Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The second is however that if it was a mistake, or even a temporary > failure during a demo, and even if the demo was indeed tweaked as Luca > describe, Defkalion had 9 month, in private or in public, to reassure Luca > himself, and why not us. > I agree. They should have given Gamberale the reports from the 12 scientists (assuming those reports exist). When this first happened, I heard there was a problem with flow rate a few days later. I assumed it was a glitch on the day of ICCF18. I figured they would fix it and try again. I posted messages here saying, "they should practice, and then do another public demo." I never imagined they had never done it right! I stopped paying attention and I did not learn that until the Gamberale report came out. > In the case, the case I judge as sign of "huge lack of wisdom", that > despite not answering to luca, Defkalion anyway have a working reactor in > it's lab, it should let Luca test it (even if only calorimetry is allowed, > only but all calorimetry method), or if they don't trust him, let a third > party make a boiler test and inform Luca. > Exactly. > however something irrational, desperate, paranoid, have happened... > whether it was wishful thinking, self-delusion, conspiracy theories, it is > no more our business. > If they make claims in public it is our business to some extent. > A boiler test made by a non physicist team (why not electricians and > plumbers, experience in testing), would give a solid answer and no risk of > IP leak. > Yes! > By the way I feel it is absurd to ask physicist to do calorimetry ... it > is a job of plumbers, electricians, their engineer counter parts, > petrochemist, boiler testers, or at worst of industry chemist. > Yes again, as I pointed out when I referenced Title 10, Part 430. - Jed
