On 01/24/2011 01:27 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > Wait a minute: > > My eyeballs scanned the following paragraph: > > Page 6: > > Conclusions > > The amount of power and energy produce during both tests is indeed > impressive and, TOGETHER WITH THE SELF SUSTAINING STATE REACH DURING > [caps mine] [TEST 1] could be an indication that the system is working > as a new type of energy source. The short duration of the test > suggests that is important to make more long and complete experiments. > An appropriate scientific program will be drawn up. > > ... > > Ah yes, "...could be an indication..." > > Not unexpectedly, the information strikes me as being coached in super > conservative scientific -speak, not that I'm complaining. Under the > circumstances I'd probably do the same thing too! >
Personally, under the circumstances, I'd have included the data in the report. If nothing else I'd have included scales on the graphs, and I'd have photographed the monitor straight-on, with the camera horizontal, and I'd have corrected the color, brightness, and barrel distortion afterwards so the graphs could actually be read. (It's not hard -- it's what I've done in the past when presenting data, and heck, I'm just an amateur.) The only graph in the paper I can see which has tic labels is the one for input power. Incidentally, that appears as one graph in the paper, but it /must/ have been constructed by pasting together parts of two other graphs, as Test1 and Test2 took place almost a month apart, yet the graph shows them as being just a few hours apart. And I'd have made darn sure I didn't lose the temperature data from the second run. (By the way, was "test2" the public demonstration, or do I have my dates confused?) > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > >
