Yes! I second the motion to release all the raw data. It would help to evaluate the claims.
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016, 12:06 PM Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is amazing that there are so many lofty positions being taken on the > basis of little-to-no released data. If IH and Rossi each believe their > positions, then I say, "PUBLICLY RELEASE THE RAW DATA ALONG WITH OBSERVER > COMMENTS". Play chicken. See who objects to release of the data. > > Let the internet use its thousands of eyes to dig out the real truth. > There is a great wealth of technical acumen in the internet - many of whom > really want to know the truth. There will be analyses of the data that > reveal the truth, which could range from validation to ambiguity to > deception. In the absence of data we can concoct a position to support any > of these - as we are seeing in this forum. Phrases like, "at times had a > COP of 50", are specious propaganda and meaningless. Of course, there > could be bursts of COP=50, and what is not said would make all the > difference - for example, were the bursts of COP=50 more than averaged out > by long bursts of COP=0.9? > > The actual data would speak for itself. > > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:29 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> > wrote: > >> Have a look at Mats Lewan's analysis. It seems much more comprehensive >> and less biased to me >> https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/09/heres-my-hypothesis-on-the-rossi-ih-affair/ >> He is a science reporter who is MUCH more knowledgeable about LENR than >> Wang. >> >> Jones, further to your belief in Clarke's analysis of the Lugano >> experiment. I have had hundreds of on-line duels with him over the years. >> He is absolutely certain LENR is impossible and no experiment has ever >> shown anomalous heat. Also absolutely certain that the IPCC is right about >> global warming and the effect of CO2. >> >> >
