Again. That is SCIENTIFIC proof. There are other kinds of proof.
And, in point of fact, several scientists, using different test equipment, at different labs, HAVE reproduced the overall phenomenon. So that meaning is OUT.
The only proof that remains is whether Rossi's specific gizmo works as he says.
"This is another "Rossi said" moments that you are willing to implicitly trust.
Sorry....wrong. I trust DATA, not Rossi. You and those like you always discount that there are other people making observations during the tests. People with very relevant expertise and background. So it's not a question of "implicit trust" in Rossi.
"Given Rossi's shady past, the parts of this story we know are phony (his degrees, the nonexistent people on his so called Board of Advisors, the Florida factory that turned out to be a 5th floor apartment, and so on ad nauseum), it's ridiculous to trust Rossi at all.
Blah, blah, blah. Stop wasting my time with this crap. The only thing that matters here is that the equipment exists, is being tested, and data exists about it.
Again. That is SCIENTIFIC proof. There are other kinds of proof.Sorry, I don't accept the "ex-con claims" type of "proof".
And, in point of fact, several scientists, using different test equipment, at different labs, HAVE reproduced the overall phenomenon. So that meaning is OUT.Most of them are working with completely different reactions, and none of them have Rossi's "secret" catalyst to test, so your statement is false.
To the best of my knowledge, no one doing legitimate LENR research is rushing their gadgets to market. Rossi is the only one acting like a late-night infomercial.
You and those like you always discount that there are other people making observations during the tests. People with very relevant expertise and background. So it's not a question of "implicit trust" in Rossi.Using Rossi's test equipment, installed by Rossi, and allegedly calibrated by Rossi. Even then, Rossi has limited what they were allowed to witness. Any half-compentent magician could do better than Rossi has done.
Blah, blah, blah. Stop wasting my time with this crap.Wow! You really got me there. I am shattered by the power of your argument.
OK, I won't bother you any more. It's clear that you are unable to argue your position effectively.
On another thread, weren’t you the one claiming that you could “characterize” Rossi’s device with just two thermocouples? I don’t recall where you ever explained to the class just how you would do that, Professor.
Since you’re talking about data, mind telling us now?