For the extraordinary claims made these seven should have been skeptical, ruthlessly so yet I've suggested just the most obvious questions that could have been and should have been asked but weren't.
If the argument is that it was a simple power in, power out test they couldn't know the answer to either without a full examination of the e-cat and it's parts, something not done or even questioned.
“10,000 times the energy density of gas” is certainly an extraordinary claim but the extraordinary proof isn't there.
“FAR more inspection went on that was included in the written report.”
Since it wasn't in the report it's not part of the claimed verification and therefore not pertinent to the claims made, the report is what is being offered up as proof.
And that goes to the question of independence. It was Rossi’s test not theirs, and why anyone concerned with the integrity of their reputation would any way associate them selves with a convicted con man is beyond understanding.
If the argument is that it was a simple power in, power out test they couldn’t know the answer to either without a full examination of the e-cat and it’s parts,
***100% hogwash. You measure power at the input, and power at the output. Power In , Power Out. You do not have to know the internal contents any more than you need to know the internal contents of a simple resistor. You just measure it.
something not done or even questioned.
***Because it is not needed.
“10,000 times the energy density of gas” is certainly an extraordinary claim but the extraordinary proof isn’t there.
***Then run through the energy density calculations yourself. If you measure a resistor and it’s 1Wattin, 28 degreesC out, compared to another resistor that’s 1WattIn, 280degreesC out, then the 2nd resistor has 10X the energy density of the first. Similar if you measure a volume of White Phosphorous or any other chemical. Pick the highest energy-density chemical and compare it to these 7 scientists’ results.
It was Rossi’s test not theirs,
***Rossi wasn’t even there for the bulk of the tests.
and why anyone concerned with the integrity of their reputation would any way associate them selves with a convicted con man is beyond understanding.
***The source of the problem is also the source of the solution. Rossi obviously has character issues, and these 7 scientists knew that going in. So they were extra careful with triple-checking their results. Wouldn’t you?
No, actually it does not. That statement keeps coming up, but it is simply NOT TRUE. This has been rehashed so many times that it is ludicrous that people keep bringing it up.
"For the extraordinary claims made these seven should have been skeptical, ruthlessly so yet I've suggested just the most obvious questions that could have been and should have been asked but weren't."
No, YOU are assuming that they didn't get asked. That kind of scrutiny is not what shows up in a paper. If you will take the time to read some of the background interviews, you will find that those questions WERE asked, or investigated, or looked into by one or more of the validators.
"If the argument is that it was a simple power in, power out test they couldn't know the answer to either without a full examination of the e-cat and it's parts, something not done or even questioned."
Which was made. The ONLY things they didn't have access to were the inside of the catalyst chamber, and the drive circuit. In the case of the catalyst chamber, the volume is simply too small to contain ANY chemical source that would yield the output energy over the time period tested. In the case of the drive circuitry, the input voltage and current were measured, and with more than one technique.
"“10,000 times the energy density of gas” is certainly an extraordinary claim but the extraordinary proof isn't there."
Again....not so.
"Since it wasn't in the report it's not part of the claimed verification and therefore not pertinent to the claims made, the report is what is being offered up as proof."
The written report covers what they measured. It is not the place where summaries of all the other places and things will be given. And no scientist would put it there.
"And that goes to the question of independence. It was Rossi’s test not theirs, and why anyone concerned with the integrity of their reputation would any way associate them selves with a convicted con man is beyond understanding.
No, the test was the Swedish utility group's. They paid the investigators. They paid the travel. They paid the expenses. None of that was funded by Rossi. The only thing Rossi did was make his device available to them.