and that water flow calorimetry is required... (heard it too). so there is no way to please them. that is on purpose.
exhausting. 2013/5/20 Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > Debunkers will say water flow calorimetry conceals a trick. > Harry > > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:31 PM, David L Babcock > <ol...@rochester.rr.com>wrote: > >> There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the >> big thing here is, why bother? >> >> They get a torrent of heat, *easily* shown by IR to be far, far more >> than any that accepted science can explain away, and you want that last >> decimal place? >> >> The question that was answered is, *is it real*? The answer is binary, >> two-state, accuracy is not a factor. >> >> But I think what you are really saying is that somehow hot water trumps >> IR, in the gut perhaps. It's not separated from common sense basement >> engineering by several exponential equations. And I think you are right in >> this, at least for a portion of the (persuadable) critics. >> >> Ol' Bab >> >> >> >> On 5/20/2013 12:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: >> >> But the main issue - why they did not perform water flow calorimetry? >> That is a major question that needs to be answered after all of these >> months. Instead of removing doubts, which they could have done with water >> flow - they merely added more doubts. >> >> >
