(Accidentally sent to John Milstone's personal email address.) I wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:22 AM, John Milstone <john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com>wrote: > > There are at least 9 or 10 problems with the report: >> > > In order to appreciate the report as being potentially interesting, one > must assume good faith on the part of Rossi. If one assumes fraud or the > likelihood of fraud, we are led down the path of the issues you raise. > That gets to the purpose of the test and of the testers -- one presumes > the test was not intended to sway people who assume bad faith on the part > of Rossi. If it was intended for that, it is clear that it would have been > quite ineffective. Instead, the test conducted under conditions that would > not be sufficient to sway skeptics by a team that were funded by ELFORSK, a > Swedish power research consortium. The credentials of the team were > sufficient for ELFORSK, and ELFORSK also did not see the need to assume bad > faith on the part of Rossi. I think many people are willing to extent him > a similar benefit of the doubt, until such generosity becomes untenable. > > >> The only temperature measurements were of the OUTSIDE of the furnace >> which contained both the E-Cat and the conventional electric heaters, >> leaving no way to directly determine how much heat each was providing. >> > > Sometimes you can't separate input coming into the system from generated > heat, so you use calorimetry to measure the input and then subtract it from > the power out. This particular point is only an issue for those who assume > bad faith or the likelihood of bad faith on Rossi's part. > > Eric > That last part about calorimetry came out a little mangled, but the point still applies. Eric
