"Your bias is showing again. Goatguy suggested a possible method to scam the results and then you take it as read that that was done. Really?"
It is altogether possible that he was not so clever as GG thinks, as Jed suggests, but could have still taken advantage of the design flaw noted by GG. I hope we get to see the raw data from the very beginning of the test eventually. My speculation previously was that, if the test were to be faked, he would have played around with the variables he could tweak to get the meters to show what he wanted. This would have taken some time, so the closer to the beginning of the test, the more likely you would be to see a COP of 1. We know from Dewey Weaver that the Rascal was caught sneaking the flow meter out by some folks from IH who arrived early for the post-test inspection. Photographs are said to reveal that the serial number of the flow meter used did not match the one used originally. If he had trouble fooling the original meters, he must have had to switch them out. So again, if there is raw data that was not deleted from the beginning of the test, I would expect this to be the most accurate. Maybe people think there is a conspiracy of lies by DW and IH that would have to extend to others. Although it is not completely impossible (very low probability) that IH and others have conspired to lie, it is much easier to believe that a known Rascal is the one doing the lying. In fact, nearly everyone agrees that he has been known to lie about a number of things along the way. The hopeful ones hold out hope that the lies stop at having a working formula. A formula even hidden from IP patent protection, because he would have had to lie there too. Or, best case scenario, works very rarely producing a COP between 1.1 and 1.3. In short, to believe the Rascal, you must accept a whole truckload of lies and hold out hope that the one thing he is not lying about, is that the reactor works. He has not even asserted that he has held anything back from the patent or from IH, and is quick to praise anything that looks like a replication. Now, if you know you are holding something back, and the reaction won't work without it, would you praise something that you know probably doesn't work? It is easier to believe the simpler alternative: he doesn't have anything else to share and it doesn't work. On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: > "It was clever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver > that can cost him dearly, in the end." > > Your bias is showing again. Goatguy suggested a possible method to scam > the results and then you take it as read that that was done. Really? > > It would have been easier to fudge the sensors or the instrumentation > reading them. That does not mean that was what happened either. > > >
