years. It is terribly annoying! > Annoying or deliberately misleading? How would you know which it is? > If he did not have such high heat lasting far longer than any possible > chemical effect, his results would be unconvincing. As I have said before, > you can toss out all instrument readings from all thermocouples and still > be sure of these results. > Sure. Let's out instruments and use our fallible senses and fallible pattern recognition. Let's go back to the alchemists' methods perhaps. > These results are *not* dependent on instruments. I think Rossi > fundamentally does not trust instruments. He says he wants an effect so > large you do not need them. > He has never shown such an effect. The October 28 demo showed no steam at all and earlier demos mostly showed a piddling amount or it was all sent literally to a hole in Rossi's wall.
