What part of my qualifying word about Rossi’s test “as openly” did you not understand. I see no complaints about Rossi’s work coming from those who have a history of work at the lab bench as opposed to the keyboards. Of course there is no end of whining from many who are his ‘competitors’ and self-appointed pundits who would love to see if their ranting and trolling might tweak some additional insight out of Rossi as to how to make progress in the field that they are demonstrably proven unable to contribute to.
I am all for an open society, let’s begin with the revelation of all computer code everywhere. From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 11:47 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto: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
