parallel wrote:Georgio & racain.
1. No such meter exists, as described, so it can hardly be "correct."
2. You know more about their business than they do that you can pontificate?
3. The dryness fraction was measured. In the 18 hour test no steam was generated.
4. The water flow was measured. Maybe not as well as possible. Can't you read?
your points, where they are actually points, are besides the point.
try suspending 'BELIEF' for one moment, why dont you?
Focardi and Rossi's 'methods' are, so far, significantly flawed. i hope you can see that. (and before you ask, 'yes' i have read it, ALL).
i am sure most here, are in some way 'excited' by the prospect that Focardi and Rossi might be on to something; and yes, they have presented 'some substantive evidence' of 'some anomaly'.
but their whole behaviour so far (not to mention their previous 'criminal' form!) - has been to 'obstruct' proper, independent, scientific scrutiny.
now maybe that will change. for the better. i hope so.
but until then, please dont bleat on. you are wasting your words.