The analyses in our Report #3 show that the amount and rate of steam that was coming out of Rossi’s device didn’t match his claim of about 5,000 Watts - not by a long shot.Instead, the steam coming out looked exactly like what you would expect to see coming out of a 1,000-Watt electric tea kettle. In fact, that’s about how much electricity was going into Rossi’s device. There is no ambiguity about the failure; all of the required data was available.
I guess that is enough evidence?
Quote from: kraut on 22 May, 2013, 09:04:23 PMI guess that is enough evidence?That is no evidence at all but a quote from someone (Steven R. Krivit) who two years ago witnessed an inconclusive demonstration of an early type of reactor, was disappointed by what he saw (Rossi said he tried to spy him) and consequently became the most vocal - one could say obsessive - detractor of Rossi, up to the point of character assassination. Most long-time observers, even the sceptical, agree that Krivit is way over the top in his criticism and that he seems either to be on a personal crusade against Rossi or to follow some hidden agenda.Whatsoever - that is yesteryears news and has nothing to do with the recently published third party verification.Here is another article from today.
Somewhat frustratingly, the seven scientists were not allowed to look inside the steel cylinder that houses the fuel, which is a combination of nickel powder, hydrogen gas, and—most mysteriously—a catalyst composed of unknown additives. This catalyst is an industrial trade secret, and the secrecy makes it impossible for independent scientists to understand exactly how the device works.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-e...higher.html#jCp