Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I for one have no end of admiration for Rossi in performing his test so > diligently and as openly as he has done. > He has not been open. He has withheld many critical details. The tests he has published have been poorly done and not convincing, in my opinion and in the opinions of many experts. He did sloppy things, such as in one test, he neglected to insert an SD card in the handheld thermocouple. Mats Lewan had to manually record temperatures because of that. He also neglected to measure the outlet temperature just downstream of the reactor, even though he had a free thermocouple. I and others urged him to do this before the test, but he refused. That made the results inconclusive at best. He has every right to withhold details. He is under no obligation to report anything. I have no objection to secrecy. However, I believe that when a researcher decides to report a result, he should do a careful test, and then publish a credible, detailed report. I think it is a bad idea to publish an unconvincing report. That is how I would describe both Rossi's reports and the Lugano report. I agree with McKubre's analysis of Lugano, which is linked here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1589 Levi's first report was better than Lugano. I do not understand why they did a worse job the second time. Usually, people do a better job the second time around. This is baffling, and disappointing. - Jed
