Yes, they would be wise to assume the results are false, and make every effort to disprove the results. Start with the thought process of, "Assuming this is an artifact, what can explain it?" The input power being mis-measured is one possibility that has not been discussed in sufficient detail to know if they have ruled this out. Since Godes is an EE, it might be presumed (falsely), that the electrical power measurement is bullet-proof.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:22 PM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > I think Brian wants them to measure power going into the power > > supplies. That sounds like a good idea to me. Probably a lot is lost > > between the power supply input and the reactor core, but you could > > still compare a null run to an excess heat run. You could confirm that > > the apparent excess is not coming through the power supply that > > produces the fancy waveform. > > Yes. That is the heart of the problem. > > If you need a complex waveform to show gain and it entails losses to > produce that waveform, then that those losses are part of the input > requirement and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. > > Thus a gain of say 150% is reduced to almost no gain... if the waveform > is lossy... and the result is what Brillouin does not want to admit: > almost no net gain. > >
