OK, Galantini named a probe. (We've had probe part numbers before,
FWIW; Levi mentioned one, IIRC.)
And Galantini told us that he measured temperatures in excess of 100.1
C. (That's lower than numbers given by Levi, BTW, and certainly *far*
too low to indicate the steam was dry without some major supporting data.)
And Galantini said the pressure in the chamber was equal to the ambient
pressure. But he didn't state the ambient pressure! So that statement
regarding the pressure is kind of useless. I've read elsewhere that
during the first public test the ambient pressure was such that boiling
would have been at 101C, rather than 100C -- and nothing Galantini said
here contradicts that.
And -- most important -- he sure didn't include any actual data which
could lead to any conclusion about the dryness of the steam, as far as I
could see.
Numbers, guys. We want to see numbers. I certainly don't take Dr.
Galantini's conclusion as absolute truth -- that was kind of the point,
in fact. We *know* Galantini thinks the steam was "dry". But what data
is he basing that on? And how "dry" is "dry"?
Really, where's the data?
I love this next quote:
"...and the results obtained during these tests were not significantly
different from those obtained with the Text 176 H2 CODE 05721766."
Which results were NOT PUBLISHED so it doesn't tell us anything to say
the new results match the old ones.
And of course the word "significantly" is a value judgement, unless he
cares to hang some numbers on it.
Most of the rest of the page drivels on about how people are being
unreasonable about this, how there's a hoax circulating which involves
using incorrect steam tables to discredit Rossi, and how evil Krivit
is. I saw nothing on that page which would convince anyone who wasn't
already a believer.
FWIW I'm not overly fond of Steve Krivit but I sure think he's one of
the guys in the white hats in this particular brouhaha.
And this whole steam discussion is just sounding worse and worse for
Rossi's team. Deny, then accuse, then give out some irrelevant
information, claim to have answered the questions, and get angry when
people keep asking. That pattern is common, but not among honest
researchers.
C'mon, I want to see some of the existing red flags get taken down. So
far, all that's happening is more are being put up.
On 11-06-20 04:19 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
Hello group,
The following Google-translated link pointing to the latest Blog post
by Daniele Passerini (22passi) and containing, among other things, a
statement from dr. Galantini (the thermodynamicist in charge during
earlier E-Cat measurements), will probably be able to shed some light
on the issues arose on this matter over the past few days. Please ask
if something is not 100% clear, so that I will try to translate it in
readable English.
Google translated short URL: http://goo.gl/IZECR
Original URL: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/and-now-what.html
Cheers,
S.A.
