a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: I doubt anyone outside IH and Rossi's camps knows what happened. >
Actually, several people know, including me. At least, we know what both sides claim. I.H. says there is no heat, and Rossi claims the heat is 50 times input. That is not to say I.H. is necessarily right. > IH did not specify the 1 MW plant didn't work in their statement, although > Jed has said he was told it didn't. What they said was they could not > reproduce the results. No, what they said was they were not able to "substantiate" the results. That means measure, observe, confirm. The dictionary definition is "provide evidence to support or prove the truth of." It does not just mean a failure to replicate, although it would cover that as well. This could mean the IP they received from Rossi was not sufficient. > Nope, they mean they were not able to provide evidence in support of Rossi's claim. Specifically, it means Rossi's calorimetry is wrong, and there was no excess heat. I find it difficult to believe the ERV could make such a large error. It is surprising, but I have no doubt he either made a large error, or possibly he is committing fraud. It is even more difficult to believe that the people from I.H. made such a large error in the other direction, because they are more skilled than Penon. > So, as before, we should wait for more definite information in order to > make sense of the situation. > Yes, that is my advice. Just wait. I wish Peter Gluck would wait instead of spreading poisonous nonsense in his blog. I do not demand that people believe I.H. or me, but I am suggesting that until Gluck gets a chance to see what I.H. has to say, he should reserve judgement, stop taking Rossi's side, and stop attacking me. This is kindergarten-level fairness. Frankly I am appalled that Gluck or any other scientifically minded person does not do this. If you have not seen the data, you have *no reason* to assume that Rossi is right and I.H. is wrong. The argument that it is "difficult to believe the ERV could make such a large error" works equally well in the other direction. It is just as difficult to believe that I.H. would make such a giant error. For that matter, I have seen some of the data, and I hope that people will give me some credit and grant that it difficult to believe that *I* would make such a giant error. - Jed
