On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Which liquid water test are you referring to? Rossi's October 6 was objected to in multiple ways, including thermocouple placement, lack of blank calibration, and possibly hidden sources of heat. Levi's experiment was undocumented or improperly documented and he refused multiple requests to repeat it even though such a repeat would have been easy and cheap for him. 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. > Of course not. The whole method of using heat of evaporation as a measurement of enthalpy is fraught with the opportunity of error-- ALL of it in Rossi's favor. > 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. > Which tests were liquid phase and did not have other problems, please? I only know of two for which information (and it's pretty bad information) is available at all. For the vapor phase experiments it's your experts against Krivit's and I know which I believe. And his were partly cited by name and detailed input. Your? Not so much if I remember right. > [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. > I don't know about you but I never believe trade show demonstrations unless they have definitive proof either there or elsewhere. Many are simply silly hype and believing them gets people burned later on. Here's an example of a trade show demo (at the Seventh Annual California Safety and Security Conference in Anaheim, CA in 2006): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlKpEo3_TRY&feature=player_embedded The rest of the story is here: http://sniffextest.blogspot.com/ I've never been able to figure out why the company did those tests with the guy who video'd them. If they had stopped with their demo, it would have been convincing to many and typical of trade show demos. The guy insisted on a double blind test and that was their downfall at the show. BTW, the company's officials and attorneys went on to investigation by the FBI and SEC resulting in a conviction for stock fraud. 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. > It's not just frustrating. It's also non-determinative of anything and not credible in the slightest. That is because Ampenergo has no known factory, and no known staff except the people who provide a single interview, it's web site is nothing but a single uninformative page, and they have never shown anything to anyone who talked about it except maybe you and you're vague and reluctant about it. They are as credible as Defkalion which is not in the least. Also there is some sort of incest between them, Leonardo Corp and Rossi -- I am not sure what and to what extent but it's quite suspicious. 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. > Who exactly is "everyone"? Other than Ampenergo who are related to Rossi and Rossi's friends at the very least, and some perhaps mythical anonymous "customer" alleged to be the U. S. military?! Apparently, Quantum was another invitee who saw nothing along with NASA and Krivit. Yet Rossi's machines always worked for Lewan, K and E, Levi and Focardi and somehow they were shy when someone wanted to do more careful testing than those worthies were able to? Not likely. > > 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. > I suspect that Rossi makes it works when he is pretty certain the illusion or deliberate measurement error or hidden power source, whatever it is, will work and the setup is safe for him considering who's watching. Other than that, it conveniently fails to work. Seems it didn't work when the most likely investors were present but they were also the most likely to do due diligence properly and thoroughly instead of putting up with a brief and contrived "demonstration" almost entirely orchestrated by Rossi.
