The bulletin does not claim this at all..
DMboss claims it.
DMboss has conflated two sentences into COP2 24/7. or something likethat
cmon people ?
nostalgic .1967 the youngblloods
"Come on people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another
Right now
Display More
You are correct. They did not specifically state the 60 MJ of total output was at 50 watts input and 50 watts excess output. However they implied it. And what they did was give the mainstream consensus against this being possible, ammunition to dismiss it as erroneous or quackery - by not being clear or precise.
That is my point. The first thing you must do when you have apparently incredible results is try to poke holes in them. Did I make any mistakes? Did I commit any contradictions in my explanation? Do the numbers I proffered make sense? etc etc. It took me 20 seconds to poke titanic sized holes in this report.... as would any mainstream reviewer.
I do agree that to find incredible new things you must have an innocent, almost child like sense of wonderment and acceptance. But then when you appear to get results which fly in the face of accepted norms, you must become a hard nosed skeptic to see if you were being delusional or erroneous. My comments were really tame compared to what you can expect from any mainstream science reviewer or referee.
When you go into a lion's den, you do not stay safe by "loving one another"! (you do so by being a realist and very prepared)
I have submitted briefs and results to science referees and I can tell you with certainty, a mistake like the inconsistency in this subject's report would not only get derided, it would be dismissed without even considering it viable - such a glaring problem with the description/numbers and the referee would not even read the full report, and telegraph to others that this entity is a fake, or delusional.
If you are going to attempt to convince mainstream that LENR is real, you had better have some very thick skin, and unassailable evidence.
So what then, RobertBryant suggests the report means that the 40 days of constant running to obtain 60MJ output - is disconnected from the added claim of 50 watts input and 50 watts excess output? So from these conflicting claims you might conclude they appear to have 2 COP from the 50W in and 50+50W out...
But 60 MJ for 40 days is only an average of 17.361 Watts (60 MJ/ 3,456,000 seconds) So did they have 2 COP which results in 8.605 W input and 17.361 W output?
Or did they only have 15.096 W input for 17.361W output for a COP of 1.15? If you leave any part of your press release ambiguous, the reader can insert whatever conclusion they wish into your narrative!
You cannot know if the report is a mistake, delusion, or fake from the information at hand. As such chiding these folks is called for as it harms the cause of achieving LENR and getting it accepted by mainstream.
Of course the mainstream will likely simply dismiss hard nosed results as merely "measuring error" even if you did not screw up the description as these folks did. You are already fighting an uphill battle against overwhelming odds. Do not shoot yourselves in the foot with half cocked silliness!
A referee could simply say, well now - 17 Watts - what are the cumulative measuring errors and resolutions of the instrumentation? Such low power brings these factors into play. If you have 0.9 x 0.85 x 0.9 accuracy margins you could be off by 0.6885 or put another way, if your COP is less than 1.452, it's within the cumulative error margins of your measuring instrumentation when power is this low!