Mary Yugo wrote:
All the essential parts of the method for measuring power input and enthalpy were provided entirely by Rossi. It's true that some thermometers and in a few instances AC power meters were provided by the visitors. Those devices were a trivial part of the methodology.
What does this mean? For the liquid water tests, those devices plus the flow measurement are the entire method. That's all there is. There are are only three parameters.
Nobody could reasonably suggest that Rossi would have cheated with those measurements. It would have been too high risk.
In that case cheating is ruled out.
But the erroneous method of evaporation of water was used for those demonstrations to measure enthalpy.
You think it is erroneous, but I do not know any experts who agree. In any case, with other tests the water was in liquid state.
[The megawatt test] was so suspicious that AP's reporter never even published a report!
I would call it "inconclusive" or "unrevealing" rather than "suspicious." If this was suspicious so is every trade-show demonstration
The point that needs to be made is that Rossi's E-cat has NEVER been properly and independently tested.
Actually it has been independently tested several times, by Ampenergo and others, but these tests have not been published.
Please do not claim that Ampernergo's tests were not independent. They were made before Ampenergo decided to invest. Rossi only allows independent tests by people who want to invest in the company or buy equipment. This is a reasonable policy from a business point of view. It is frustrating for the rest of us who are not doing business with him.
The point is, everyone who tests ends up in some sort of business relationship, as an investor or customer, except when the machine does not work, as in the NASA tests. So if you eliminate people who did not have a relationship _before_ the test, you eliminate everyone but the people who went there and saw it do nothing.
As I said before, the fact that it did not work in several tests indicates that it is probably not fraud. If it was fake, why not not make it appear to work every time? The people who saw it work are no less technically capable as the NASA observers. They are likely to detect fraud as anyone. Some of them went several times, and saw it fail repeatedly before it finally worked.
- Jed
