Why do they need answer anything? I can see what's wrong, and there's no need for DGT answer anything. This is what I posted:
Dear Abd, I cannot see significant mistakes in the demo, but I can see that the report was really awful in explaining the compatibility with the demo. And I agree with Andrew his objection. Regarding the report, the first problem was that it measured with neutral Ar and then with H2 and both yield the same high power measure. In the demo, they had different power measures, the one with Ar, was low. Another was back and forth behavior claimed by reading the flux was too regular, it looked like the oscilloscope had been set for square wave, and one of the photos of the oscilloscope apparently had one of scales blanked and the other was set for ms scale (maybe he forgot to blank both). If it was a back and forth movement, it had to be somewhat irregular, not exact like a clock. So, what Gambarele did was a red herring, in my opinion. The test in the end was just, well, not even an event, it was just trying to throw a punch below the belt. I really don't see the problem with the temperature being regular and heat generation being irregular. The heater, that absorbed the radiation, must have some specific heat to smooth out variation. If it hadn't, it would lose heat to convection. The irregularity is due diverting energy (after all, you have to subtract that from the input) to other parts of the systems, which must vary fast, since we have to include the controls and the plasma generation, which is not constant. Regarding the vapor output, well, where did the input water went? This is something that Gambarele does not explain, even if was in re flux, some liquid water would eventually be pushed out. So, the problem would be in taking in measuring the input of water. Or, crippling the thermometer, so that it measured much above boiling point, whereas in fact, it was just around the boiling point, pushing out moisty vapor (both of Rossi's trick). The demo before the 1MW one, I think, it was like this, by placing the thermometer in a way that made the measurement of water or vapor doubtful (I think it was something related to the placement in a T connection). 2014-07-14 14:50 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: > Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not a good liar. No one was able to answer my questions concerning the >>> inconsistencies of the report I pointed out on CMNS. >> >> > I do not recall these questions, but you are not one who needs questions > answered. Defkalion needs to explain why Gamberale is wrong. The president > of Defkalion admitted Gamberale is right, so it is case closed. Why is this > even being discussed? > > - Jed > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
